Punishing Women: A Woman’s Job?


If you were looking for a poll to capture exactly how much of America is judgmental and mean-spirited—especially towards women—you couldn’t top the recent Rasmussen poll that found that 48 percent of Americans think abortion is “too easy” to get.  I’m not entirely sure why Rasmussen took the poll.  Lack of generosity towards others and a dark eye specifically towards those you resenting people perceived as young, sensual, and not weighted down by the responsibilities of adulthood, which is how the public (incorrectly) imagines your average abortion patient to be.  (In reality, the majority are mothers trying to make ends meet.)

You may as well have polled people asking, “Do believe kids these days listen to their music too loud?” or “Do you believe that you’re a sexually responsible person but there are some real sluts out there?”  Even though the reality is that women from all walks of life get abortions, the perception in the general public is that abortion is an indicator of sluttiness.  And sluts, last I checked, aren’t well regarded in our culture. When people imagine the obstacles between a woman and an abortion, they’re making an idealized judgment—some kind of major hassle that will teach the slut to keep her legs shut next time.  But mean-spiritedness, stereotypes, and generalized ideas about what counts as “promiscuous” aren’t something on which to base public policy.

I don’t know whether to be sadder that the public still has these stereotypes about who gets abortions, or that the public still thinks sexually free women are evil and deserve to be punished.

The anti-choice media was triumphant over this poll, mostly because it showed that women are more likely to want more obstacles for women seeking abortions.  According to anti-choicers, this somehow means this isn’t a women’s rights issue, even though the people who hold the right to abortion are women, aka the sex that gets pregnant by accident.  But there’s no reason to think reproductive freedom isn’t an important women’s issue just because women are more likely to judge other women about their sexual choices.  In a patriarchy, women are usually tasked with the job of monitoring female sexuality and enforcing norms of modesty.

In cultures that practice female genital mutilation, for instance, it’s often the women who do all the work of setting up the cutting, guiding the girl through it, and often doing the cutting themselves.  That hardly means female genital mutilation is automatically feminist.  It just requires that we have a more nuanced view of how oppression works.  Enforcing modesty norms on women is dreary scut work, because by definition it’s anti-fun and anti-pleasure.  In a patriarchy, women take on the scut work.  We do housework so men’s time is freed up to do more “soul-affirming” work.  We’re more likely to do assistant work so men can do the work that gets them all the credit.  And when it comes to sex, women are tasked with the job of pushing prudery.  Men have the privilege of not having to worry about these sorts of things to nearly the same degree.

It’s not just on abortion. In all sorts of avenues, women do the hard work of punishing and controlling female sexuality. David J. Ley is far too blasé in his assumption that women monitor other women just because, and that men have nothing to do with this.  Most women who take punishing female sexuality very seriously believe this is ultimately about men, which is to say they view it as their responsibility to create a chaste population of women for men to marry.  If women weren’t so dependent on men for status, we would be as free with each other as men are about our sexual choices.

Women are also roped into judging each other’s sexual behavior because we’re led to believe it’s our only realistic source of control.  Being lower status than men, and especially when you’re dependent on a man, means you often have a lot of desire to keep male promiscuity to a minimum, but men are expected not to listen to women or care much what women think about these issues.  Thus, women start putting demands on each other, because we can’t appeal to men.  Which is why you see a culture where the “other woman” is blamed more than the cheating man for infidelity.  Or you see women like Susan Walsh arguing that other women have a responsibility not to have sex when we want with who we want, because that means that fewer men will have to pony up wedding rings in order to get laid.

Of course, if women don’t have to rely on men for social status and economic survival, then the power balance shifts, and women can start making demands directly of men.  It’s a lot easier, for instance, to demand monogamy directly from your husband if you can leave him without being destitute.  Creating a world where women have equality and men have to share responsibilities for sex and family life is the goal of feminism, and more sexual liberation is the result.  Indeed, I would say that the reason that only half of women polled take should an old-fashioned view on abortion (which is a symbolic stand-in for female immodesty) shows how far we’ve come already.

The numbers of women who feel that their only form of control over their lives is to exert control over other women is declining.  Now that we have ways of attaining economic independence and social status that don’t involve getting and staying married, we have less of a need to create a protectionist racket over female sexuality where women who break the rules are treated like scabs breaking a strike.  Now that we have powers outside of the power to say no to sex and to force other women to say no to sex, there’s simply less need to deprive ourselves or judge others.  And the less that men have complete dominance over our lives, the less reason we have to try like mad to control the one thing we’ve been given to control, which is female sexuality. 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • squirrely-girl

    I haven’t finished reading the entire post, but from a methodological point, I take great issue with a survey response option of “too easy.” That’s nowhere near neutral language.

  • invalid-0

    58% of women believe that abortion is morally wrong in most cases, compared to 49% of men

    Hmmmm…..

  • carolyninthecity

    I’ll never understand this notion, that abortion shouldn’t be made illegal, but women should have to jump though hoops to get one? When I read things like this I can’t help but assume that people really don’t think these things through.

     

    I wonder what percentage of Americans think it’s too easy for women to get boob jobs.

  • invalid-0

    Yeah, and cigarettes and alcohol too.

  • squirrely-girl

    Women are generally each other’s greatest critics and/or competition. I read a social psychology report awhile back suggesting women dress for other women, not men. And women in Great Britain held punitive attitudes about rape victims as well. Some of that is cognitive dissonance… we make “other” those things that scare us and try to distance ourselves so we think we’re “protected.”

     

    At any rate, believing something is “morally wrong” doesn’t necessarily mean that individual is for denying or restricting access. Case in point, I’m personally not a fan of abortion but I don’t care that other people get them. I don’t smoke and generally stick to the occasional glass of wine… but I don’t think it’s up to me as to whether other people should be able to indulge in these substances. I wouldn’t get plastic surgery except to correct a functional flaw or something reconstructive after an accident or attack… but to each their own. I, too, believe abortion is morally wrong in some cases… it doesn’t mean I want to limit access or think only those women who fit my personal moral ideology should be able to access them. 

  • carolyninthecity

    yeah no kidding! I think I understand the probable thought progression here: if society allows abortions “on-demand” then women and girls won’t carefully consider sexual decisions, they’ll be careless with birth control because they can just have an abortion, no biggie- nevermind stds, no one has those. and if they’re not sexually disiplined then who knows what other kind of diviant behaviour we’ll have to punish them for! Sex cults oh my! lol, I mean when you spell it out, it’s so ridiculous, like making abortion available is just going to create more abortions because girls will “take advantage” or something. Ask anyone who’s ever had an abortion and they’d tell you it’s not something they’d voluntarily experiance more then once. (not to say it doesn’t happen).

     

    By that line of reasoning, I think teeth cleaning is too easy. We should make dentists harder to access, because then people would take better care of their teeth. Less root canals. makes sense to me.  ;)

  • invalid-0

    Well then, it’s a good thing for you that the Catholic Bishops won’t be ordaining women – they’d be even MORE anti-choice apparently!

  • squirrely-girl

    I’m torn on that actually. I think any effort to ordain women would result in VERY specific types of women being ordained… namely the most hard line, conservative among them. It’s kind of like trying to get a position within the Vatican… they aren’t handing those out to liberals. 

  • cmarie

    just quick question regarding the article:

    “Lack of generosity towards others and a dark eye specifically towards those you resenting people perceived as young, sensual, and not weighted down by the responsibilities of adulthood, which is how the public (incorrectly) imagines your average abortion patient to be.  (In reality, the majority are mothers trying to make ends meet.)”

    Where is your editor?  This statement isn’t a sentence or even a coherant thought.  Who are “you resenting people”? Rasmussen?  The people polled?  someone else?  That first effort at a sentence has to be broken down into the two or three points you are trying to make.

     

  • curtisp

    Just follow a prudes logic.  Hey, root canals are really easy to get.  Since that is the case I am going to let my teeth rot so I can get one.  They are fun. 

  • arekushieru

    Easy enough for me to figure out.  What does resenting mean?  Then that is what she is referring to when she says ‘resenting people’.  This blog is done mostly for educational purposes.  Compare that to books that are written professionally that STILL have errors in them after it has been combed through several times by editors before publication.  Thanks.

  • squirrely-girl

    Münchausen syndrome and Münchausen by proxy are great examples for why we don’t structure medicine around the extremes. These individuals go to great lengths to abuse the medical system yet we still generally allow every medical procedure under the sun and exploratory abdominal surgeries are still regularly performed. 

  • anonymous99

    Amanda,

     

    I really don’t buy your thesis that we live in a patriarchy.  We did, but we’re not there now.  I think the patriarchy has long been replaced by an apathy on the part of women to step up.  Women have the choice now to be entirely independent.  Feminism has been a huge success at providing this choice for women and I applaud that.  The problem is you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make her drink.  And the biggest thing holding back women from leading independent lives is modern marital welfare, which is mainly a product of…feminism.

     

    Case in point, my wife.  Almost 10 years of higher education and two degrees (one paid by her father and the other by me).  She had a great career, but it was tough, just like mine.  One day she decided she didn’t want to do it anymore.  That was it.  She had every opportunity you can imagine to be successful and independent.  When I resisted her choice she told me if I didn’t like it she would “take” our daughter and divorce me.  So here I am 10 years later taking care of her.  Yes.  She relies on me for economic survival.  But it has nothing to do with patriarchy.  It was based on her own interest to live off me, enabled by the crutch of family law.  Now, if she divorces me, I’ll be the destitute one, not her.

     

    Really, Amanda, isn’t it time you stop blaming the patriarchy for everything?  Is feminism incapable of blaming women at all for their judging of other women’s sexual choices?  Or for being financially dependent on men?  Etc.?

     

    All this said, I enjoy reading your posts and I agree with just about everything you write.  Thanks.

  • prochoiceferret

    The problem is you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make her drink.  And the biggest thing holding back women from leading independent lives is modern marital welfare, which is mainly a product of…feminism.

     

    Case in point, my wife.

     

    So let me see if I understand your argument:

     

    “My wife a lazy bum… therefore we don’t live in a patriarchy.”

  • anonymous99

    The dook dook… thing was funny the first few times you did it, but it’s getting old.  You might want to try something else.

     

    My wife is a case in point.  That is, an example.  Let me guess, the fact that you don’t get my argument is because of the patriarchy.  Right?  It’s not that you have a problem holding women accountable for their own choices and for their own words????  It couldn’t be that????

  • jayn

    Or maybe it’s just that your particular situation doesn’t actually prove anything?

  • anonymous99

    I used my wife as an example, not as a proof.  This is not a scientific journal where I need to lay out scientific evidence that we don’t live in a patriarchy.  

     

    I like Amanda.  I really do enjoy reading her articles.   I’m just giving her my opinion and some food for thought.

     

    It’s undeniable for anyone to see that women have all the opportunity in the world to be self-reliant,etc.  I see it in my job every day.  IMO it’s not some unseen force called patriarchy holding some women back.  It’s their choices.  That we have a substantial marital welfare system that can be used as a crutch influences those choices.  I don’t think this is too hard to understand.

  • prochoiceferret

    The dook dook… thing was funny the first few times you did it, but it’s getting old.  You might want to try something else.

     

    Hey, it’s not my fault that ferrets have a limited noise-vocabulary. It’s not like I can go “bark bark bark bark bark” :-3

     

    My wife is a case in point.  That is, an example.  Let me guess, the fact that you don’t get my argument is because of the patriarchy.  Right?  It’s not that you have a problem holding women accountable for their own choices and for their own words????  It couldn’t be that????

     

    What argument? You’re complaining about one woman, and generalizing the point to all women. Seriously, what is the matter with you??

     

    Newsflash: Women are individuals, just like you and me. Some of them are nice people. Some of them are scoundrels. Some of them are nice to be with, some of them you never ever want to see. Treating women as interchangeable units of some giant Womanly Hive Mind is so very… patriarchal.

     

    I’m sure all this will come naturally to you when you hear a woman grouse that she hates men because she was raped by one of them.

  • jayn

    Yes, women have more choices now than they did in that past.  That doesn’t mean that the patriarchy is completely gone, however–the remnants are just very insiduous and hard to root out.  Women still earn less than men on average, even in the same jobs.  Women still wind up with most of hte childrearing and housekeeping duties.  Men still make up the vast majority of leads in Hollywood films, videogames, TV shows, etc.  Men still get stigmatized if they decide to stay at home, and women still get stigmatized if they dare work outside the house when they have kids.

     

    Our culture is still quite biased.  That some individual women have managed to use the systems in place to their own advantage doesn’t negate that.

  • prochoiceferret

    I like Amanda.  I really do enjoy reading her articles.   I’m just giving her my opinion and some food for thought.

     

    I’m sure that she will find your blatant and unapologetic display of male privilege very useful in illustrating the prevalence of patriarchal thinking in our society.

     

    It’s undeniable for anyone to see that women have all the opportunity in the world to be self-reliant,etc.  I see it in my job every day.  IMO it’s not some unseen force called patriarchy holding some women back.  It’s their choices.  That we have a substantial marital welfare system that can be used as a crutch influences those choices.  I don’t think this is too hard to understand.

     

    Oh, I don’t know… all the women who don’t get paid as much as men, are expected to do all the child-rearing without maternal leave (and many times as a single mother), can’t afford contraception let alone abortion, and need to work multiple jobs along with their spouses to stay above poverty level, might have some trouble wrapping their heads around it.

  • beenthere72

    A good friend of mine’s engagement just ended because her fiance’s family didn’t like that she worked so much (and she has a great career ahead of her).     They expected her to stay home more and ‘take care of her husband’.    Her fiance agreed and then left her.     She was blind-sided by this but figures she dodged a bullet.  

  • colleen

    The dook dook… thing was funny the first few times you did it, but it’s getting old. You might want to try something else.

    OTOH, Your comments here have never been well informed, interesting or even minimally intelligent. Why not find another blog?
    This isn’t a blog for marriage counseling and your inability to form a good relationship is predictable and expected.

  • prochoiceferret

    They expected her to stay home more and ‘take care of her husband’.    Her fiance agreed and then left her.     She was blind-sided by this but figures she dodged a bullet.

     

    Sounds like he did her a favor! Would that all men not worthy of their girlfriends/fiances (and not just in the cutely modest way, either) disqualify their own asses from the relationship.

     

    Shame that she lost some perfectly good time with this guy that she could have spent with someone who realizes that being driven and ambitious doesn’t suddenly become a bad thing when you have boobs. It’s too bad he and his family didn’t give more of the “we want you barefoot and pregnant” vibe earlier on.

  • bornin1984

    See above

  • bornin1984

    The constant claims of patriarchy and the like were mildly amusing at first, but now they are just old and tired. Why is it that whenever a woman says she is anti-abortion or finds abortion morally wrong or needs to be restricted, that she is being influenced by an evil male patriarchal society?

  • carolyninthecity

    There’s a big difference between having a personal moral objection to abortion -meaning you would never consider having one yourself, but you can still understand and would support other women’s right to have one- and actively fighting to prevent other women from having an abortion because you think your morals should be everyones morals. The latter is most certainly a symptom of our patriarchal society. Because it’s not about fetus rights, it’s about control over women.

  • prochoiceferret

    The constant claims of patriarchy and the like were mildly amusing at first, but now they are just old and tired.

     

    Yes, we figured you would think womens’ rights are so gauche and passe. Carrying unwanted pregnancies to term is the modern, hip thing to do!

  • squirrely-girl

    I just love it when random dudes mansplain some feminism to the feminists. :)

     

    Really, guy, isn’t it time you stop blaming your ex-wife for everything? 

  • bornin1984

    You relegate abortion to an issue of personal morality (since when is murder a personal choice?), completely ignoring the fact that most people simply do not view it that way, and then scream patriarchy when women in general refuse to conform to the views you think they should have. Funnily enough, the irony of that situation is lost upon you. Why would you give give up, in your view, one oppressive system which tells you what you have to believe in order to join your system which does the same thing?

    At any rate, continue screaming on about patriarchal systems. Very few people will take you seriously. After all, the crazy guy on the street does not really think he is crazy, but rather everyone else is for ignoring him.

  • prochoiceferret

    You relegate abortion to an issue of personal morality (since when is murder a personal choice?),

     

    Oh, so in your personal morality, abortion is murder? That’s nice! In our personal morality, and that of many many many other people, abortion is a woman’s right. I guess we’ll just have to split the difference, and let people decide this sort of thing for themselves.

     

    Funnily enough, the irony of that situation is lost upon you. Why would you give give up, in your view, one oppressive system which tells you what you have to believe in order to join your system which does the same thing?

     

    Because a system that doesn’t demand you conform to certain predefined gender roles would only be oppressive to patriarchy-fanboys like you.

     

    (Oh, and don’t forget to excoriate pro-choicers for being anti-choice, too!)

     

    At any rate, continue screaming on about patriarchal systems. Very few people will take you seriously. After all, the crazy guy on the street does not really think he is crazy, but rather everyone else is for ignoring him.

     

    Sounds like someone you could relate to!

  • beenthere72

    You are more than welcome to ignore us BrokenrecordBorn.  Ignore us and go away.   ;-)

  • carolyninthecity

    yes, few people would take me seriously. People who have no concept of their own privilage. Here’s what I observe: Anti-choicers screaming on about selfish women who should have kept their legs shut, murdering their babies because they dared to want to finish an education or *gasp, never want to become parents, anti-choicers who could never grasp the idea that maybe a woman might have something else of value to contribute to the world besides more babies, anti-choicers who would value the potential life over a real living, breathing, working, eating, beautiful woman. Name one medical procedure specific to men that is scrutinized, analyzed, regulated and judged as much as any medical procedure specific to women, then then we can debate whether the patriarchy exists.

     

    Being pro-choice is in no way a system of oppression. It is the very opposite.

  • carolyninthecity

    I just learned of the term ‘mansplain’ yesterday and I literally lol’d at my desk, like I’m doing now, soo hilarious, and so perfect.

     

    I’m with you, this dude needs to stop blamming all his woes (and apparently the woes of all men? ) on his ex wife. time for some therapy perhaps.

  • julie-watkins

    An article from New York Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/business/26walmart.html?th&emc=th

     

    Nine years after the suit was filed, the central issue before the Supreme Court will not be whether any discrimination occurred, but whether more than a million people can even make this joint claim through a class-action lawsuit, as opposed to filing claims individually or in smaller groups.

     

    Oh, class action lawsuits are so Not Fair to Big Business who can’t Do Whatever They Want without being bothered by workers wanting to be treated without sexism. Companies with deep pockets want to be able to win their lawsuits by being able to out-spend their advesaries in court, not have the case decided on merit. (They might loose that way.)

  • bornin1984

    Oh, so in your personal morality, abortion is murder? That\’s nice! In our personal morality, and that of many many many other people, abortion is a woman\’s right. I guess we\’ll just have to split the difference, and let people decide this sort of thing for themselves.

    Murder is a matter of personal opinion? Just because you ignore answering the question posed to you, does not mean said question was not posed to you. And in the same vein, simply because you think you do, does not mean you speak for all, nor a majority, nor even most women :)

    Because a system that doesn\’t demand you conform to certain predefined gender roles would only be oppressive to patriarchy-fanboys like you.

    A system which requires you to accept certain axioms (for example, that abortion is a right), or else you are either called a faux-feminist or accused of being dominated by a patriarchal society is, by definition, as oppressive as the system you claim to be oppressive, for to be apart of it you have to conform to what the members of that group want you to conform to, or believe what the members of that group want you to believe. But, as I said, the irony is lost upon you, so do not mind me pointing this out. Just continue to scream about patriarchal systems while scratching your head in bewilderment at why society, as a whole, dismisses you.

    (Oh, and don\’t forget to excoriate pro-choicers for being anti-choice, too!)

    No. I excoriate pro-choicers for being pro-choicers.

    Sounds like someone you could relate to!

    Indeed I cannot. You can, though.

  • bornin1984

    yes, few people would take me seriously. People who have no concept of their own privilage. Here\’s what I observe: Anti-choicers screaming on about selfish women who should have kept their legs shut, murdering their babies because they dared to want to finish an education or *gasp, never want to become parents, anti-choicers who could never grasp the idea that maybe a woman might have something else of value to contribute to the world besides more babies, anti-choicers who would value the potential life over a real living, breathing, working, eating, beautiful woman.

    Maybe I need to make this clear.

    MORE. WOMEN. ARE. PRO-LIFE. THAN. PRO-CHOICE.

    That completely destroys any of your arguments. No. Really. It is always women this or women that, but the second someone points out that the women you somehow claim to speak for simply do not agree with your views as a whole, you turn around and claim that their views do not matter because they are being influenced by a patriarchal society. Say what? That is the epitome of dishonesty. If someone does not believe what you think they should believe, then suddenly their views become irrelevant? It seems to me that you do not care about women as much as you say you do. You only seem to care about women when they agree with you, otherwise they can be damned because they are either stupid or brainwashed.

    Anyway, the propensity of some people here to somehow totally throw out the notion of accountability is quite startling indeed. Apparently, holding a woman accountable for that she helped to create is misogyny. Apparently, telling the woman that she should not having sex if she cannot handle the prospect of being a parent is misogyny (it is okay to tell that to the guy, though). Apparently, telling a woman that she should not be allowed to kill her child because she wants to go to school (which is a false dichotomy, by the way, as I know for a fact I did not imagine all those single parents, both male and female, working their way through school while taking care of their child or children) is also misogyny. I do not need to continue, because you probably get the point. The willingness to label everything as misogyny is precisely why society, as a whole, simply fails to take many of the arguments some of you guys and gals make seriously.

    Why take the views of someone who thinks that everything is a masterful plot to control and ruin women everywhere seriously?

    Name one medical procedure specific to men that is scrutinized, analyzed, regulated and judged as much as any medical procedure specific to women, then then we can debate whether the patriarchy exists.

    Name me a medical procedure a man can go through which involves the death of another, then we can talk. It is fairly hard to claim that an action designed to prevent one from killing another is patriarchal in nature. It actually boggles the mind as to how you do not understand this.

    Being pro-choice is in no way a system of oppression. It is the very opposite.

    Not speaking of pro-choice, but feminism, the latter of which is incredibly non-open to people with differing view points (the number of articles berating women who somehow do not believe that abortion is a right on this site should prove that point without question).
    <

  • cc

    “Apparently, holding a woman accountable for that she helped to create is misogyny”

     

    And legislating what a woman does with that “creation” certainly is misogynistic as it implies that the woman should have no autonomy over her body.

     

    “Name me a medical procedure a man can go through which involves the death of another”

     

    There it is folks, it’s a no win situation for the women as she is the only creature capable of “killing” this so called independent entity which exists only inside a woman.  Ah, don’t ya love it – only women can “murder ” what’s inside their own body. But then, according to the Catholic church, the woman carries the seed of “original sin” so women as fetus murderers does seem to go along with the patriarchal, misogynist world view. The man who helps to “create” this so called “human being” gets a free pass in order to go spread the sacred semen someplace else. But the woman – she’s a “baby killer” – burn the witch…..or put her in jail for life!!!!

     

    Oh, and if embryos, in vitro labs, are little babies, why aren’t they baptized? Should the anti-choicers be lobbying to shut tthe labs down because if the labs discard the “babies” in the petri dishes, they are committing murder. Just saying….

  • cc

    “Being pro-choice is in no way a system of oppression. It is the very opposite”

     

    Yes, Yes.  Free us from the shackles of contraception and abortion and liberate us into a world of unfettered reproduction and the prospect of living in poverty till we die because our bodies are just worn out with the joy of constant child birth and parenting too many children.  Oh, yes, let us be free to breed and live like those wonderful women in places like Brazil and the Phillipines (where contraception and abortion is banned due to the influence of the oldest all males club in the world)  where our children can be free to roam the streets and eat their meals on garbage dumps. Oh, yes, let us be free to be burdened with children whose co-creators can’t support them and thus leave us to carry on their legacy even in a society that would deprive us of social services and subsidized child care. Yes, yes.  And who cares about our education which could allow us the fullfillment of a career. Let us have as many children as our bodies will allow.

     

    Ah, liberation.

     

  • crowepps

    MORE. WOMEN. ARE. PRO-LIFE. THAN. PRO-CHOICE.

    That completely destroys any of your arguments. No. Really. It is always women this or women that, but the second someone points out that the women you somehow claim to speak for simply do not agree with your views as a whole

    Yes, more women describe themselves as ProLife than as ProChoice.  Perhaps a majority of women agree that ‘abortion is immoral’.  That does NOT mean that a majority of women want to make abortions illegal or harder to get.  The thing you seem to be missing is a person can be personally ProBaby, personally think abortion is ‘wrong’ and yet have no desire to drag the cops and the courts into the matter and start arresting women who disagree with her or do something she would not personally chose.

     

    Many of us have learned the historical lesson demonstrated by Prohibition and the War on Drugs: government does a lousy job of enforcing morality and attempting to use government to do so creates more problems than it solves.

     

     

  • saltyc

    Right on. Plus just because a woman describes herself as “pro-life” does not mean she won’t one day need to have an abortion or that someone close to her won’t. Most women were against women’s suffrage at one time too.

    Most women don’t have to agree that reproductive rights and access are important to be entitled to them.

  • goatini

    we have a substantial marital welfare system that can be used as a crutch”

     

    MRA alert!  

     

    This misogynist world view is held exclusively by devotees of Glenn Sacks and Men’s News Daily.  

     

    If a man sincerely believes that there is such a thing as a “marital welfare system”, it’s safe to say that his taste in women and ability to discern character are abysmal.  

     

    Messed up women seek out the bad boys.  Messed up men seek out the golddiggers.  Members of each group believe that S/HE is so special that S/HE will be THE savior of the particular useless dreg of society s/he’s decided to hook up with this time.  

     

    Moral of the story for sentient humans:  don’t date narcissistic sociopaths.

     

    Moral of the story for narcissistic sociopaths of either gender:   Believing that such a thing as a “marital welfare system” really exists, says more about the believer of such tripe, than about the bad boy/golddigger him/her self.   

  • goatini

    Oh, okay, I remember YOU now.  The guy who wants it both ways.  The guy who wants to own a cow that will breed his young chattel, AND support him financially.

     

    I wish Mrs MRA would post here and let us know what a fcvking picnic living with you must be.   

     

     

     

     

  • goatini

    And remember, when you’re on the blob, and the tears of your weeping womb are extra-heavy and clotty, DO NOT FLUSH!  

     

    Proceed directly to the nearest Forced Birther Clinic Harassers protest, and DEMAND they come to your can and baptize the bowl!  

     

    The heavenly repose of innocent non-persons may rely on it!

  • kevin-rahe

    There’s a big difference between having a personal moral objection to abortion -meaning you would never consider having one yourself, but you can still understand and would support other women’s right to have one

     

    On what moral grounds could a woman object to abortion that she thinks might not apply to someone else?  I would be very interested in hearing the reasoning behind that one.  An example or two would be quite helpful.

  • ahunt

    Snerk. Try this. My moral grounds are not universal territory.

  • arekushieru

    Born is having his usual trouble understanding simple concepts, I see.  Patriarchy is NOT determined by WHO supports it.  Patriarchy is determined IF someone supports it.  Meaning that if there are those who support the continuation of male privilege and its benefits, then, yes, it exists.  Anti-Choice women DO support its continuation thus they ARE a part of patriarchy.  SO sorry delusional one.

  • bornin1984

    Yes, more women describe themselves as ProLife than as ProChoice. Perhaps a majority of women agree that \’abortion is immoral\’. That does NOT mean that a majority of women want to make abortions illegal or harder to get.

    Way to click on the links in the OP.

    Women (53%) feel more strongly than men (42%) that abortions are too easy to get.

    The thing you seem to be missing is a person can be personally ProBaby, personally think abortion is \’wrong\’ and yet have no desire to drag the cops and the courts into the matter and start arresting women who disagree with her or do something she would not personally chose.

    One refrain sometimes heard in the abortion debate is \”I am personally opposed to abortion, but I would not impose my beliefs on others.\” In fact, for a majority of Americans, their personal judgement about the morality of abortion and their views about its legality are in general alignment. Moreover, very few Americans appear conflicted in the described way. According to Gallup’s May 2001 survey on abortion, only 5% of all Americans simultaneously believe abortion is morally wrong and that it should be legal in all or most circumstances.

    Most of those saying abortion is morally acceptable (72%) believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, while a somewhat larger number (87%) of those who say abortion is morally wrong believe it should be legal in only a few or no circumstances. As shown in the chart below, the relationship between one’s personal belief about an issue and one’s attitudes toward how society should treat it is fairly consistent across a variety of issues, with two exceptions. A relatively large number of those saying abortion is not morally wrong, nevertheless feel abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances (26%) — putting them into the \”generally illegal\” category. A similar degree of inconsistency is seen among those who believe that doctor-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, is morally wrong, with 27% of this group nevertheless believing it should be legal.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/9904/public-opinion-about-abortion-indepth-review.aspx#6

    Many of us have learned the historical lesson demonstrated by Prohibition and the War on Drugs: government does a lousy job of enforcing morality and attempting to use government to do so creates more problems than it solves.

    You do realize that laws against murder are legislating morality, correct?

  • bornin1984

    Begging the question is, correct?

  • saltyc

    How about I am personally willing to sacrifice my body, my youth and my efforts to create a baby because I couldn’t have an abortion, but I don’t presume to make the same choice for someone else because I’m not an asshole. Or I don’t eat mammals or birds. But I don’t try hard to make you go to jail for eating mammals and birds. That would make me an asshole.

  • kevin-rahe

    My moral grounds are not universal territory.

     

    Then how or why would they ever prevent you from doing something you were tempted to do?  Why wouldn’t you always simply bend them to suit your present desires?

     

    Universal morals are the only ones that matter.  Any other kind are no morals at all.

  • saltyc

    Then how or why would they ever prevent you from doing something you were tempted to do?  Why wouldn’t you always simply bend them to suit your present desires?

    It’s called discipline.

    And there are many examples of people adhering to a set of behaviors they don’t presume on imposing on everyone else.

  • kevin-rahe

    there are many examples of people adhering to a set of behaviors they don’t presume on imposing on everyone else.

     

    So, back to my original question:  What is an example of moral reasoning that would lead a woman to reject abortion as an option for herself, yet find that the same reasoning might not apply to other women?

  • saltyc

    I already gave examples below under “easy.” Your body and health is yours to risk and sacrifice for your principles but no one else’s is.

     

  • carolyninthecity

    fine born, don’t believe in the patriarchy, continue to hold your stereotyped, ignorant, hateful views about feminism, continue to believe that a zygote is an adorable little baby. Obviously there’s no one here whos going to change your mind.

    But do know, that on all those topics, literally every single person on here, with the exception of maybe kevin, knows a hell of a lot more then you. Don’t talk about Feminism to feminists. You sound like an ass.

  • saltyc

    You forgot shallow too,

    using gallup polls to determine the best social policy, without looking deeper than answers people give to yes-or-no questions, answers which often contradict each other, pretending that recent poll trends will continue, because everyone knows all trends continue, refusing to ask real women why they had abortions, citing lifesite quotes out of context as legitimate biological scholarship, looking at early feminist quotes out of context in a google search as historical study, all the consistent behavior of a shallow person.

    Read a book, talk to people, there’s no search engine shortcut to personal depth.

  • beenthere72

    “Name me a medical procedure a man can go through which involves the death of another, then we can talk.”

     

    Bingo.   If men had menstrual cycles, periods, bloating and cramps, if men could get pregnant, have miscarriages and unwanted pregnancies, you would have a completely different perspective on this topic. 

     

    When YOU can do all those things, THEN we can talk. 

  • kevin-rahe

    If men had menstrual cycles, periods, bloating and cramps, if men could get pregnant, have miscarriages and unwanted pregnancies, you would have a completely different perspective on this topic.

     

    Then how do you explain the great number of women who make the same arguments against abortion that I do?  In fact, a Zogby poll from a couple years ago showed that a greater percentage of women consider abortion to be manslaughter than men.  Women may have a different perspective on what leads to an abortion, but they also have a greater realization of the truth of what it is.

  • kevin-rahe

    How about I am personally willing to sacrifice my body, my youth and my efforts to create a baby because I couldn’t have an abortion

     

    But why couldn’t you have an abortion?

  • saltyc

    You can’t think of any reasons someone wouldn’t have an abortion?? I call bullshit. I donate blood because I believe it helps people, but I don’t think it should be forced on anyone because what I do with my body is up to me. Maybe someone wouldn’t want to stop with a process that results in a human, or that a fertilized egg is a human being or maybe she just wants a baby. Whatever the reason, what you are asking is why someone wouldn’t force another to make a similar sacrifice.

    Some people adopt stray dogs because they think it’s the right thing to do but don’t say everyone now has to suffer and do the same no matter that they hate dogs.

  • prochoiceferret

    Universal morals are the only ones that matter.  Any other kind are no morals at all.

     

    Good point!

     

    And it just so happens that the universal morals that everyone will live by will be those decreed by Allah and his prophet Muhammed (praise be upon him). Therefore, all liquor- and pork-related businesses will be shut down, men will be prohibited from shaving their beards, women will be required to cover their hair and dress modestly, and everyone will pray toward Mecca five times a day.

     

    Yes, of course you have to do it. Do you dare suggest that our morals are non-morals by dint of being optional?

  • squirrely-girl

    You do realize that laws against murder are legislating morality, correct?

     

    That’s certainly not the PRIMARY purpose we don’t like letting people run around murdering each other. There are PLENTY of secular reasons one could desire to prohibit murder. 

     

    Even using gay marriage as an example, if people could come up with a non-moral reason to be against it (legal, biological, psychological, public safety, etc.) then great! But when people’s opposition boils down to “ewwwwwwww gay sex” or “but it’s against my religious/moral beliefs”… well… it’s just not okay.

  • squirrely-girl

    On what moral grounds could a woman object to abortion that she thinks might not apply to someone else?

     

    Well… religion for one. See, some people think their beliefs apply to everybody and everybody should believe they way they believe. On the other hand, some people realize that their religious beliefs certainly aren’t everybody’s and they don’t expect everybody else to kowtow. 

     

    Similarly, a woman might not feel abortion in response to rape is personally appropriate but recognizes she has no idea how that experience might affect some other woman. 

  • squirrely-girl

    There are very rarely any “universal” morals. Similarly, just because a person understands morals are mutable with regard to various people doesn’t mean they don’t have a personal moral code or that they shift from moment to moment or situation to situation with regard to their adherence to that code (e.g., a person can be a thief but not a liar). Just because I’m not a fundamentalist doesn’t mean I’m immoral or don’t have morals… it means I don’t necessarily share YOUR morals and I don’t expect everybody else to share mine.

     

    People who tend to view the world through that lens also tend to be VERY limited in their understanding or acceptance of differences. 

  • beenthere72

    http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_national_survey_cnn51415.php

     

    The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?

      30% Yes, overturn
      68% No, not overturn
  • squirrely-girl

    That we have a substantial marital welfare system that can be used as a crutch 

     

    Yah, it’s the one my husband is benefiting from as a stay at home dad while I make the money.

  • squirrely-girl

    MORE. WOMEN. ARE. PRO-LIFE. THAN. PRO-CHOICE.

     

    And in the 1800s more people were racist than not… does that mean we should have kept slavery forever? And more people in the US are Christian than other religions… do we do away with other religions based on your reasoning?

     

  • arekushieru

    Yes, I do.  But I don’t think you do, since there wasn’t any of that going on, here.  SO sorry.  If you support male privilege and benefits, then yes, you are supporting the patriarchy.  I was NOT using male privilege and benefits as existing beCAUSE of it.

  • bornin1984

    That\’s certainly not the PRIMARY purpose we don\’t like letting people run around murdering each other. There are PLENTY of secular reasons one could desire to prohibit murder.

    Even using gay marriage as an example, if people could come up with a non-moral reason to be against it (legal, biological, psychological, public safety, etc.) then great! But when people\’s opposition boils down to \”ewwwwwwww gay sex\” or \”but it\’s against my religious/moral beliefs\”… well… it\’s just not okay.

    Okay. So you say that there are plenty of secular reasons why we do not let people run around murdering each other, yet you turn around and argue that there is no good reason to not let someone run around murdering the unborn. Hmmm, really?

  • prochoiceferret

    And in the 1800s more people were racist than not… does that mean we should have kept slavery forever? And more people in the US are Christian than other religions… do we do away with other religions based on your reasoning?

     

    You know, I think I know what he was getting at. In the 1960s, around when Loving v. Virginia was decided, something like 80% of the country was against mixed-race marriage. Fast-forward forty-fifty years to the present, and… the racial marriage-equality movement is totally dead! I think it’s entirely possible (quite likely, in fact) that the pro-choice movement will come to the same not-very-banglike end.

  • bornin1984

    And in the 1800s more people were racist than not… does that mean we should have kept slavery forever? And more people in the US are Christian than other religions… do we do away with other religions based on your reasoning?

    Time and time and time again, you and like-minded individuals have centered your arguments around the notion that women know best in regards to abortion and that the majority of women believe that abortion should be legal, yet as soon as someone points out to you that the majority of women do not believe what you state they believe, then suddenly their opinions do not matter. How, on Earth, does that work? I would tell you that you are grasping at straws, but you do not even have straws to grasp at. You are, in essence, merely flailing about hoping to stumble unto some kind of point.

  • bornin1984

    Knowing how to look things up are the signs of a shallow person (yes, that was sarcasm).

    I would point out to you the numerous number of lies contained in your above post (like quoting Lifesite articles, or the fact that you have somehow ignored actual pear reviewed studies studying abortion attitudes since the 1980s), but I figure why waste my time? You are completely impervious to facts and are content to live in your own world. I suppose that is why when faced with something you cannot answer, you ignore it.

  • bornin1984

    Do you remember what I said about the guy (or girl) who sits on the corner of the street yelling at people, yet wonders why no one takes him seriously? Well, you are kind of like that guy.

    There is a reason why relatively few people take feminists/feminism seriously, and it has to do with the fact that the people who generally carry around the feminist sign have a propensity to claim misogyny or patriarchy at every little thing, and/or label those with whom they disagree with as misogynists. I mean, just look at this site. The number of times that word gets thrown around is frightening. So much so, to the point where it becomes laughable. But, I suppose, the problem is not so much of you, as it is people being dominated by a patriarchal society. Really. It is.

    But on a serious note, considering the number of incorrect statements, backtracking and ridiculous amount of hypocrisy your side engages in, it is quite hard to assert that they are more knowledgeable than I. Especially when you consider the propensity of some here to not go and look things up before they state them (which is mind-boggling, to say the least).

  • bornin1984

    You know, I think I know what he was getting at. In the 1960s, around when Loving v. Virginia was decided, something like 80% of the country was against mixed-race marriage. Fast-forward forty-fifty years to the present, and… the racial marriage-equality movement is totally dead! I think it\’s entirely possible (quite likely, in fact) that the pro-choice movement will come to the same not-very-banglike end.

    History is not your strong point. I am fairly sure that at the time of Loving v. Virginia, 34 states had either repealed their anti-miscegenation laws or had never passed any. And now you know :)

    And I want to mention something about age-cohorts and younger generations, but I do not really see what the point of that would be, as it would be ignored all the same.

  • jayn

    women know best in regards to abortion

     

    Women know best in regards to themselves.  I don’t know what’s best for Prochoiceferret, nor does she know what’s best for me, and neither of us knows what’s best for colleen or croweeps.  What I do know is what’s best for me.

  • julie-watkins

    I would like to echo Robin Marty’s Bravo to Courtroom Mama’s Imagining a world without political distractions:

    We will never have paid sick leave (or subsidized daycare, or universal healthcare) as long as abortion gets to be the red herring taking us off the path to true family values as a nation. We will never have a truly supportive environment for women (both in and out of the workplace) and children if people can’t get over their obsession with controlling what happens in other people’s bedrooms

    The only way the few people on the top get to keep their power & privilege is by divide and conquer … and the amount of [censored] they throw at feminism is an indication of how dangerous some ideas are. (& I complain against Gender Role enforcement & Blame the Poor for Being Poor lies because I’m trying to lessen the power of the divide & conquer social training.) Sometimes a “little thing” is a little thing. Sometimes it’s speaking truth to power. And Power, of course, (if it’s greedy & wants to preserve it’s privilege) is going to belittle valid criticism as being inconsequential.

  • bornin1984

    Women know best in regards to themselves. I don\’t know what\’s best for Prochoiceferret, nor does she know what\’s best for me, and neither of us knows what\’s best for colleen or croweeps. What I do know is what\’s best for me.

    Ignoring the whole knowing what is best for you quip (as this does not matter, because what is best for you is not necessarily best for someone else), on this very site you have had people have gone on and on and on about how men should not have a say in the legality of abortion and that restrictions on abortion are all about men controlling women, yet when someone points out that if abortion policy was constructed via what women want, that not only would it end up restricted, but it would end up moreso restricted than it would if you also let me decide, and that you would have a hard time playing the wanting to control women card, as those women who voted for those restrictions on abortion would themselves also be subject to the same restrictions. Of course, once that is pointed out, then suddenly said people do not care what those women think. They only care what the women who agree with them thinks, which is ironic. But I have said all of this before.

    And, yes, said statements have been made on this site. It would take me a while, but I could find said quotes.

  • saltyc

    .

  • saltyc

    example of projection. One for the textbooks:

    Do you remember what I said about the guy (or girl) who sits on the corner of the street yelling at people, yet wonders why no one takes him seriously?

    Why don’t any of us take you seriously, born, ever wonder about that? Oh yes, we hate men, easy-peasy. ;?

  • prochoiceferret

    History is not your strong point. I am fairly sure that at the time of Loving v. Virginia, 34 states had either repealed their anti-miscegenation laws or had never passed any. And now you know :)

     

    Nope! ‘Twas opinion polls ^_^

     

    And I want to mention something about age-cohorts and younger generations, but I do not really see what the point of that would be, as it would be ignored all the same.

     

    Hey, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

  • bornin1984

    You levy the same accusations no matter who the pro-lifer is (I have seen you do it to arex, Progo, that Paul guy, that Kevin guy and that Anonymous guy), and then turn around and go from thread to thread talking about misogyny, patriarchy and wonder why feminism is viewed so negatively in society-at-large (which I suppose you blame on patriarchy).

  • jayn

    Actually, I don’t think many of us really care what the ‘majority’ thinks, as we view abortion as a right.

     

    The frustration with men railing about abortion being wrong is that they have very little personal stake in the issue.  They tell us what we should do with our bodies, when they themselves couldn’t do the same if they wanted to.  It’s easy to say that other people should suffer for what’s ‘right’.

     

    As for women being pro-life–that’s up to them.  I can accept and understand that point of view.  What I can’t accept is the morality of others being used as a way to control how I use my own body.

  • prochoiceferret

    Do you remember what I said about the guy (or girl) who sits on the corner of the street yelling at people, yet wonders why no one takes him seriously? Well, you are kind of like that guy.

     

    You seem to be under the mistaken impression that someone here cares about your opinion of them.

     

    There is a reason why relatively few people take feminists/feminism seriously, and it has to do with the fact that the people who generally carry around the feminist sign have a propensity to claim misogyny or patriarchy at every little thing, and/or label those with whom they disagree with as misogynists. I mean, just look at this site. The number of times that word gets thrown around is frightening. So much so, to the point where it becomes laughable. But, I suppose, the problem is not so much of you, as it is people being dominated by a patriarchal society. Really. It is.

    But on a serious note, considering the number of incorrect statements, backtracking and ridiculous amount of hypocrisy your side engages in, it is quite hard to assert that they are more knowledgeable than I. Especially when you consider the propensity of some here to not go and look things up before they state them (which is mind-boggling, to say the least).

     

    Oh, look, it’s a privileged male, berating and belittling the feminists. I’ve never seen that before.

  • saltyc

    I know, I’m awesome enough to be followed. You forgot that Bei guy, oops I forgot you’re still denying you’re him.

    I’m pretty happy with my posts, myself. And unlike you, I have learned a lot at this site and have actually put my philosphy to work and made differences in women’s lives by helping them get abortions. They thank me too. It must suck that you haven’t been able to actually stop any abortions. You must be a very lonely and frustrated individual.

  • prochoiceferret

    You levy the same accusations no matter who the pro-lifer is (I have seen you do it to arex, Progo, that Paul guy, that Kevin guy and that Anonymous guy), and then turn around and go from thread to thread talking about misogyny, patriarchy and wonder why feminism is viewed so negatively in society-at-large (which I suppose you blame on patriarchy).

     

    Why yes, trying to overturn established social norms is not a recipe for popularity. Got any more insights for us, Captain Obvious? :-)

  • bornin1984

    Actually, I don\’t think many of us really care what the \’majority\’ thinks, as we view abortion as a right.

    They do when they think majority opinion is on their side.

    The frustration with men railing about abortion being wrong is that they have very little personal stake in the issue. They tell us what we should do with our bodies, when they themselves couldn\’t do the same if they wanted to. It\’s easy to say that other people should suffer for what\’s \’right\’.

    And, pray tell, how did you come to the conclusion that men could not do the same if they wanted to? You just pulled that out of thin air. At any rate, if a man wants to beat a woman in North Dakota, how does that affect you? In fact, it affects you in the exact same way that a woman obtaining an abortion affects you, yet I would be willing to bet that you would not, and do not, apply the whole minding your own business/focus on what affects you logic then.

    As for women being pro-life–that\’s up to them. I can accept and understand that point of view. What I can\’t accept is the morality of others being used as a way to control how I use my own body.

    You do not live in an anarchy. No one has absolute control over their body. It is amazing how pro-choicers seemingly believe otherwise, or how they readily accepts limits on what one can do, yet suddenly when the same standard is applied to abortion, then it is invalid. It makes no sense, really. Moral autonomy is a ridiculous concept.

  • bornin1984

    You seem to be under the mistaken impression that someone here cares about your opinion of them.

    I am everyone? I have to say, that is news to me.

    Oh, look, it\’s a privileged male, berating and belittling the feminists. I\’ve never seen that before.

    You can see anything if you try hard enough to see things.

  • jayn

    And, pray tell, how did you come to the conclusion that men could not do the same if they wanted to?

     

    Men can get pregnant now?  Must’ve missed the news.

  • bornin1984

    Why yes, trying to overturn established social norms is not a recipe for popularity. Got any more insights for us, Captain Obvious? :-)

    Odd. I am pretty sure that gender equality is a readily accepted social norm. Unluckily for you though, that does not translate to acceptance of abortion which, I suppose, in your world means that equality is not a readily accepted social norm. Apparently, acceptance of abortion is the litmus there.

  • prochoiceferret

    They do when they think majority opinion is on their side.

     

    Sure, it’s nice to have on your side. But it doesn’t affect what your rights are or should be. Just ask Fred Phelps.

     

    And, pray tell, how did you come to the conclusion that men could not do the same if they wanted to? You just pulled that out of thin air.

     

    Oh, I’m sorry, I’m sure she’ll find a citation for you to corroborate that people born male can’t get pregnant.

     

    At any rate, if a man wants to beat a woman in North Dakota, how does that affect you? In fact, it affects you in the exact same way that a woman obtaining an abortion affects you, yet I would be willing to bet that you would not, and do not, apply the whole minding your own business/focus on what affects you logic then.

     

    This man in North Dakota has the right to beat that woman?

     

    You do not live in an anarchy. No one has absolute control over their body. It is amazing how pro-choicers seemingly believe otherwise, or how they readily accepts limits on what one can do, yet suddenly when the same standard is applied to abortion, then it is invalid. It makes no sense, really. Moral autonomy is a ridiculous concept.

     

    Let the mandatory living organ donations begin!

  • bornin1984

    I know, I\’m awesome enough to be followed. You forgot that Bei guy, oops I forgot you\’re still denying you\’re him.

    I do not need to follow you. You have a tendency to respond to my posts in thread after thread, even if they are not directed towards you. And, yes, I will deny being someone who I am not. If you want to be paranoid, then that is your prerogative.

    I\’m pretty happy with my posts, myself. And unlike you, I have learned a lot at this site and have actually put my philosphy to work and made differences in women\’s lives by helping them get abortions. They thank me too. It must suck that you haven\’t been able to actually stop any abortions. You must be a very lonely and frustrated individual.

    Actually, I am a very happy individual. Why? Because the future is bright for the pro-life movement. It makes me happy inside to know that future generations are less accepting of abortion then their elders. You? Not so much, which is why I suppose why every other post of your contains some petty insult directed towards me (should I go and post some of your quotes?). I guess you cannot help being angry, though. Generally speaking, when people are wrong and have no arguments, they resort to petty insults.

  • bornin1984

    Sure, it\’s nice to have on your side. But it doesn\’t affect what your rights are or should be. Just ask Fred Phelps.

    Which is what they say, after they learn they do not have majority opinion on their side after structuring their entire argument around the notion that they do. Backtracking is nice.

    Oh, I\’m sorry, I\’m sure she\’ll find a citation for you to corroborate that people born male can\’t get pregnant.

    Not being able to and being unwilling to are two completely different issues. To discredit the views of someone because they cannot do something is, well, intellectually dishonest at its finest– especially when you consider the fact that the arguments made by women who could do as much yet disagree with abortion would be given as much weight as men who cannot do as much. But I am sure you knew this.

    This man in North Dakota has the right to beat that woman?

    What happened to not forcing people to abide by the morals of someone else or minding your own business? Do not tell me you are selectively applying said logic.

    Let the mandatory living organ donations begin!

    You would do well to find a better argument ;)

  • prochoiceferret

    Odd. I am pretty sure that gender equality is a readily accepted social norm.

     

    Saying that “gender equality is a readily accepted social norm” is certainly a readily accepted social norm.

     

    Unluckily for you though, that does not translate to acceptance of abortion which, I suppose, in your world means that equality is not a readily accepted social norm. Apparently, acceptance of abortion is the litmus there.

     

    It sure beats your world, where “gender equality” somehow doesn’t rule out “forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.”

  • bornin1984

    Saying that \”gender equality is a readily accepted social norm\” is certainly a readily accepted social norm.

    No. A fact.

    It sure beats your world, where \”gender equality\” somehow doesn\’t rule out \”forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.\”

    Yes, because women cannot be truly equal unless they are allowed to kill their unborn children. And yet you wonder why most people– yes, even women– eschew the notion that abortion is integral to gender equality. Well, actually, you do not wonder, because you just blame that on a patriarchal society.

  • prochoiceferret

    Which is what they say, after they learn they do not have majority opinion on their side after structuring their entire argument around the notion that they do. Backtracking is nice.

     

    Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t know that the entire crux of the pro-choice argument was that it was popular.

     

    Not being able to and being unwilling to are two completely different issues. To discredit the views of someone because they cannot do something is, well, intellectually dishonest at its finest– especially when you consider the fact that the arguments made by women who could do as much yet disagree with abortion would be given as much weight as men who cannot do as much. But I am sure you knew this.

     

    Oh, so men are willing to go through all the bodily changes and health risks and potential complications of pregnancy? Well, I guess that changes the argument, then. At least until we have the technology to really allow men to become pregnant. Otherwise, they can just say they’re willing, without it actually meaning anything, couldn’t they?

     

    What happened to not forcing people to abide by the morals of someone else or minding your own business? Do not tell me you are selectively applying said logic.

     

    No, we’re not selective in protecting people’s rights. So, does that man have the right to beat that woman, or not?

     

    You would do well to find a better argument ;)

     

    Yeah, one that doesn’t expose your own selective logic.

  • bornin1984

    Oh, I\’m sorry. I didn\’t know that the entire crux of the pro-choice argument was that it was popular.

    No, just a large part of it through the 80s, 90s and early 00s. Until, of course, public opinion changed, then now popular opinion does not matter.

    Oh, so men are willing to go through all the bodily changes and health risks and potential complications of pregnancy? Well, I guess that changes the argument, then. At least until we have the technology to really allow men to become pregnant. Otherwise, they can just say they\’re willing, without it actually meaning anything, couldn\’t they?

    Yet, for whatever reason, that would not matter to you, as evidenced by the fact that you give an argument made by a pro-life male and an argument made by a pro-life female equal credence. Which, you know, is what I just pointed out and what you just ignored.

    No, we\’re not selective in protecting people\’s rights. So, does that man have the right to beat that woman, or not?

    Yes, you are, for if tomorrow the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade and state that the unborn has an inalienable right to life, you would not turn around and argue that abortion should be impermissible.

    Yeah, one that doesn\’t expose your own selective logic.

    No. Just one which has not been responded to a million times over. Is not donating a kidney to someone and having them die as a result the same thing as taking a kidney away from someone and having them die as a result? For your argument to hold weight, the answer has to be yes. But if the answer is yes, then why is someone who takes a kidney away from someone and have them die as a result charged with murder, while someone who does not donate his or her kidney to someone else is not?

  • prochoiceferret

    No. A fact.

     

    Yes, and racism is dead, because we elected a Black man president.

     

    Yes, because women cannot be truly equal unless they are allowed to kill their unborn children. And yet you wonder why most people– yes, even women– eschew the notion that abortion is integral to gender equality. Well, actually, you do not wonder, because you just blame that on a patriarchal society.

     

    You can call it “killing their unborn children,” “failing at their duty to be a mother,” or even “doing the most evil thing a human can possibly do.” That doesn’t change the fact that at the end of the day, you support forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term without their consent, taking control of their own bodies into your hands. And you will never know how horrific that is until the day that you are a woman, have a growing, unwanted pregnancy, and find yourself surrounded by people all telling you that a minuscule blob of tissue inside you is more important in determining the course of your life (if not death) than your own free will.

  • bornin1984

    Yes, and racism is dead, because we elected a Black man president.

    Readily accepted equals dead?

    You can call it \”killing their unborn children,\” \”failing at their duty to be a mother,\” or even \”doing the most evil thing a human can possibly do.\” That doesn\’t change the fact that at the end of the day, you support forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term without their consent, taking control of their own bodies into your hands. And you will never know how horrific that is until the day that you are a woman, have a growing, unwanted pregnancy, and find yourself surrounded by people all telling you that a minuscule blob of tissue inside you is more important in determining the course of your life (if not death) than your own free will.

    Number one, the unborn is not tissue. Honestly. Pick up a basic embryology book or something. Number two, it does not matter if I am a male. If I were female, you would not suddenly heed my argument. In fact, you would just turn around and talk about patriarchy and whatever else you can think up. So why even bother going down this road? I know as well as you do that gender is unimportant to the actual argument.

  • prochoiceferret

    No, just a large part of it through the 80s, 90s and early 00s. Until, of course, public opinion changed, then now popular opinion does not matter.

     

    So, favorable poll numbers being cited in a few old press releases constitutes the core of the pro-choice argument? I must not have gotten that memo. I still thought it was about, you know, women owning their bodies and all.

     

    Yet, for whatever reason, that would not matter to you, as evidenced by the fact that you give an argument made by a pro-life male and an argument made by a pro-life female equal credence. Which, you know, is what I just pointed out and what you just ignored.

     

    Yes, if the anti-abortion argument is being made by a woman, of reproductive age, and without the means of traveling to another state (or country) to obtain an abortion if she ever needed one, then that would have more credence. Because then her own reproductive autonomy would be affected as much as other womens’.

     

    Considering that “pro-lifers” get abortions too, I’m not going to give credence to that view just because it comes from a woman. I’m sure as heck going to discredit it, however, if it comes from a man.

     

    Yes, you are, for if tomorrow the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade and state that the unborn has an inalienable right to life, you would not turn around and argue that abortion should be impermissible.

     

    No, because the fetus’s “inalienable right to life” does not entail “the right to obtain life support for that life from an unwilling person.”

     

    why is someone who takes a kidney away from someone and have them die as a result charged with murder, while someone who does not donate his or her kidney to someone else is not?

     

    Because currently, living organ donation is not mandatory. Got any more dumb questions, hot shot?

  • arekushieru

    Poor Born, he doesn’t realize what the real world is like. Let me explain, levelling truthful accusations at people is only considered wrong if ‘feminists do it’. Trying to make oneself heard over the noise is wrong but making the noise is not wrong in the first place ONLY if it involves feminism. Many women DID do what you had suggested, in medieval times. Compromised even though they were the ones being oppressed in the first place. Which is WHY women didn’t have the vote until VERY recently in history. Sorry to disillusion you about the REAL world.

    Don’t make so much noise and we won’t have to shout to be heard. Or learn not to apply one standard to women while applying another to others and keep proving the patriarchy still exists. Every time you protest, you simply prove our point MORE and MORE NOT less.

  • arekushieru

    EsPECially the truth.  Although I can see how you would have a hard time understanding that….

  • arekushieru

    Do you know what the next level below organs IS.  Tissue.  Feoti in the early stages do NOT have organs.  Guess what, apparently SHE knows more about embryology than you do…?

     

    Gender is unimportant to the actual argument?  There you go.  Born just admitted to his misogyny.  Let’s see, a woman who is ACTually pregnant (what she was REALLY talking about) DOES have more weight than someone with male organs who will never GET pregnant, after all….

  • bornin1984

    So, favorable poll numbers being cited in a few old press releases constitutes the core of the pro-choice argument? I must not have gotten that memo. I still thought it was about, you know, women owning their bodies and all.

    It did when trying to argue the legal status of abortion in the United States. Have you really not been keeping up with the abortion debate in the U.S.?

    Yes, if the anti-abortion argument is being made by a woman, of reproductive age, and without the means of traveling to another state (or country) to obtain an abortion if she ever needed one, then that would have more credence. Because then her own reproductive autonomy would be affected as much as other womens\’.

    So, in other words, arguments by Blacks and Hispanic females would have more credence than their White and Asian counterparts? If that is the case, then why do you support abortion again, as last I checked Blacks and Hispanics are the least supportive racial groups when it comes to abortion, while Whites and Hispanics the most supportive, and Blacks and Hispanics the most likely to be disproportionately affected if abortion is made illegal again.

    Considering that \”pro-lifers\” get abortions too, I\’m not going to give credence to that view just because it comes from a woman. I\’m sure as heck going to discredit it, however, if it comes from a man.

    You are playing a game you cannot lose. You discredit my view on the basis of being a male (you do not discredit the views of pro-choice males, however) and you discredit the views of pro-life females on the basis that some females who call themselves pro-life obtain an abortion? What about the pro-life females who do not obtain an abortion?

    No, because the fetus\’s \”inalienable right to life\” does not entail \”the right to obtain life support for that life from an unwilling person.\”

    You would be refusing to acknowledge the right of the unborn, which would mean that you are selectively applying your argument in protecting rights, which you just said you did not do. Irony?

    Because currently, living organ donation is not mandatory. Got any more dumb questions, hot shot?

    I am sure you realize this, but that did not answer the question. If you do not have to give to someone, but taking away from that is murder, then is not abortion murder as that requires taking something away from the unborn.

  • prochoiceferret

    Readily accepted equals dead?

     

    Oh, I’m sorry. Here, I’ll put it in a form that you can comprehend:

     

    “I am pretty sure that racial equality is a readily accepted social norm, because we elected a Black man president.”

     

    There, is that better? I’m sure many Blacks would not be surprised if you agreed with that.

     

    Number one, the unborn is not tissue. Honestly. Pick up a basic embryology book or something.

     

    I must have missed the part where it said “the embryo is not tissue.” Would that be anywhere close to the part where it says “the fetus is not comprised of cells?”

     

    Number two, it does not matter if I am a male. If I were female, you would not suddenly heed my argument. In fact, you would just turn around and talk about patriarchy and whatever else you can think up. So why even bother going down this road? I know as well as you do that gender is unimportant to the actual argument.

     

    Yes, it’s not like we’re talking about an issue that primarily affects one of the sexes.

  • saltyc

    I am a very happy individual. Why? Because the future is bright for the pro-life movement.

     

    That’s it? That’s all you have to be happy for? I’m so sorry.

    I suppose why every other post of your contains some petty insult directed towards me

    Because I really want you to leave so people can have a real conversation, instead of one that doesn’t offer anything new and revolves around petty definitions and shallow observations backed by pro-life compilations of data. I don’t know why you haven’t been banned. I’ll ban myself if it bans you. Because there are, unlike me, some very informed, provocative and vivid minds writing on this site and it pains me that their most important work is appended by idiotic propaganda and links to such.  

     

  • bornin1984

    Oh, I\’m sorry. Here, I\’ll put it in a form that you can comprehend:

    \”I am pretty sure that racial equality is a readily accepted social norm, because we elected a Black man president.\”

    There, is that better? I\’m sure many Blacks would not be surprised if you agreed with that.

    Indeed it is. Walk outside and say that Blacks and Whites should be treated differently and see how many people agree with said assertion.

    I must have missed the part where it said \”the embryo is not tissue.\” Would that be anywhere close to the part where it says \”the fetus is not comprised of cells?\”

    Is tissue totipotent?

    Yes, it\’s not like we\’re talking about an issue that primarily affects one of the sexes.

    And yet, you discount the views of the majority of that sex because they do not agree with you.

  • arekushieru

    Do you not know how contradictory this is:  If that is the case, then why do you support abortion again, as last I checked Blacks and Hispanics are the least supportive racial groups when it comes to abortion, while Whites and Hispanics the most supportive, and Blacks and Hispanics the most likely to be disproportionately affected if abortion is made illegal again;?

     

    If they are the least supportive then WHY would they be the most afFECted if abortion was made illegal?  Hmmm…?

     

    And WHY do women have to take away?  Because that is the way their bodies are MADE.  Iow, you just want to punish and imprison women in their bodies JUST for having them developed the way they are….

     

    Please go back and read what she said.   She said a pregnant ProLife female has more credence than a ProLife male OR female who are NOT pregnant.  So, that inCLUDES your disingenuous question.

     

    The right of the unborn?  Unborn get more rights than anyone born?  Umm, you have yet to prove this…?  Even WITH your dependancy argument.  Thanks. You are the one who is selectively applying their argument, OF course.  Irony much?

     

     

  • arekushieru

    Equality definitely does NOT simply mean just not being treated differently, OF course.

  • arekushieru

    Hmm, why does Born always twist everything we say?  Maybe that’s because he knows he wouldn’t have a point otherwise?  HOW is forcing a woman to share her uterus (an organ) with a fetus, but ALLOWING someone else to consent to share their organs with another, equal rights?  Oh, that’s right, it’s NOT.

  • prochoiceferret

    It did when trying to argue the legal status of abortion in the United States. Have you really not been keeping up with the abortion debate in the U.S.?

     

    I have, and it didn’t. Sorry.

     

    So, in other words, arguments by Blacks and Hispanic females would have more credence than their White and Asian counterparts? If that is the case, then why do you support abortion again, as last I checked Blacks and Hispanics are the least supportive racial groups when it comes to abortion, while Whites and Hispanics the most supportive, and Blacks and Hispanics the most likely to be disproportionately affected if abortion is made illegal again.

     

    Black and Hispanic females, of reproductive age, without the means of getting around abortion bans. Did you have a point?

     

    What about the pro-life females who do not obtain an abortion?

     

    The ones who really haven’t had an abortion, or the ones who only say they haven’t had an abortion? Or would that be the menopausal ones, who couldn’t make use of an abortion even if they tried?

     

    Medical confidentiality’s a bitch, isn’t it?

     

    You would be refusing to acknowledge the right of the unborn, which would mean that you are selectively applying your argument in protecting rights, which you just said you did not do. Irony?

     

    No, the unborn has their right and all. They just don’t have the right to exercise that right by violating someone else’s right.

     

    It’s not irony. It’s just an argument too sophisticated for you to grasp, apparently.

     

    I am sure you realize this, but that did not answer the question. If you do not have to give to someone, but taking away from that is murder, then is not abortion murder as that requires taking something away from the unborn.

     

    No, because the “something” that is taken away—the uterus—belongs to the woman, not to the fetus.

     

    I’ll be generous to you, however, and allow that the fetus can keep the placenta.

  • bornin1984

    That\’s it? That\’s all you have to be happy for? I\’m so sorry.

    Equal rights for all is a reason to be happy.

    Because I really want you to leave so people can have a real conversation, instead of one that doesn\’t offer anything new and revolves around petty definitions and shallow observations backed by pro-life compilations of data. I don\’t know why you haven\’t been banned. I\’ll ban myself if it bans you. Because there are, unlike me, some very informed, provocative and vivid minds writing on this site and it pains me that their most important work is appended by idiotic propaganda and links to such.

    Yes, because the NCHS or CDC or former directors of Planned Parenthood or data compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are pro-life compilations of data (you, for the record, have ignored each and every one). I have only linked to one pro-life website, and that was to point out the self-reporting of violence that each camp (pro-life and pro-choice) have reported.

    But you are free to continue to label things are false assertions and ignore those links provided to you which prove you wrong. Ignoring things do not make them false.

  • prochoiceferret

    Indeed it is. Walk outside and say that Blacks and Whites should be treated differently and see how many people agree with said assertion.

     

    So you agree with me, then. Saying that “racial equality is a readily accepted social norm” is certainly a readily accepted social norm. Actual, real racial equality? Not so much.

     

    Is tissue totipotent?

     

    I dunno. Are cells?

     

    And yet, you discount the views of the majority of that sex because they do not agree with you.

     

    No, I disagree with them because they don’t have enough skin in the game.

  • bornin1984

    I have, and it didn\’t. Sorry.

    Oh? Would you care to place a wager on that?

    Black and Hispanic females, of reproductive age, without the means of getting around abortion bans. Did you have a point?

    You said you would give their arguments more credence, and if the groups more than likely to be negatively affected by bans on abortion are the least supportive of abortion, then why do you not give their arguments not only more credence then male pro-lifers or pro-lifers from the privileged group, but not more credence than the arguments of privileged and post-menopausal pro-choice women?

    The ones who really haven\’t had an abortion, or the ones who only say they haven\’t had an abortion? Or would that be the menopausal ones, who couldn\’t make use of an abortion even if they tried?

    Medical confidentiality\’s a bitch, isn\’t it?

    I see. So you discredit the opinion of every pro-life female because they could of have an abortion, even though the majority of them have not. Interesting.

    No, the unborn has their right and all. They just don\’t have the right to exercise that right by violating someone else\’s right.

    It\’s not irony. It\’s just an argument too sophisticated for you to grasp, apparently.

    You: We are not selective in defending rights.
    Me: Yes, you are.
    You: No, we are not.
    Me: So if tomorrow SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade and finds that the unborn has an inalienable right to life, would you defend that right for the unborn?
    You: No, because that would contradict with the right of the woman to control her body.
    Me: The woman has no such right, as Roe v. Wade has been overturned. Since you said you are not selective in defending rights, then if SCOTUS finds that the unborn has a right to life, you should defend that right, as not doing so would be selecting which rights should be defended.
    You: ???

    Sophisticated, indeed.

    No, because the \”something\” that is taken away—the uterus—belongs to the woman, not to the fetus.

    I\’ll be generous to you, however, and allow that the fetus can keep the placenta.

    The argument is based on what belongs to whom, but rather what effect taking away from someone who is already using something would have on another. If I own a life support system, and someone is hooked up to it, I cannot unhook that person simply because I own said life support system. I would go to jail for murder if I did.

  • bornin1984

    So you agree with me, then. Saying that \”racial equality is a readily accepted social norm\” is certainly a readily accepted social norm. Actual, real racial equality? Not so much.

    No. It is a fact.

    I dunno. Are cells?

    Just the zygote, which I am sure you knew.

    No, I disagree with them because they don\’t have enough skin in the game.

    In other words, because they do not agree with you.

  • arekushieru

    To your first question, because they’re not trying to impose anything on ANYone.  Derrrrr….

    If Roe vs Wade is removed, then she absoLUTEly loses her right to full autonomy.  Why?  Because, AS we’ve said, OVER and OVER, everyone ELSE would STILL have the right to determine WHO uses their body, and when and how it is used via ONGOING, explicit and informed consent, EVEN IF another’s life is involved.  With Roe v Wade removed, the woman absoLUTEly does NOT.  That is sexism, which, y’know, goes against the Constitution…?

     

    Btw, that last scenario requires a MEDical decision.  But, of course, with your usual attempts to twist people’s words, you took out the medical part of the equation.  If you need to twist people’s words you KNOW you’ve lost the argument, right…?

  • arekushieru

    Nope, that is NOT what she meant.  That was obvious even to me….  They don’t have the same stakes.  Or do you REALLY think that a woman who is pregnant is risking her health and life JUST AS MUCH as one who is not?  Hmmm…?

  • prochoiceferret

    Oh? Would you care to place a wager on that?

     

    Sure! Let’s wager a million zillion dollars. I’ve always wanted my own Ferret Manor.

     

    You said you would give their arguments more credence, and if the groups more than likely to be negatively affected by bans on abortion are the least supportive of abortion, then why do you not give their arguments not only more credence then male pro-lifers or pro-lifers from the privileged group,

     

    Because I’m interested in the women, of reproductive age, lacking the means to get around a ban. Or do you believe that minorities are incapable of patriarchalness?

     

    but not more credence than the arguments of privileged and post-menopausal pro-choice women?

     

    Because their sympathies more closely reflect the real-world needs of reproductive-age and unprivileged women. It may be a bit sound-bite-ish to argue “a woman’s body, a woman’s choice,” but even that much would be an improvement for many women.

     

    I see. So you discredit the opinion of every pro-life female because they could of have an abortion, even though the majority of them have not.

     

    As far as you know. When we advocate for choice, we advocate choice for everyone, including anti-choicers.

     

    You’re welcome.

     

    Me: The woman has no such right, as Roe v. Wade has been overturned. Since you said you are not selective in defending rights, then if SCOTUS finds that the unborn has a right to life, you should defend that right, as not doing so would be selecting which rights should be defended.
    You: ???

    Sophisticated, indeed.

     

    Yep. Apparently, you are incapable of distinguishing between the fetus’s hypothetical “inalienable right to life” and the woman’s right to withhold consent to providing life support to another organism/person. Granting the former in no way negates the latter.

     

    Unless you had another Supreme Court case that declared pregnant women to be non-persons. Then they’d be f*****.

     

    The argument is based on what belongs to whom, but rather what effect taking away from someone who is already using something would have on another. If I own a life support system, and someone is hooked up to it, I cannot unhook that person simply because I own said life support system. I would go to jail for murder if I did.

     

    Yes, if we’re talking about things that are not one’s physical body, the rules are different. If you’re on the hook for child support, you can’t just decline to continue providing that.

     

    Bodies are a special case. Although if you want a court officer to be able to repossess one of your non-vital organs, you can certainly try to make that argument.

  • prochoiceferret

    No. It is a fact.

     

    That’s a mighty big knapsack you’re carrying there, kiddo!

     

    Just the zygote, which I am sure you knew.

     

    So, according to your logic, the zygote is not a cell. Or is a cell. Or something.

     

    Oh well, I guess embryos are tissue after all, then.

     

    In other words, because they do not agree with you.

     

    You can certainly believe that if it helps your self-esteem.

  • bornin1984

    Sure! Let\’s wager a million zillion dollars. I\’ve always wanted my own Ferret Manor.

    Make it a real number and we have a bet.

    Because I\’m interested in the women, of reproductive age, lacking the means to get around a ban. Or do you believe that minorities are incapable of patriarchalness?

    Okay. So if you do not support access to abortion, it is because you are being influenced by a patriarchal society, and we know that one is being influenced by a patriarchal society because they oppose abortion? Ironic that you, much like Are, do not know what it means to beg the question.

    In your mind, you have already decided that unless you support abortion then you are controlled by the patriarchy, which is convenient because it allows you to instantly dismiss the views of anyone who is contrary to that of your own. Of course, what is funny, is that your contention does not work if men are more permissive of abortion than are women, because then you would be conforming to a view held by the majority of men instead of women, which would be conforming to the patriarchy. Of course, you more than likely do not understand this, but still. It is worth pointing out, because it is actually fairly humorous.

    Because their sympathies more closely reflect the real-world needs of reproductive-age and unprivileged women. It may be a bit sound-bite-ish to argue \”a woman\’s body, a woman\’s choice,\” but even that much would be an improvement for many women.

    Except, and here is the thing, you dismiss their views if they do not line up with your own. Is this hard to understand? You only care about the views of these women when they line up with yours, otherwise you claim they are being controlled by the patriarchy and cast them aside.

    As far as you know. When we advocate for choice, we advocate choice for everyone, including anti-choicers.

    You\’re welcome.

    While that is great, it does not change the fact that you are conveniently dismissing the views of the millions of women who disagree with your argument. It is kind of hard to be pro-women when you cast aside the opinions of the majority of them.

    Yep. Apparently, you are incapable of distinguishing between the fetus\’s hypothetical \”inalienable right to life\” and the woman\’s right to withhold consent to providing life support to another organism/person. Granting the former in no way negates the latter.

    Unless you had another Supreme Court case that declared pregnant women to be non-persons. Then they\’d be f*****.

    You know, you are not very smart. But I can understand, being a ferret and all. If Roe v. Wade is overturned and the unborn are granted an inalienable right to life, it will be because they are deemed persons. If this is true, then the right to life of the unborn will trump right of the woman to kill the unborn, for the right to life is paramount to all other rights, and no one can exercise a right at the expense of the life of someone else. So, yes, granting the former negates the latter. Also, the notion that disallowing one to kill another requires stripping the former party of personhood is, well, pretty stupid.

    Anyway, I take the fact that you refuse to defend the right to life of the unborn in the event that SCOTUS decides to overturn Roe v. Wade and grants them an inalienable right to life means that you do not, nor would you, defend the rights of everyone?

    Yes, if we\’re talking about things that are not one\’s physical body, the rules are different. If you\’re on the hook for child support, you can\’t just decline to continue providing that.

    Bodies are a special case. Although if you want a court officer to be able to repossess one of your non-vital organs, you can certainly try to make that argument.

    No, actually, the rules are not different. Though the fact that you have decided to obfuscate and remind me that you do not know the difference between not providing for someone and having them die as a result and taking away from someone and having them as a result is fairly unsurprising. I suppose that is what happens when you do not have any real argument.

  • bornin1984

    That\’s a mighty big knapsack you\’re carrying there, kiddo!

    Indeed, it is not.

    So, according to your logic, the zygote is not a cell. Or is a cell. Or something.

    Oh well, I guess embryos are tissue after all, then.

    So, let me make sure I understand you correctly. Since the zygote is totipotent, the embryo is tissue. Is that correct? The logical head scratchers aside, that begs the question, then, as to not only what kind of tissue are they, but this also begs the question as to what tissue is, since tissue is an aggregate of cells in an organism that have similar structure and function whereas, yet by your definition, tissue is the organism.

    You can certainly believe that if it helps your self-esteem.


    I can only believe what you write out :)

  • arekushieru

    It’s not an organism.  Btw, when sperm meets egg, the ZBEF IS a cell, what’s so hard to believe that, at later stages, it IS tissue?

  • arekushieru

    It seems Born STILL cannot recognize when begging the question is applicable.  It occurs like this.  BeCAUSE of A I hate C.  BeCAUSE of C I hate A.  NEITHER of us did that.  I pointed out how that was the case for me, actually, if you would care to read…..

     

    And you STILL don’t understand what patriarchy means, I see. 

     

    Uh, gee, I didn’t know poor, ProLife women couldn’t get pregnant.  Otherwise, how did the idea that ProLife women of reproductive age and unprivileged status who more closely reflect real world needs are given more credence, become only caring about the views of these WHEN they line up with our own?

     

    You can’t be ProWoman and oppose equal rights.  So, if we accepted all the opposing views of these women, we’d actually be ANTI-woman.  Sorry.

     

    Let me put this in SIMple terms, so even YOU will understand:  Actually, organ recipients DIE on the waiting list each YEAR because organ donors chose NOT to consent to organ donation.  Gee, organ recipients right to life didn’t trump someone else’s right to give ongoing, informed and explicit consent to who uses their body and when and how it is used, even WHEN it was necessary to save another’s life.  So, WHO’S not very smart and WHO is incorrect about saying there is such a thing as an inalienable right to life?  Hint:  It’s not PCF.

     

    If woman don’t have the same right that everyone else has, the SAME right to consent that I JUST described above, what would be the ONLY way that you COULD deny it to them?  That’s right, LIKE PCF said.  Make women NON-persons.  Don’t you just love it when she’s spot on…?  Oh, wait….

     

    She has proven that she will defend the rights of everyone.  She has proven that you would grant ONLY feoti an ‘inalienable right to life’.  Imagine that!  She’s right, again!

     

    There IS no difference, Born.  Except in your narrow, illogical mind.  BOTH end in death.  Both are non-accidental.  The only difference comes down to sexism.  Because I rePEAT, the ONLY reason that a woman has to take the life support AWAY is because of how her organs and bodily functions were grown and developed as she matured.  Denying a woman the same right as everyone else has based on that FACT is sexist and punishes and imprisons a woman in her body simply for ‘daring’ to have female organs.  And sexism is unConstitutional, y’know….

     

     

     

     

  • bornin1984

    I could quote a biology textbook, but this is so much more sweeter.

    It\’s not an organism.

    Zygote: The single-celled organism that results from the joining of the egg and sperm.

    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/glossary-4338.htm#z

    Btw, when sperm meets egg, the ZBEF IS a cell, what\’s so hard to believe that, at later stages, it IS tissue?

    Because it is not. And it is rather stupid to assert as much because to do so you have to redefine what tissue is. But since you believe the unborn at any stage is tissue, then what kind of tissue is it?

  • bornin1984

    Number one, the right to life is not right which is granted, but a right which cannot be taken away from you. Do you seriously not understand this?

    Positive rights permit or oblige action, whereas negative rights permit or oblige inaction. These permissions or obligations may be of either a legal or moral character. Likewise, the notion of positive and negative rights may be applied to either liberty rights or claim rights, either permitting one to act or refrain from acting, or obliging others to act or refrain from acting. However, this article and most literature discusses them as applied to the latter sense.

    It is not a hard concept to understand.

    Number two, you really have no idea what the heck you are on about, especially since how you still do not understand what it means to beg the question. You say that anyone who does not support access to abortion is influenced by a patriarchal society, yet when someone asks you how you know this is true, you respond because they do not support access to abortion. That is entirely circular, as your premise is your conclusion. I mean, I could do the same thing too by stating that anyone who is pro-choice is an idiot, and that they are idiots because they are pro-choice. That statement is just about as logical as your patriarchy statement. And finally, number three:

    She has proven that she will defend the rights of everyone. She has proven that you would grant ONLY feoti an \’inalienable right to life\’. Imagine that! She\’s right, again!

    If someone has an inalienable right, it means it cannot be taken from them without his or her consent and given to someone else. If you, for example, have an inalienable right to life, it means that I cannot deprive you of your life without your consent. To somehow turn around and say that PCF is right when she just stated that it would not matter if the unborn had an inalienable right to life and that they could be killed anyway, even though the woman would have no right to deprive the unborn of their right to life, is, quite frankly, insanely idiotic and it makes no effort not to be. It does not even make sense, and flies directly in the face of the concept of inalienable rights.

  • beenthere72

    You conveniently ignored my links too.  

  • prochoiceferret

    Make it a real number and we have a bet.

     

    Okay. One quadrillion dollars. I’ll build my Ferret Manor, and get rid of that annoying national debt.

     

    Okay. So if you do not support access to abortion, it is because you are being influenced by a patriarchal society, and we know that one is being influenced by a patriarchal society because they oppose abortion?

     

    If they oppose abortion for everyone, for reasons like “Women need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions” and “You can’t just choose not to be a mother when you’re already pregnant,” then yes. If they oppose abortion ostensibly because they believe it’s bad for women, yet they disregard womens’ actual want and need for the procedure, then yes. If they oppose abortion for reasons that are trivial or beside the point when a real need for them arises, then yes.

     

    See, here’s the problem: If you are against abortion, and not just in a personal capacity, then you are in favor of forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term (or letting them try a DIY abortion at the risk of their own health and lives). There is no way that that is not egregiously disrespectful and harmful to women. Although that sure hasn’t stopped you from trying to find a way.

     

    In your mind, you have already decided that unless you support abortion then you are controlled by the patriarchy, which is convenient because it allows you to instantly dismiss the views of anyone who is contrary to that of your own. Of course, what is funny, is that your contention does not work if men are more permissive of abortion than are women, because then you would be conforming to a view held by the majority of men instead of women, which would be conforming to the patriarchy. Of course, you more than likely do not understand this, but still. It is worth pointing out, because it is actually fairly humorous.

     

    Yes, it is humorous that you don’t understand what patriarchy is. Betcha think “male feminist” is an oxymoron, too.

     

    Except, and here is the thing, you dismiss their views if they do not line up with your own. Is this hard to understand? You only care about the views of these women when they line up with yours, otherwise you claim they are being controlled by the patriarchy and cast them aside.

     

    No, I dismiss their views if they can escape the effects of the legal regime they want to bring about. Apparently, that is hard for you to understand!

     

    While that is great, it does not change the fact that you are conveniently dismissing the views of the millions of women who disagree with your argument. It is kind of hard to be pro-women when you cast aside the opinions of the majority of them.

     

    Yes, I don’t care so much for peoples’ opinions about what other people should or shouldn’t do that has no effect on them. You might have a point if I were arguing for compelled abortions. But that would be blatantly anti-choice (if pro-abortion), so you ain’t gonna hear that from me.

     

    You know, you are not very smart. But I can understand, being a ferret and all.

     

    If you’re so smart, stop making piddly arguments that can be trivially shot down. Bring your A-game, anti-choice-meister, or GTFO.

     

    If Roe v. Wade is overturned and the unborn are granted an inalienable right to life, it will be because they are deemed persons. If this is true, then the right to life of the unborn will trump right of the woman to kill the unborn, for the right to life is paramount to all other rights, and no one can exercise a right at the expense of the life of someone else. So, yes, granting the former negates the latter.

     

    So the right to life of someone who needs a kidney is paramount to all other rights, and you cannot exercise your right to refuse to donate a spare kidney at the expense of that person’s life.

     

    Congratulations. You’ve just argued for compelled living organ donation. Enjoy your dystopia.

     

    Also, the notion that disallowing one to kill another requires stripping the former party of personhood is, well, pretty stupid.

     

    Well, yeah. The notion that compelling one to provide biological life support for another negates a basic element of personhood for the former party, on the other hand, is a lot less farfetched. Though I’m sure that won’t stop you from arguing how to make pregnant women into practical non-persons, even if they still are in name.

     

    Anyway, I take the fact that you refuse to defend the right to life of the unborn in the event that SCOTUS decides to overturn Roe v. Wade and grants them an inalienable right to life means that you do not, nor would you, defend the rights of everyone?

     

    Incorrect. It means that I’m not going to forget about the other rights people have, which don’t suddenly cease to exist even if the Supremes were to rule thusly.

     

    No, actually, the rules are not different. Though the fact that you have decided to obfuscate and remind me that you do not know the difference between not providing for someone and having them die as a result and taking away from someone and having them as a result is fairly unsurprising.

     

    You’ve already made it clear that you consider “not providing” the same as “taking away.”

     

    Most people would just concede the argument at this point. Feel free to keep splitting hairs if you have a pathological need to always be right, however.

  • bornin1984

    Okay. One quadrillion dollars. I\’ll build my Ferret Manor, and get rid of that annoying national debt.

    Or you can try a real number.

    If they oppose abortion for everyone, for reasons like \”Women need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions\” and \”You can\’t just choose not to be a mother when you\’re already pregnant,\” then yes. If they oppose abortion ostensibly because they believe it\’s bad for women, yet they disregard womens\’ actual want and need for the procedure, then yes. If they oppose abortion for reasons that are trivial or beside the point when a real need for them arises, then yes.

    See, here\’s the problem: If you are against abortion, and not just in a personal capacity, then you are in favor of forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term (or letting them try a DIY abortion at the risk of their own health and lives). There is no way that that is not egregiously disrespectful and harmful to women. Although that sure hasn\’t stopped you from trying to find a way.

    Okay. So you just took ten minutes to state what I said you said initially? According to your logic, there is not a single basis under which you could oppose abortion and not be influenced by a patriarchal society, which is convenient for you as it allows you to dismiss the views of anyone you do not agree with, but illogical just the same, as you are begging the question.

    And I see you are back to the whole disrespecting women thing. I would point out to you that you are the one being disrespectful of women, since you disregard the opinions of the majority of them because you do not agree with them. Of course, you will just pass them off as having their opinions influenced by a patriarchal society, so as far as you are concerned you are perfectly justified in dismissing them.

    Yes, it is humorous that you don\’t understand what patriarchy is. Betcha think \”male feminist\” is an oxymoron, too.

    It is actually fairly humorous how you do not understand what patriarchy is, or are content to apply the definition of patriarchy when it suits you. If, for example, you live in a country in which more men support access to abortion than women then, by your own definition, supporting access to abortion equals patriarchy. You would agree with that, correct?

    No, I dismiss their views if they can escape the effects of the legal regime they want to bring about. Apparently, that is hard for you to understand!

    Which goes right back to the point that you, then, should give the views of Blacks and Hispanics more credence than any other group, since they are the least supportive of abortion when compared to any other racial group and would be disproportionately affected if abortion were made illegal. However, you know as well as I do that you would, and do, dismiss their arguments all the same as if they were a male or a privileged pro-life woman, so what is the point? As I say often, you are merely playing a game you cannot lose. Unless someone agrees with what you want them to agree with, you will either discredit their views on account of them being a misogynist or being influenced by a patriarchal society. There are enough examples of this already.

    Yes, I don\’t care so much for peoples\’ opinions about what other people should or shouldn\’t do that has no effect on them. You might have a point if I were arguing for compelled abortions. But that would be blatantly anti-choice (if pro-abortion), so you ain\’t gonna hear that from me.

    And this is where I will go back to my original example with the man in North Dakota who beats his wife/girlfriend/SO/etc. and point out to you that, following your logic, no one should be able to complain about that because it has no effect on the person complaining about it– especially if they live hundreds of miles away. But, you see, you will quickly throw out such an argument, which makes one wonder under what basis your above argument is not thrown out, since it is as equally ridiculous.

    If you\’re so smart, stop making piddly arguments that can be trivially shot down. Bring your A-game, anti-choice-meister, or GTFO.

    Ignoring an argument and responding with some pseudo-witty comment does not constitute shooting an argument down. Well, maybe in your world, but not in the real world.

    So the right to life of someone who needs a kidney is paramount to all other rights, and you cannot exercise your right to refuse to donate a spare kidney at the expense of that person\’s life.

    Congratulations. You\’ve just argued for compelled living organ donation. Enjoy your dystopia.

    I think you might want to take a civics class or something, as you seem to not know the difference between a negative right and a positive right. Negative rights assert that you be left alone. Positive rights assert that you be done for based on some kind of agreement. Demanding that someone give you a kidney so you could live would be asserting a positive right. Demanding that someone not take your kidney away from you so that you die would be asserting a negative right. You refusing to understand this is really no problem of mine.

    Well, yeah. The notion that compelling one to provide biological life support for another negates a basic element of personhood for the former party, on the other hand, is a lot less farfetched. Though I\’m sure that won\’t stop you from arguing how to make pregnant women into practical non-persons, even if they still are in name.

    Okay. So disallowing a pregnant woman from killing her unborn child negates her personhood? The only way that could be true, would be if people have a right to kill, but a right to kill would be a positive right, which does not take precedence over a positive right. Do you really even read the stuff you type out before posting it?

    Incorrect. It means that I\’m not going to forget about the other rights people have, which don\’t suddenly cease to exist even if the Supremes were to rule thusly.

    Ummm… If SCOTUS says that said right does not exist, then it does not exist. Funny how you, just hours ago, stated that you do not selectively choose which rights to defend, when you have spend the past few posts doing as much. Irony really is lost upon you.

    You\’ve already made it clear that you consider \”not providing\” the same as \”taking away.\”

    Most people would just concede the argument at this point. Feel free to keep splitting hairs if you have a pathological need to always be right, however.

    I will take your admission of defeat, thank you :)

    (Of course, you are more than welcome to tell me why you do not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone, but you will go to jail for taking a kidney away from someone and they die. Obviously, the simple fact that one of those situations involve not giving to and the other one taking away from and they both have different consequences kind of proves you wrong, but you would argue tooth and nail that two plus two equals five in order to not admit to being wrong. Oh well.)

  • bornin1984

    You conveniently ignored my links too.

    Actually, I did not, considering the fact that I have been over the same thing time and time again with people trying to find a silver lining. It is a well-known* (well, to anyone who has kept up with the abortion debate), that generally speaking Americans would limit abortions to the first trimester, but place multiple restrictions on abortion (i.e., informed consent laws, parental consent laws, waiting periods and spousal notification laws) and limit it to certain circumstances.

    With respect to circumstances, most Americans agree that abortion should be available when there is a medical problem, whether involving the woman or the fetus. They generally disapprove of abortion in cases involving lifestyle decisions. Public opinion surveys indicate the following rank order of approval for abortion under specific circumstances:

    Life of the woman: 84%
    Physical health of the woman: 83%
    Rape or incest: 79%
    Mental health of the woman: 64%
    Baby would be mentally impaired: 53%
    Baby would be physically impaired: 51%
    Would force teenager to drop out of school: 42%
    Woman/family can’t afford the baby: 39%
    Woman/family want no more children: 39%
    Couple does not want to marry: 35%
    Fertility selection (when fertility process creates multiple embryos): 29%
    Would interfere with woman’s career: 25%

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/9904/public-opinion-about-abortion-indepth-review.aspx#5

    Situation/Should Be Legal/Should Be Illegal
    All or Most Cases: 57%/42%
    To Save Womans Life: 88%/10%
    To Save Womans Health: 82%/14%
    In Cases of Rape/Incest: 81%/17%
    Physically Impaired Baby: 54%/40%
    To End Unwanted Pregnancy: 42%/57%
    D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions: 23%/69%
    Pregnancy is 6 Months+: 11%/86%

    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/abortion_poll030122.html

    FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    Please tell me if you think abortion should be legal or illegal in each of the following situations…

    Legal/Illegal/Unsure

    If the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest
    10/23 – 24/07: 70%/21%/9%
    2/28 – 3/1/06: 74%/21%/6%

    If the pregnancy puts the mothers life at risk

    10/23 – 24/07: 73%/15%/12%
    2/28 – 3/1/06: 83%/12%/5%

    If the pregnancy puts the mothers mental health at risk

    10/23 – 24/07: 56%/28%/16%
    2/28 – 3/1/06: 62%/30%/8%

    If the baby has a fatal birth defect

    10/23-24/07: 53%/30%/18%

    If the pregnancy is unwanted

    10/23 – 24/07: 39%/50%/11%
    2/28 – 3/1/06: 43%/49%/8%

    CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 10-12, 2003. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about [see below]?

    Legal/Illegal/Depends/Unsure

    When the womans life is endangered

    85%/11%/2%/2%

    When the womans physical health is endangered


    77%/17%/4%/2%

    When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest

    76%/19%/2%/3%

    When the womans mental health is endangered

    63%/32%/3%/2%

    When there is evidence that the baby may be physically impaired

    56%/37%/4%/3%

    When there is evidence that the baby may be mentally impaired

    55%/39%/3%/3%

    When the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child


    35%/61%/2%/2%

    Thinking more generally: Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy? How about [see below]?

    Legal/Illegal/Depends/Unsure

    In the first three months of pregnancy

    66%/29%/3%/2%

    In the second three months of pregnancy

    25%/68%/4%/3%

    In the last three months of pregnancy

    10%/84%/4%/2%

    http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion2.htm

    I do not feel like pulling up anymore. I think that should be enough, though, as you should get the point.

    Late edit: Sorry. Had to fix something.

  • prochoiceferret

    Or you can try a real number.

     

    It is a real number—10^15 to be exact. (Unless you want to go with long scale, in which case it’s 10^24. I’m good either way.)

     

    Okay. So you just took ten minutes to state what I said you said initially? According to your logic, there is not a single basis under which you could oppose abortion and not be influenced by a patriarchal society, which is convenient for you as it allows you to dismiss the views of anyone you do not agree with, but illogical just the same, as you are begging the question.

     

    Perhaps you might want to consider why it is that I support a woman’s right to an abortion in the first place. It’s not so that I can feel superior to anti-choice troglodytes like you (although that is certainly a nice benefit). It has to do with what is happening in a woman’s mind, heart, and life when she comes to the point of needing an abortion.

     

    But you don’t give a rat’s patootie about that, because ultimately, what you want to do is control that woman rather than genuinely give her the help she needs. And thus you will never understand.

     

    And I see you are back to the whole disrespecting women thing. I would point out to you that you are the one being disrespectful of women, since you disregard the opinions of the majority of them because you do not agree with them.

     

    Yes, because I place more importance on women who are in the circumstances of needing a medical procedure than those who are apoplectic with rage that other women are having that procedure done. Which I already stated in my last post, but I’m repeating it here since you obviously missed it.

     

    It is actually fairly humorous how you do not understand what patriarchy is, or are content to apply the definition of patriarchy when it suits you. If, for example, you live in a country in which more men support access to abortion than women then, by your own definition, supporting access to abortion equals patriarchy. You would agree with that, correct?

     

    No. Please do some reading before you talk out of your ass again.

     

    Which goes right back to the point that you, then, should give the views of Blacks and Hispanics more credence than any other group, since they are the least supportive of abortion when compared to any other racial group and would be disproportionately affected if abortion were made illegal.

     

    You seem to live in a world where minorities are homogeneous. I’m talking about Earth, with emphasis on the U.S. You should visit sometime.

     

    However, you know as well as I do that you would, and do, dismiss their arguments all the same as if they were a male or a privileged pro-life woman, so what is the point? As I say often, you are merely playing a game you cannot lose. Unless someone agrees with what you want them to agree with, you will either discredit their views on account of them being a misogynist or being influenced by a patriarchal society. There are enough examples of this already.

     

    Yes, it’s funny how there don’t seem to be any people who really, truly care about women, and oppose abortion. It’s almost like the two positions were mutually incompatible or something.

     

    And this is where I will go back to my original example with the man in North Dakota who beats his wife/girlfriend/SO/etc. and point out to you that, following your logic, no one should be able to complain about that because it has no effect on the person complaining about it– especially if they live hundreds of miles away. But, you see, you will quickly throw out such an argument, which makes one wonder under what basis your above argument is not thrown out, since it is as equally ridiculous.

     

    If that woman wants to put a stop to the beating, and she wants my help, then I will help her.

     

    Ignoring an argument and responding with some pseudo-witty comment does not constitute shooting an argument down. Well, maybe in your world, but not in the real world.

     

    STOP PUSSYFOOTING AROUND. STOP THROWING SOFTBALLS AT ME. GIVE ME THE BEST ARGUMENT YOU’VE GOT, OR F*** OFF.

     

    (Yes, I’m a ferret, but pretend I’m not.)

     

    I think you might want to take a civics class or something, as you seem to not know the difference between a negative right and a positive right. Negative rights assert that you be left alone. Positive rights assert that you be done for based on some kind of agreement. Demanding that someone give you a kidney so you could live would be asserting a positive right. Demanding that someone not take your kidney away from you so that you die would be asserting a negative right. You refusing to understand this is really no problem of mine.

     

    Hey, that works…

     

    Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

     

    So a pregnant woman can assert her negative right not to be subjected to an action of the fetus (sucking nutrients from her body, pushing organs around, and in general making a mess of things).

     

    Thanks for the nifty pro-choice argument!

     

    Okay. So disallowing a pregnant woman from killing her unborn child negates her personhood? The only way that could be true, would be if people have a right to kill, but a right to kill would be a positive right, which does not take precedence over a positive right. Do you really even read the stuff you type out before posting it?

     

    Yes, but you apparently don’t read it before responding to it. Disallowing a pregnant woman from killing whatever doesn’t negate her personhood, but disallowing her from evicting a separate organism inside her certainly does.

     

    The fact that the organism dies once it’s evicted is not the woman’s problem.

     

    Ummm… If SCOTUS says that said right does not exist, then it does not exist. Funny how you, just hours ago, stated that you do not selectively choose which rights to defend, when you have spend the past few posts doing as much. Irony really is lost upon you.

     

    Well, yeah, if the SCOTUS rules that people cannot decline to provide biological life support to other persons/organisms, then abortion would be illegal. And a lot of us would be out a kidney.

     

    I will take your admission of defeat, thank you :)

     

    It’ll fit right in with all the other “truths” you believe.

     

    (Of course, you are more than welcome to tell me why you do not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone, but you will go to jail for taking a kidney away from someone and they die. Obviously, the simple fact that one of those situations involve not giving to and the other one taking away from and they both have different consequences kind of proves you wrong, but you would argue tooth and nail that two plus two equals five in order to not admit to being wrong. Oh well.)

     

    You don’t go to jail right now for refusing to donate a kidney because that’s not the law right now. Obviously, if the SCOTUS changes the law, then the situation would be different, wouldn’t it?

     

    Do you have anterograde amnesia or something? This is the second time I’ve had to repeat myself. (Maybe if I automatically edit some of my old comments, I can make you go round and round in circles forever…)

  • bornin1984

    It is a real number—10^15 to be exact. (Unless you want to go with long scale, in which case it\’s 10^24. I\’m good either way.)

    Indeed it is. I knew that, though. Temporary brain lapse.

    Perhaps you might want to consider why it is that I support a woman\’s right to an abortion in the first place. It\’s not so that I can feel superior to anti-choice troglodytes like you (although that is certainly a nice benefit). It has to do with what is happening in a woman\’s mind, heart, and life when she comes to the point of needing an abortion.

    But you don\’t give a rat\’s patootie about that, because ultimately, what you want to do is control that woman rather than genuinely give her the help she needs. And thus you will never understand.

    Uh-huh… Let us put your rationale to the test, shall we? Let us assume that Woman X has five children yet, unfortunately, she cannot afford to provide for all five children. She can only provide for four of them. After much much deliberation, she comes to the conclusion that she should kill the youngest one. Sure, she could give it to someone who could provide for it, but she does not want to do that because she could not bear the thought of giving her child to someone else. The question is, therefore, should she be allowed to kill that child? Following your logic, she should be able to, though you will more-than-likely say no. Why? Because, according to you an act is rationalized by the person engaging in it.

    Of course, you will probably argue that the aforementioned situation and abortion are not the same thing (when fundamentally they are) but then you would be discounting what is happening in the mind, heart, and life of the woman in the aforementioned scenario which, funnily enough, is the same thing you lambaste pro-lifers for. Plus, not allowing the woman in the aforementioned scenario do to her youngest child would mean that you want to control the woman instead of giving her the help she needs, even though your motive would– and this is a complete guess– probably be to prevent the child from being killed.

    At any rate, I will not hold it against you if you ignore the above as you are prone to doing. After all, it is much easier to ignore points than to admit your rationale is deeply flawed :)

    Yes, because I place more importance on women who are in the circumstances of needing a medical procedure than those who are apoplectic with rage that other women are having that procedure done. Which I already stated in my last post, but I\’m repeating it here since you obviously missed it.

    So now you are playing a game of moral relativism where an act is rationalized so long as the individual engaging in a specific act believes their actions are justified? A game which, mind you, you do not play elsewhere? Really? Well, just see my above response then.

    No. Please do some reading before you talk out of your ass again.

    Well, one, you do realize I know what patriarchy is, correct? Two, you do realize that you did not answer my question? I really want to know how you link being against abortion to patriarchy, especially when you consider that historically abortion has been made legal at the request of males and illegal at the request of females and especially when you consider the fact that women who are anti-abortion are more extreme in their views than are men who are anti-abortion. How, exactly, would your theory pan out if you lived in a country in which men viewed abortion more favorably than women? I really want to know.

    Before you tell someone to do some reading, well… Just do not. For your sake.

    You seem to live in a world where minorities are homogeneous. I\’m talking about Earth, with emphasis on the U.S. You should visit sometime.

    Oh, look. Unsurprisingly, PCF is backtracking.

    Me: You give arguments made by pro-life males and pro-life females equal credence (none).
    You: That is not true. I give more credence to pro-life women of reproductive age without the means to travel to another state or country if an abortion ban were enacted.
    Me: So why do you not give the arguments of Blacks and Hispanics more credence than not only pro-life males (which you do not), but priviliged and post-menopausal pro-choice females?
    You: Because the views of the privileged and post-menopausal females more closely reflect the real-world needs of reproductive-age and unprivileged females.
    Me: How can that be true when you dismiss the views of the reproductive-age and underprivileged females who do not agree with your views on abortion? Once again, you are dismissing the views of those females who do not hold the views you want them to have.
    You: No, I dismiss their views if they cannot escape the effects of the legal regime they want to bring about.
    Me: In which case, you should not dismiss the views of Blacks and Hispanics, who are the least supportive of abortion, as if abortion were made illegal, they would be the ones most negatively affected by said restriction.
    You: ???

    It is funny how you make a claim, then turn around and throw out your own claim. And what is even funnier about the above discourse is that, generally speaking, the better off you are the more likely you are to support abortion. Of course, you do not care about that. In fact, you only care if someone holds the same views as you. Otherwise, you completely toss their views aside.

    Yes, it\’s funny how there don\’t seem to be any people who really, truly care about women, and oppose abortion. It\’s almost like the two positions were mutually incompatible or something.

    Yes, because you cannot care about women unless you somehow agree to allowing a woman to kill her unborn child. But why stop there? Why not just assert that you cannot truly care about women unless you allow women to do whatever the heck they want? It would make just about as much sense.

    If that woman wants to put a stop to the beating, and she wants my help, then I will help her.

    Except– and here was the kicker– she did not ask you for anything. In fact, she does not even know you exist. You know she exists, however. Of course, you should not oppose the man beating the woman, as it does not affect you any. In fact, it would affect you in the same way that a woman having an abortion in North Dakota would affect you. And since you constantly state that people should mind their own business and stop worrying about things which do not affect them, then you should apply your own logic to the man who wants to beat his gf/wife/SO in North Dakota. And to whatever happens to women in Haita, or Sudan or the Congo or anywhere else in the world.

    But what are the chances you will not? Fairly high, I would say.

    STOP PUSSYFOOTING AROUND. STOP THROWING SOFTBALLS AT ME. GIVE ME THE BEST ARGUMENT YOU\’VE GOT, OR F*** OFF.

    You ignore all the hard questions. For example, I am still waiting for you to explain to me what a human looks like and how much one has to differ from the norm to not be a human. And then when you answer that, you can define for me what tissue is and what kind of tissue the unborn are. I think those are good places to start.

    So a pregnant woman can assert her negative right not to be subjected to an action of the fetus (sucking nutrients from her body, pushing organs around, and in general making a mess of things).

    Thanks for the nifty pro-choice argument!

    Yes, in the same vein that I can attack someone and claim a right to not have that individual act against me. Yet again, I will state that you should take a civics class or something. Or, at the very least, actually use Google and read something other than, say, Wikipedia (which you reference a lot).

    Yes, but you apparently don\’t read it before responding to it. Disallowing a pregnant woman from killing whatever doesn\’t negate her personhood, but disallowing her from evicting a separate organism inside her certainly does.

    I point this out a lot, but for this argument to be true, then this would mean that women are persons until the sixth or so month of pregnancy, after which they become non-persons, another three months after which they become persons again. Of course, that is ridiculous, since I would be willing to bet that if you killed a pregnant woman seven months into pregnancy, you would be charged with murder (and quite possibly two). The next time that happens, though, someone should call you up and have you explain how the murdered pregnant woman was not really a person, since she was at the stage in which she was disallowed from evicting a separate organism inside of her.

    And speaking of seperate organism, I believe you might want to get with Crowepps and Are, the former which somehow does not believe that the unborn is a seperate entity to the mother and the latter which does not believe that the unborn are organisms.

    The fact that the organism dies once it\’s evicted is not the woman\’s problem.

    See the above response to know why this is false.

    Well, yeah, if the SCOTUS rules that people cannot decline to provide biological life support to other persons/organisms, then abortion would be illegal. And a lot of us would be out a kidney.

    If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be because SCOTUS finds that the unborn are persons or that the Constitution does not explicity grant the right to an abortion, in which case the only way kidney donation would be mandatory is if a state decided to make it mandatory. All the obfuscation aside, you are not very bright.

    You don\’t go to jail right now for refusing to donate a kidney because that\’s not the law right now. Obviously, if the SCOTUS changes the law, then the situation would be different, wouldn\’t it?

    Do you not remember what you wrote out? You just said that the difference between not giving and taking away was splitting hairs. Now you are acknowledging that there is, indeed, a difference, especially when you acknowledge the fact that one will almost always get you thrown in jail while the other will not (neglect aside)? You are contradicting yourself, PCF.

    Do you have anterograde amnesia or something? This is the second time I\’ve had to repeat myself. (Maybe if I automatically edit some of my old comments, I can make you go round and round in circles forever…)

    Ironically enough, I was just about to ask you about the amnesia thing, on account of the fact that you seem to forget the very things you typed out less a day before. Also, I am more than willing to keep this up. It is quite amusing to see you contradict yourself left and right.

  • kevin-rahe

    On what moral grounds could a woman object to abortion that she thinks might not apply to someone else?

    Well… religion for one. See, some people think their beliefs apply to everybody and everybody should believe they way they believe. On the other hand, some people realize that their religious beliefs certainly aren’t everybody’s and they don’t expect everybody else to kowtow.

     

    Unless it’s a purely personal, customized faith, one’s religion is certainly going to apply to others, and represents much more of a universal than a personal morality.  What it really boils down to, though, is not whether one thinks their morals are universal or not, but how one goes about making a moral decision.  Few people actually do something that’s wrong just because they prefer to do evil.  Everyone who does something some might consider wrong – even aborting a baby – believes that while they may be doing something evil, they’re doing it to achieve a greater good.  The problem is that the weight of the good and evil effects that someone expects from a decision can be wrong, either through dishonesty or ignorance.

     

    The objective of pro-abortion forces is to maintain this dishonesty or ignorance, so the true weight of the good and evil effects won’t be known.  One way they do this is by fighting efforts to ensure that women considering abortion know all the facts about what they’re doing (e.g. by viewing ultrasound).  Another is to use justifications based on extreme circumstances to excuse actions that occur in circumstances far different than those on which the justification is based (e.g. abortion should be legal because those pregnant by rape or incest shouldn’t be forced to bear their attacker’s baby).  An analogy is that you ought to be permitted to shoot a man because if he were to point a gun at you if you surprised him while he was burglarizing your house, you’d be justified in shooting him.

  • arekushieru

    Of COURSE your two situations are different and you wouldn’t recognize it.  Since you conVENiently forgot, again, about the infringement upon someone’s rights that has to occur beFORE someone can use what amounts to lethal force.  What rights is the child infringing upon that would require his/her death, in your first scenario?  That’s right, NONE.  After all, you are saying that she should be able to kill (ACTually kill) the child only because she doesn’t want to give the child up (which would actually mean that she SHOULDn’t be killing the child) NOT because she has too many mouths to feed.  And that is what YOU are saying, not I or PCF.  What rights is a fetus infringing upon?  You guessed it.  The right to consent to usage of one’s organs and when and how they are used, via ongoing, explicit and informed consent.  (This IS why we are saying a woman can choose to terminate a pregnancy.)  If there is NO such right as the right to consent to usage, then why do we have donor cards that need to be filled out before one can donate, even posthumously or WHY do doctors need to ask family members for permission to donate organs before being able to do so?  Oh, that’s right, because there IS such a thing as right to bodily autonomy.  Gee, who woulda thunk that ProChoicers would be correct, once again, eh…?  Whose rationale is deeply flawed?  Gee, I think their name starts with B and ends with 4, and does NOT begin with P and end with T.

     

    I think you really need to re-read what you are saying, Born.  YOU are the one who said that those women of impoverished minorities are the majority of the women who seek abortions.  If the majority of them are ProLife, THEY are the ones who are dismissing the real-world needs of the underprivileged and reproductive aged females.  And that is another argument YOU made.  Keep on making our arguments for us, Born.  Thanks! 

     

    You are the one who is throwing out their own claim.  YOU are the one who is comparing something other than what we stated to the dismissal of one’s views, in order to make a false claim that we ARE dismissing them.  PCF was talking about real-world views, and then you go on to say they are the same as someone’s Anti-Choice or Pro-Choice views SIMPLY because you were talking about them beFORE…?  Do you not know a segue when you see one…? 

     

    You cannot care about women unless you agree that they have full autonomy over their bodies, yes.  What IS so hard to understand about that?  The fact that a fetus dies upon separation from the uterus, is NOT due to malevolent, hateful women that forced their bodies to develop a uterus and its function within itself.   The fetus dies due to incompatibility with life upon separation.  Making it a woman’s responsibility for this IS blaming and punishing her for the creation of the uterus and its function within it.

     

    A fetus IS human, it is not ‘A’ human.  Will you finally get it through your thick skull, now?  NO one has said it ISn’t human, after all….  Derrrr….

     

    As SOON as one infringes on another’s rights (AS I mentioned before), the former’s rights stop in diRECT proportion to the rights they are infringing upon.  As SOON as a fetus infringes on a woman’s rights, the fetuses’ right to life AND right to bodily autonomy stop in diRECT proportion to the rights they are infringing upon.  An organ recipient STILL has the right to life and right to bodily autonomy.  They do NOT have the right to bodily autonomy or right to life at the expense of a potential organ donor’s right to bodily autonomy.  SO sorry.

     

    Of course, Born fails to understand, again.  It is a double murder because it was done AGAINST the woman’s autonomy.  It is a double murder because it was done with malice and aforethought.  It is a double murder because quite often the intent and focus is to kill the fetus, and, at that stage, it is usually quite visible.  However, almost all ProChoicers agree that it SHOULDn’t be considered double murder.  That gives more importance to a pregnant woman.  Pregnant women ARE more vulnerable to injury when attacked and, thus, should have more protection, under, perhaps an aggravated assault case, but that’s it.

     

    They aren’t organisms.  Do look up the term, Born.  I did.  It agrees with me.  They aren’t separate.  If they were they would be able to live on their own.  They can’t.  So, we are correct.  Perhaps PCF was just trying to illustrate a point that you just completely missed once again…?

     

    If the unborn are considered persons, and granted an inalienable right to life, they WILL be granted more rights than any BORN person.  If a state decided to make organ donation mandatory, after Roe V Wade was overturned for whatever reason, then they would be applying the Constitution EQually.  Unfortunately, for you and your ilk, you advocate for sexism, misogyny, hypocrisy and unconstitutionality.   Unsurprising, though.

     

    She is not saying that it is now more than just splitting hairs, OF course.  She is simply saying that making organ donation mandatory and abortion illegal, at the SAME time, would mean that the lawmakers still aren’t splitting hairs, either.  Putting women in the position of responsibility for someone dieing simply because of the way their bodies were MADE, while saying no one else has that responsibility because their bodies WEREN’T made that way.  Thanks.

     

    As I pointed out, you are the one who is contradicting yourself. 

  • arekushieru

    No, you Pro”lifers” prefer to uphold the dishonest and ignorant view that women are stupid.  Women already KNOW what they are aborting.  What else would an ultrasound tell a woman other than that?  Gee, I knew it wasn’t about informed consent.  It was just about ASSumptions, after all….

     

    Btw, you are advocating for rape by medical instrument, on TOP of the generally accepted idea of rape and the nine-month rape ProLifers, such as yourself, would like to force on women.  Hmm, I’ve heard all the justifications to allow that to happen, exCEPT the real truth.  That you think women are subhuman, stupid and non-persons. 

     

    <<An analogy is that you ought to be permitted to shoot a man because if he were to point a gun at you if you surprised him while he was burglarizing your house, you’d be justified in shooting him.>>

     

    Actually, you are.

     

     

  • bornin1984

    Of COURSE your two situations are different and you wouldn\’t recognize it. Since you conVENiently forgot, again, about the infringement upon someone\’s rights that has to occur beFORE someone can use what amounts to lethal force. What rights is the child infringing upon that would require his/her death, in your first scenario? That\’s right, NONE. After all, you are saying that she should be able to kill (ACTually kill) the child only because she doesn\’t want to give the child up (which would actually mean that she SHOULDn\’t be killing the child) NOT because she has too many mouths to feed. And that is what YOU are saying, not I or PCF. What rights is a fetus infringing upon? You guessed it. The right to consent to usage of one\’s organs and when and how they are used, via ongoing, explicit and informed consent. (This IS why we are saying a woman can choose to terminate a pregnancy.) If there is NO such right as the right to consent to usage, then why do we have donor cards that need to be filled out before one can donate, even posthumously or WHY do doctors need to ask family members for permission to donate organs before being able to do so? Oh, that\’s right, because there IS such a thing as right to bodily autonomy. Gee, who woulda thunk that ProChoicers would be correct, once again, eh…? Whose rationale is deeply flawed? Gee, I think their name starts with B and ends with 4, and does NOT begin with P and end with T.

    PCF says that she is pro-choice because she cares what is happening in the mind, heart and life of the women when she comes to the point of needing an abortion. I ask her, then, if there is a woman who has five kids, yet can only feed four, and after much deliberation decides to kill the fourth instead of giving it to someone else, should she be allowed to do so? You then show up and start arguing something ongoing, explicit, informed consent, eventually arguing that the woman should not be able to kill her fourth child. But this begs the question as to why not? Do you only care what is going on in the mind, heart and life of the woman when it comes to abortion and not anything else? Picking and choosing when you care about her life circumstances when it comes to giving or withholding help is, well, hypocritical (according to your rationale, anyway). Do you care so little about women that you would only care about what is happening in their lives only when it comes to abortion? If caring about the thoughts and feelings of the woman is the ultimate standard when it comes to arguing whether or not a woman should be allowed to engage in an action, then under what basis could you argue that the woman in my aforementioned example should not be allowed to kill her youngest child? The answer, is that you cannot, which is why you did not even attempt to address the issue.

    And, for the record, in case you did not know, a sizable portion of women have abortions precisely because they state they cannot take care of their preexisting children.

    I think you really need to re-read what you are saying, Born. YOU are the one who said that those women of impoverished minorities are the majority of the women who seek abortions. If the majority of them are ProLife, THEY are the ones who are dismissing the real-world needs of the underprivileged and reproductive aged females. And that is another argument YOU made. Keep on making our arguments for us, Born. Thanks!

    You know, before you try to respond to someone, you might want to make sure that you are actually responding to what they said, which you tend to not do. Number one, the majority of women who seek abortions do not live in poverty, so it is a very good thing I did not say as much. Number two, white women obtain a greater percentage of abortions than any other group, though they obtain a fewer percentage of abortions relative to their demographic composition. Number three, as I pointed out to PCF, the better off you are, the more likely you are to support abortion. Anyway, since you apparently had trouble understanding what I wrote out, I will restate it. If PCF gives credence to the arguments of those who are more likely to be affected by a ban on abortions, she should give more credence to the arguments of Blacks and Hispanics, as a whole, as they are the most likely to be negatively affected by bans on abortion if they were to be made illegal. Of course, Blacks and Hispanics are the least approving of abortion in the U.S. when compared to any other racial demographic, so PCF will not do that, instead giving credence to the privileged and post-menopausal pro-choicers– who would not be negatively affected by bans on abortion– because, according to her, they are more lock-step in tune with the women who would more than likely be negatively affected by bans on abortion, even though those women themselves tend to take a negative view towards of abortion. Make sense to you? It should not, because it does not.

    At any rate, thank you, and please do try again.

    You are the one who is throwing out their own claim. YOU are the one who is comparing something other than what we stated to the dismissal of one\’s views, in order to make a false claim that we ARE dismissing them. PCF was talking about real-world views, and then you go on to say they are the same as someone\’s Anti-Choice or Pro-Choice views SIMPLY because you were talking about them beFORE…? Do you not know a segue when you see one…?

    No, she was not. See my response above, though I am sure you will find some convoluted way of answering it.

    You cannot care about women unless you agree that they have full autonomy over their bodies, yes.

    Oh? And how did you come to this conclusion? I will save you the trouble and just tell you that you pulled it out of thin air.

    What IS so hard to understand about that?

    Because it is about as false as saying that you cannot care about minorities if you do not support affirmative action. But you probably do not understand that.

    The fact that a fetus dies upon separation from the uterus, is NOT due to malevolent, hateful women that forced their bodies to develop a uterus and its function within itself. The fetus dies due to incompatibility with life upon separation. Making it a woman\’s responsibility for this IS blaming and punishing her for the creation of the uterus and its function within it.

    Well, number one, you do realize that, barring rape, a woman does not just become pregnant, correct? It is ridiculous how you continue to assert that bans on abortion are equivalent to punishing women for having a uterus, while completely and totally ignoring the fact that bans on abortion prevent the woman from killing someone else who only exists because of her willful actions. The fact that you do not understand this is 100% why the pro-choice movement has no real future once the, as one pro-choicer put it, menopausal militia dies off. Instead of viewing abortion as it is, one party killing another, you would rather go on about controlling women and whatever, which makes about as much sense as arguing that laws against murder are all about controlling those who would commit murder otherwise.

    A fetus IS human, it is not \’A\’ human. Will you finally get it through your thick skull, now? NO one has said it ISn\’t human, after all…. Derrrr….

    You know, before you try to go derrrrr to someone, you might want to make sure you are not making yourself out to be a fool. Science defines what a human being is and, last I checked, science unequivocally states that the unborn are humans. So that leaves us with a precarious situation in which for you to assert that the unborn at any stage are not humans, then you have to be imposing an ideological definition on science. So, the question is, why are you imposing your personal beliefs on science, Are?

    As SOON as one infringes on another\’s rights (AS I mentioned before), the former\’s rights stop in diRECT proportion to the rights they are infringing upon. As SOON as a fetus infringes on a woman\’s rights, the fetuses\’ right to life AND right to bodily autonomy stop in diRECT proportion to the rights they are infringing upon. An organ recipient STILL has the right to life and right to bodily autonomy. They do NOT have the right to bodily autonomy or right to life at the expense of a potential organ donor\’s right to bodily autonomy. SO sorry.

    Okay. So we are back to square one, not only in which you do not understand the difference between not giving or doing for someone and taking away from someone, even though I have explained this to you time and time and time again, but also in which you still do not understand the fact that the liberty of one does not trump the life of another (a fact which is true everywhere under the law except in the case of abortion). Why do you continue to ignore this? Quite possibly because you have no real response to it.

    Of course, Born fails to understand, again. It is a double murder because it was done AGAINST the woman\’s autonomy. It is a double murder because it was done with malice and aforethought. It is a double murder because quite often the intent and focus is to kill the fetus, and, at that stage, it is usually quite visible. However, almost all ProChoicers agree that it SHOULDn\’t be considered double murder. That gives more importance to a pregnant woman. Pregnant women ARE more vulnerable to injury when attacked and, thus, should have more protection, under, perhaps an aggravated assault case, but that\’s it.

    False. It is a double murder because the laws treat the unborn as a seperate entity, which is why pro-choice groups oppose them. I say this a lot, but you really have no idea what you are talking about, for now you are arguing that it is not okay to kill the unborn so long as it is visible, which I am sure is an argument your fellow pro-choicers would wholeheartedly reject, as then you would be arguing the permissibility of abortion based on whether or not the unborn has reached some stage of development, instead of focusing all on the woman as you are prone to do.

    They aren\’t organisms. Do look up the term, Born. I did. It agrees with me. They aren\’t separate. If they were they would be able to live on their own. They can\’t. So, we are correct. Perhaps PCF was just trying to illustrate a point that you just completely missed once again…?

    Ignorance might be bliss, but it is not an excuse. Once again, these are taken from the Planned Parenthood glossary, so you cannot accuse one of being biased.

    Zygote: The single-celled organism that results from the joining of the egg and sperm.

    Embryo: The organism that develops from the pre-embryo and begins to share the woman’s blood supply about 16–18 days after fertilization (seven to eight days after implantation).

    Fetus: The organism that develops from the embryo at the end of about eight weeks of pregnancy (10 weeks since a woman’s last menstrual period) and receives nourishment through the placenta.

    Please tell me what dictionary you are using?

    If the unborn are considered persons, and granted an inalienable right to life, they WILL be granted more rights than any BORN person. If a state decided to make organ donation mandatory, after Roe V Wade was overturned for whatever reason, then they would be applying the Constitution EQually. Unfortunately, for you and your ilk, you advocate for sexism, misogyny, hypocrisy and unconstitutionality. Unsurprising, though.

    You know, I am pretty sure you have no Earthly idea what you are talking about. How on Earth does protecting the right to life of the unborn, which everyone else have, constitute granting the unborn more rights than any born person has? Please do not, as you usually do, go on about how the unborn will be granted more rights than the born because the born do not have the right to use the body of someone else, because I will point out to you as I have in the past that this is because the born are far less dependent on the body of their mothers than are the unborn, and that dependency is why someone who is five can demand of his or her parents more than is someone who is thirty. But you utterly ignored this the first time I explained this to you, so I do not have much hope this time.

    She is not saying that it is now more than just splitting hairs, OF course. She is simply saying that making organ donation mandatory and abortion illegal, at the SAME time, would mean that the lawmakers still aren\’t splitting hairs, either. Putting women in the position of responsibility for someone dieing simply because of the way their bodies were MADE, while saying no one else has that responsibility because their bodies WEREN\’T made that way. Thanks.

    I do not know how many times I have pointed this out to you, but there is a difference between demanding something, a positive right, and demanding to be left alone, a negative right. The fact that no matter how many times I point this out to you and the fact that no matter how many times I direct you to some link to read up on positive versus negative rights you refuse to do so really speaks volumes to your level of intellectual dishonesty. This is why you do not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone– because demanding a kidney would be a positive right, and that would require the consent of both parties– yet you will go to jail if you take a kidney away from someone– because you infringe upon their life.

    As I pointed out, you are the one who is contradicting yourself.

    That is irony to the infinite degree.

  • beenthere72

    TLDR, brokenrecordborn.   All your posts are becoming TLDR.    Yawn.

     

     

     

  • kevin-rahe

    Women already KNOW what they are aborting.

     

    Really?  Then why when I describe what they’re aborting do the pro-aborts argue so vehemently that it is something else?

     

    Btw, you are advocating for rape by medical instrument

     

    If those who are ostensibly horrified at the requirement that a vaginal ultrasound be used where it would provide a better image of the baby than the abdominal type could convince me that they wouldn’t express just as much opposition to a law that requires only the abdominal variety, perhaps I would take their concerns seriously.

  • prochoiceferret

    Of course, you will probably argue that the aforementioned situation and abortion are not the same thing (when fundamentally they are) but then you would be discounting what is happening in the mind, heart, and life of the woman in the aforementioned scenario which, funnily enough, is the same thing you lambaste pro-lifers for.

     

    If a woman cannot provide for all her children, she has many, many alternative options available that do not entail outright triage. If she really has to kill one so that the other four may live, then we are talking about a social system that is so utterly broken that this may be the least-worst option. Like a war zone.

     

    Equating an abortion to the murder of a born person, however, is just a restatement of the “abortion is murder!” chestnut. It is a subjective viewpoint, not an objective one (killing a zygote is as morally wrong as killing a 20-year-old? really?), and so the most that can be used to argue for is one’s personal decision not to abort.

     

    Plus, not allowing the woman in the aforementioned scenario do to her youngest child would mean that you want to control the woman instead of giving her the help she needs, even though your motive would– and this is a complete guess– probably be to prevent the child from being killed.

     

    I think she would ask for help with feeding her children long, long before she ever even has the slightest preconception of the possibility of killing any of them.

     

    At any rate, I will not hold it against you if you ignore the above as you are prone to doing. After all, it is much easier to ignore points than to admit your rationale is deeply flawed :)

     

    Why would I ignore another opportunity to prove to everyone here just how vapid and worthless your arguments are? (Unless I have something better to do, of course.)

     

    So now you are playing a game of moral relativism where an act is rationalized so long as the individual engaging in a specific act believes their actions are justified? A game which, mind you, you do not play elsewhere? Really? Well, just see my above response then.

     

    The fact that women own their bodies is the starting point. The fact that women who go in for abortions actually have good and thoughtful reasons for doing so, unlike the anti-choice “convenience” or “prom dress” caricatures, is a pretty strong hint that supporting a woman’s right to abortion is the morally correct position to take.

     

    Well, one, you do realize I know what patriarchy is, correct?

     

    Great! Please stop playing dumb, then.

     

    Two, you do realize that you did not answer my question? I really want to know how you link being against abortion to patriarchy, especially when you consider that historically abortion has been made legal at the request of males and illegal at the request of females

     

    Patriarchal males love the idea of women having abortions (or not) at the behest of men. They hate the idea of women having abortions (or not) at the behest of the self-same women.

     

    How, exactly, would your theory pan out if you lived in a country in which men viewed abortion more favorably than women? I really want to know.

     

    Would women in this country be having abortions of their own free will? Or is it common for e.g. philandering males to force their pregnant mistresses into the procedure, to avoid embarrassing bastard children?

     

    Before you tell someone to do some reading, well… Just do not. For your sake.

     

    Hey, look, a troll is threatening me! How very frightened I am not.

     

    It is funny how you make a claim, then turn around and throw out your own claim. And what is even funnier about the above discourse is that, generally speaking, the better off you are the more likely you are to support abortion. Of course, you do not care about that. In fact, you only care if someone holds the same views as you. Otherwise, you completely toss their views aside.

     

    God forbid minority females of reproductive age and meager means have a different take on things than other segments of their own minority.

     

    Yes, because you cannot care about women unless you somehow agree to allowing a woman to kill her unborn child. But why stop there? Why not just assert that you cannot truly care about women unless you allow women to do whatever the heck they want? It would make just about as much sense.

     

    Until you consider reality, of course. Then, allowing women control over their own bodies makes a heck of a lot of sense, and just anarchically letting them do whatever they want, doesn’t.

     

    Except– and here was the kicker– she did not ask you for anything. In fact, she does not even know you exist. You know she exists, however.

     

    I could be her neighbor, her friend, the kindly receptionist at the local women’s shelter. It doesn’t matter. She’ll ask for help from someone sympathetic, and things will grow from there.

     

    Of course, you should not oppose the man beating the woman, as it does not affect you any. In fact, it would affect you in the same way that a woman having an abortion in North Dakota would affect you. And since you constantly state that people should mind their own business and stop worrying about things which do not affect them, then you should apply your own logic to the man who wants to beat his gf/wife/SO in North Dakota. And to whatever happens to women in Haita, or Sudan or the Congo or anywhere else in the world.

     

    If these women have a problem, they will ask for help, and others will help them. If they don’t have a problem—hey, maybe they are just engaging in consensual BDSM activity—then there’s no problem.

     

    Are you saying that we should just step in and advocate for people, without them wanting it or having asked for it?

     

    You ignore all the hard questions. For example, I am still waiting for you to explain to me what a human looks like and how much one has to differ from the norm to not be a human. And then when you answer that, you can define for me what tissue is and what kind of tissue the unborn are. I think those are good places to start.

     

    Wait a second. So… that question, about why a zygote shouldn’t be considered a human being just by dint of appearance… that’s one of your heavy-hitters? That’s your Big Bertha gun? You don’t have, like… some amazing anti-choice elucidation that actually makes us think hiding in the wings?

     

    This, all the posts you’ve made so far… this is really the best you can do?

     

    Yes, in the same vein that I can attack someone and claim a right to not have that individual act against me. Yet again, I will state that you should take a civics class or something. Or, at the very least, actually use Google and read something other than, say, Wikipedia (which you reference a lot).

     

    Yes, a fetus being present in a woman’s body without her consent can certainly constitute an attack—the fetus can’t claim a right not to have the woman act against it.

     

    I think I have the gist of it! It’ll be useful for the occasional Libertarian anti-choicer. They pop up every so often.

     

    I point this out a lot, but for this argument to be true, then this would mean that women are persons until the sixth or so month of pregnancy, after which they become non-persons, another three months after which they become persons again. Of course, that is ridiculous, since I would be willing to bet that if you killed a pregnant woman seven months into pregnancy, you would be charged with murder (and quite possibly two). The next time that happens, though, someone should call you up and have you explain how the murdered pregnant woman was not really a person, since she was at the stage in which she was disallowed from evicting a separate organism inside of her.

     

    The legal status of “person” and the actual rights and benefits of personhood are not one in the same. Current law can prohibit late-term abortion, which in effect removes an important element of personhood (ownership of one’s own body) from women, without actually declaring them non-persons.

     

    Or, in other words: Current abortion law is far from ideal. But then, what else is new?

     

    And speaking of seperate organism, I believe you might want to get with Crowepps and Are, the former which somehow does not believe that the unborn is a seperate entity to the mother and the latter which does not believe that the unborn are organisms.

     

    I’m not contradicting them. I call it a separate organism for the same reason I sometimes refer to a fetus as a “person”—to show that the force of the pro-choice argument does not hinge on these distinctions.

     

    In reality, I agree with them that calling a zygote/embryo/fetus a “person” is idiotic, and the “separate organism” thing is a scientific-semantics thing that I don’t really care much about.

     

    See the above response to know why this is false.

     

    I guess the death of that person who needed a kidney really is your problem, then.

     

    If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be because SCOTUS finds that the unborn are persons or that the Constitution does not explicity grant the right to an abortion, in which case the only way kidney donation would be mandatory is if a state decided to make it mandatory. All the obfuscation aside, you are not very bright.

     

    OMG! Supreme Court jurisprudence is not 100% logically consistent! Stop the presses!

     

    Do you not remember what you wrote out? You just said that the difference between not giving and taking away was splitting hairs. Now you are acknowledging that there is, indeed, a difference, especially when you acknowledge the fact that one will almost always get you thrown in jail while the other will not (neglect aside)? You are contradicting yourself, PCF.

     

    Not at all. All you’ve pointed out is that the Supreme Court could release an opinion that makes abortion illegal and yet does not mandate living organ donation. Which is true. Court decisions do not need to be logically consistent to be binding. As Dred Scott found out the hard way.

     

    Logical inconsistencies, however, do tend to get straightened out over time. Which is why the pro-choice movement is ultimately going to win.

     

    Ironically enough, I was just about to ask you about the amnesia thing, on account of the fact that you seem to forget the very things you typed out less a day before. Also, I am more than willing to keep this up. It is quite amusing to see you contradict yourself left and right.

     

    Then it would be nice if you showed me where I’ve contradicted myself, instead of applying your own wishful misinterpretation.

  • prochoiceferret

    Really?  Then why when I describe what they’re aborting do the pro-aborts argue so vehemently that it is something else?

     

    Because when you describe it as “a precious innocent little human being baby-person,” you’re doing something a lot different than mere description.

     

    If those who are ostensibly horrified at the requirement that a vaginal ultrasound be used where it would provide a better image of the baby than the abdominal type could convince me that they wouldn’t express just as much opposition to a law that requires only the abdominal variety, perhaps I would take their concerns seriously.

     

    You already don’t take the concerns of rape victims seriously. Excuse us if we find attempting to convince you to show any sort of empathy for women an exercise in futility.

  • kevin-rahe

    Because when you describe it as “a precious innocent little human being baby-person,” you’re doing something a lot different than mere description.

     

    I’ve never used such language to describe an embryo/fetus to be aborted.  I’ve only referred to them in simple and biologically-relevant terms such as a complete, distinct, living, unconditionally viable and fully human being.

     

    You already don’t take the concerns of rape victims seriously.

     

    I don’t believe I’ve said anything that would suggest that.  And your circular reasoning doesn’t impress.

  • jayn

    unconditionally viable

     

    Uh, wha?  A fetus is by no means ‘unconditionally viable’ in the first half of a pregnancy.  It is only viable on the condition that it remains in the woman’s womb (and sometimes not even then).  You consistently gloss over the fact that a fetus is feeding off the woman it resides in.

  • colleen

    I don’t believe I’ve said anything that would suggest that.

    You would be wrong.

  • kevin-rahe

    A fetus is by no means ‘unconditionally viable’ in the first half of a pregnancy.  It is only viable on the condition that it remains in the woman’s womb

     

    The term “viable” as it is typically used when discussing abortion is a special use of the term that implies a condition, that being “outside the womb.”  I say “unconditionally” viable to make it clear that I’m using the simplest definition of viable, which is simply, “capable of living.”  This is the same sense of the term used by fertility specialists and embryonic stem cell researchers, who refer to “viable embryos” quite regularly.

     

    You consistently gloss over the fact that a fetus is feeding off the woman it resides in.

     

    The fetus doesn’t “feed off” the mother’s body.  Her body simply passes through some of the water, oxygen and nutrients that she takes in to the baby rather than using it all herself.  I have never denied this or the fact that the mother’s body provides a suitable environment to the embryo/fetus (even though the latter still has to battle its mother’s immune system in order to survive).  I have also emphasized that the mother provides nothing special to the embryo/fetus – it’s the same water, oxygen and nutrients that we continue to need after we’re born until the day we die.

  • kevin-rahe

    You would be wrong.

     

    You would need to provide an example.

     

    Keep in mind that ultrasound, even the transvaginal variety, can be a normal component of a medical abortion.

     

    http://www.prochoice.org/education/cme/online_cme/m4ultrasound.asp

  • arekushieru

    Born once again proves his intellectual dishonesty.  If I decide not to donate a kidney I KNOW someone (an ACTual human being at that) will die because of it.  They end up just AS dead as a fetus that was aborted, too.  Yet, SOMEhow, not providing a kidney is FAR different than removing life support from a fetus (which is not indisputably a human being), simply because one must be taken away while the other must be given.  He doesn’t realize that this PROVES our point about ProLifers not really being about life. 

     

    He also proves that he doesn’t know much about negative and positive rights.  “some party ‘A’ has a negative right to x against another party ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is prohibited from acting upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x; For example, if ‘A’ has a negative right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to refrain from killing ‘A’.  Under the theory of… negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group. A government, for example, usually in the form of abuse or coercion.”  Let’s see how far off you are, shall we?  An organ donor has a negative right to life against an organ recipient if and only if the organ recipient is prevented from acting upon the organ donor in some way regarding life.  Thus negative rights are the reSULTing right for the first group, from the second group being prohibited from performing some action, while you are saying that negative rights are something the second group simply does not have.  At LEAST get the subject you are talking about right, even if it does more to prove the other sides point, than your own….

     

    You can live with only one kidney.  So, OBviously not infringing on one’s right to life but right to bodily autonomy, AS I’ve been SAYing.  Derrr…..

  • bornin1984

    Born once again proves his intellectual dishonesty. If I decide not to donate a kidney I KNOW someone (an ACTual human being at that) will die because of it. They end up just AS dead as a fetus that was aborted, too. Yet, SOMEhow, not providing a kidney is FAR different than removing life support from a fetus (which is not indisputably a human being), simply because one must be taken away while the other must be given. He doesn\’t realize that this PROVES our point about ProLifers not really being about life.

    Ugh, no. The only thing it proves is that taking away from someone is not the same thing as giving to someone, as one is murder while the other is not, which is what I have said quite a few times now, only to have you and PCF argue that they are the same. Oddly enough, you now seem to be arguing that that to be against murder, or any action which involves one individual killing another, you also have to be for compulsory organ donation or universal healthcare or any other such positive right, or else you really do not care about life? You know, I will be quite candid and point out to you that said assertion is flatly moronic. There really is no other way to put it when you are dealing with someone who sees no difference between not wanting to provide for someone else and asserting that someone else should not be killed. Positive versus negative rights, speaking of which…

    He also proves that he doesn\’t know much about negative and positive rights. \”some party \’A\’ has a negative right to x against another party \’B\’ if and only if \’B\’ is prohibited from acting upon \’A\’ in some way regarding x; For example, if \’A\’ has a negative right to life against \’B\’, then \’B\’ is required to refrain from killing \’A\’. Under the theory of… negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group. A government, for example, usually in the form of abuse or coercion.\” Let\’s see how far off you are, shall we? An organ donor has a negative right to life against an organ recipient if and only if the organ recipient is prevented from acting upon the organ donor in some way regarding life. Thus negative rights are the reSULTing right for the first group, from the second group being prohibited from performing some action, while you are saying that negative rights are something the second group simply does not have. At LEAST get the subject you are talking about right, even if it does more to prove the other sides point, than your own….

    This really should come as a surprise to no one, but similar to how you do not know what an organism is (Funny how you did not bother responding to that), and similar to how you do not know what tissue is (Funny how you did not bother responding to that, either), you have no idea what you are talking about, not to mention your penchant for not reading what someone types out is unbridled. And the funniest thing is that you even quoted Wikipedia, and somehow still managed to not understand what you typed out (I will not point out how you ignored the part which totally backed up everything I have been typing out*). At any rate, this:

    I do not know how many times I have pointed this out to you, but there is a difference between demanding something, a positive right, and demanding to be left alone, a negative right.

    Plus this:

    If A has a negative right to life against B, then B is required to refrain from killing A (Funny how you completely ignored this*).

    Equals you, as per usual, just typing to type. No, really. That is precisely what I have been telling you, only to have you keep going on and on and on about how if someone is not given a kidney that they are being denied the right to life. At any rate, please tell me again how Party A refusing to donate a kidney to Party B violates the negative rights of Party B so I can point out to you that a negative right is a right to not be acted against, not to be done for. Go ahead. I know you want to.

    You can live with only one kidney. So, OBviously not infringing on one\’s right to life but right to bodily autonomy, AS I\’ve been SAYing. Derrr…..

    Ummm, yeah… I will just skip to the point, and tell you that you might want to work on your reading skills and start responding to things people actually type out.

    Is it not funny how everything proves your point and agrees with you, until you find out it does not?

  • bornin1984

    If a woman cannot provide for all her children, she has many, many alternative options available that do not entail outright triage. If she really has to kill one so that the other four may live, then we are talking about a social system that is so utterly broken that this may be the least-worst option. Like a war zone.

    So a system in which a woman who cannot provide for all her children and as a result is allowed to kill one of them is broken. Yet somehow abortion, which allows a woman to do the aforementioned, is exempt from such a rationale? Please explain to how that works, because it does not.

    Equating an abortion to the murder of a born person, however, is just a restatement of the \”abortion is murder!\” chestnut. It is a subjective viewpoint, not an objective one (killing a zygote is as morally wrong as killing a 20-year-old? really?), and so the most that can be used to argue for is one\’s personal decision not to abort.

    I asked you this question before, only to obtain no answer, so I will ask again. When has murder ever been a matter of personal opinion? The answer is never, which I am sure you realize, which is why you continuously ignore the question.

    I think she would ask for help with feeding her children long, long before she ever even has the slightest preconception of the possibility of killing any of them.

    And if she does not? Then what? That is why it is called a hypothetical. Following your logic, you would have to support her in her actions, as not doing so would not be caring about what is happening the mind, heart and life of said woman. No matter how much you try, there is no getting around this.

    Why would I ignore another opportunity to prove to everyone here just how vapid and worthless your arguments are? (Unless I have something better to do, of course.)

    Yes, you do a good job of proving how vapid and worthless my arguments are by contradicting yourself and throwing out parts of your own argument when it suits you to do so.

    The fact that women own their bodies is the starting point. The fact that women who go in for abortions actually have good and thoughtful reasons for doing so, unlike the anti-choice \”convenience\” or \”prom dress\” caricatures, is a pretty strong hint that supporting a woman\’s right to abortion is the morally correct position to take.

    So you basically did exactly what I said you would do, which is argue that an action is permissible so long as the one engaging in the action deems it permissible? In which case you still would have to support a woman who wants to kill her youngest child because she cannot feed him/her as, according to your logic, the woman owns her body and everything flows from that. What are the chances you throw out your own argument, though? Fairly high, I would say.

    Great! Please stop playing dumb, then.

    You should take your own advice except, I suppose, you are not playing.

    Patriarchal males love the idea of women having abortions (or not) at the behest of men. They hate the idea of women having abortions (or not) at the behest of the self-same women.

    Unless, of course, access to abortion is promoted precisely because it allows the patriarchy to escape fatherhood, whereas sans access to abortion they would be stuck with a child they did not want. It is rather ironic how you think you know so much yet know so little.

    Would women in this country be having abortions of their own free will? Or is it common for e.g. philandering males to force their pregnant mistresses into the procedure, to avoid embarrassing bastard children?

    As I have seen you say many times, people internalize oppression even if they do not realize it (Or does the whole internalizing oppression argument only get invoked as it relates to opposition to abortion?). Essentially, this means that women would not be having abortions of their own free will, but rather because it is what is expected of them by a patriarchal society. For example, working off the above stated assumption, if access to abortion is promoted as a means by which the patriarchy (or just men in general) can escape fatherhood, then the fact that women have abortions related to issues in which they do not want to be a single parent or do not feel they can not afford a child or some other such financial reason would mean she is conforming to and reinforcing the patriarchy. So yet again I ask, how would your argument work?

    Hey, look, a troll is threatening me! How very frightened I am not.

    No. Just pointing out that trying to tell someone to do some reading on something they already understand– something which you, yourself, do not understand– to be, well, pointless on your part, if not downright humorous. Speaking of which, as you blatantly ignored my question to you, I will restate it:

    I really want to know how you link being against abortion to patriarchy, especially when you consider that historically abortion has been made legal at the request of males and illegal at the request of females, and especially when you consider the fact that women who are anti-abortion are more extreme in their views than are men who are anti-abortion. How, exactly, would your theory pan out if you lived in a country in which men viewed abortion more favorably than women?

    Please do explain, PCF.

    God forbid minority females of reproductive age and meager means have a different take on things than other segments of their own minority.

    Oh? So now you have gone from speaking of disadvantaged women as a whole to speaking of disadvantaged women as individuals? That sure is convenient, as it allows you to completely disregard the views of those women who do not agree with you, even if those women inhabit the group you claim to give more credence to. I really could point this out to you all night, because it is quite humorous to see you backtrack further and further.

    Until you consider reality, of course. Then, allowing women control over their own bodies makes a heck of a lot of sense, and just anarchically letting them do whatever they want, doesn\’t.

    If you have total control over your body, you can do to and with it as you please, regardless of the effects if has on another. That leads to an anarchy (and not the utopian kind). It is funny how you mention reality, when you apparently live in a world where people have absolute control over their own bodies whereas, on Earth, this is untrue, as there are a plethora of laws limiting what one can do to and with their body due to the effects that letting one have free reign would cause on others.

    I could be her neighbor, her friend, the kindly receptionist at the local women\’s shelter. It doesn\’t matter. She\’ll ask for help from someone sympathetic, and things will grow from there.

    Except you are not. And you do not know the woman. And you will never know her. As a result, you should mind your own business, right? Instead of flailing about, you would be better off just admitting the fact that it would not matter whether or not you knew the woman personally, if you would have ever met the woman or if she asked for help or not. You would oppose the ability of a man to do to a woman as he pleased, even if him doing to said woman did not affect you personally. In which case, you now have your answer as to why the whole people should not get involved in things they do not have a personal stake in line is fundamentally flawed, and half-applied.

    If these women have a problem, they will ask for help, and others will help them. If they don\’t have a problem—hey, maybe they are just engaging in consensual BDSM activity—then there\’s no problem.

    Of course– and here is the flaw with your reasoning– it does not matter whether or not they ask for help or if they want help. I cannot do ill to someone, and simply because that individual does not complain about it, get away with it. Or are you saying it should be that way?

    Are you saying that we should just step in and advocate for people, without them wanting it or having asked for it?

    Is that not what is advocated around here?

    Wait a second. So… that question, about why a zygote shouldn\’t be considered a human being just by dint of appearance… that\’s one of your heavy-hitters? That\’s your Big Bertha gun? You don\’t have, like… some amazing anti-choice elucidation that actually makes us think hiding in the wings?

    This, all the posts you\’ve made so far… this is really the best you can do?
    Are you saying that we should just step in and advocate for people, without them wanting it or having asked for it?

    No. The question was how far someone had to differ from the norm physically to not be considered a human being. One would think that if the question was easy to answer, you would have answered it already. Funnily enough, though, you have expended about ten times as much effort avoiding the question as it would have taken to answer the question. When people do that, it is usually a tell-tell sign that they cannot answer the question posed to them

    And then there are still the questions as to what tissue is and what type of tissue the unborn are, since you believe they are tissue.

    Yes, a fetus being present in a woman\’s body without her consent can certainly constitute an attack—the fetus can\’t claim a right not to have the woman act against it.

    Barring rape, it is only there because of the actions of the woman. That is kind of a rather big deal which blows a huge hole in your argument (which was the point of my last point, which you conveniently tossed aside).

    I think I have the gist of it! It\’ll be useful for the occasional Libertarian anti-choicer. They pop up every so often.

    Go ahead and try it. You will soon be relegated to obfuscation as you usually are.

    The legal status of \”person\” and the actual rights and benefits of personhood are not one in the same. Current law can prohibit late-term abortion, which in effect removes an important element of personhood (ownership of one\’s own body) from women, without actually declaring them non-persons.

    I have noticed that you continually base your argument on some concept of self-ownership without realizing that there is no such thing. And what is even worse, is that you somehow ignore the fact that, even granting some kind of right of self-ownership, there is no right to own others, which is essentially what you are arguing in the case of abortion, as you take away the ability of another to goven their own life. But you do not understand this, so continue on with your regularly scheduled arguments.

    Or, in other words: Current abortion law is far from ideal. But then, what else is new?

    Yes, because it works contrary to every other law. For some odd reason or another, though, you somehow believe that the fact that abortion is held to a lower standard than everything to be wrong, and that it should be held to an even lower standard. That really does boggle the mind.

    I\’m not contradicting them. I call it a separate organism for the same reason I sometimes refer to a fetus as a \”person\”—to show that the force of the pro-choice argument does not hinge on these distinctions.

    It goes to show that you either do not understand your own argument, or you somehow do not really understand what it means to be a person under the law. Normally, that would be a bit of a false dichotomy, but in this case it is correct.

    In reality, I agree with them that calling a zygote/embryo/fetus a \”person\” is idiotic…

    And why is that? To claim it is idiotic, you have to be defining what it is to be a person, which to do you would have to imposing your own personal definition of personhood on the legal definition of personhood, which would make you an idealogue, which is more-or-less the accussation levied against pro-lifers.

    …and the \”separate organism\” thing is a scientific-semantics thing that I don\’t really care much about.

    Ah, yes. When you do not like science, pass it off as semantics.

    I guess the death of that person who needed a kidney really is your problem, then.

    OMG! Supreme Court jurisprudence is not 100% logically consistent! Stop the presses!

    It would only be logically inconsistent if you ignored the difference between positive and negative rights, as you consistently do. But then, you ignoring this difference would not make it logically inconsistent. It means you would simply be living under a veil of ignorance (and not the one John Rawls talked about).

    Not at all. All you\’ve pointed out is that the Supreme Court could release an opinion that makes abortion illegal and yet does not mandate living organ donation. Which is true. Court decisions do not need to be logically consistent to be binding. As Dred Scott found out the hard way.

    And yet, you are back to not understanding the differences between negative and positive rights. I suppose the fact that, when abortion was illegal, mandatory organ donation was very much illegal, simply means that the law was logically inconsistent and that everyone at the time was merely ignorant. And since SCOTUS never mentioned, nor has ever mentioned, mandatory organ donation in any of their abortion related cases, would mean that they are ignorant of this fact, too. Indeed, everyone is ignorant except you (And Are). It possibly could not be the fact that you have an understanding of rights and duties rivaling that of a first grader, which is why you continue to fail to see the difference between mandatory organ donation and preventing someone from killing another.

    I am beginning to think Truth was right about your choice in names.

    Logical inconsistencies, however, do tend to get straightened out over time. Which is why the pro-choice movement is ultimately going to win.

    Not that you really care about this, but do you know that ever since Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, SCOTUS has been slowly whittling away at Roe v. Wade, correct? Ehhh, probably not, though. Ignorance is, as they say, bliss.

    Then it would be nice if you showed me where I\’ve contradicted myself, instead of applying your own wishful misinterpretation.

    Let us start with something simple. The fact that you do not give the arguments of the very group you said you would give more credence to more credence than other groups even though they would be disproportionately affected by bans on abortion, as you would rather give more credence to privileged and post-menopausal pro-choice women, who would be less affected by bans on about e their views more closely match the views of the group you said you were going to give credence to but did not because they did not match your views.

  • jayn

    I say “unconditionally” viable to make it clear that I’m using the simplest definition of viable, which is simply, “capable of living.”

     

    You and i clearly have different interpretations of the term ‘unconditionally’.

     

    The fetus doesn’t “feed off” the mother’s body.  Her body simply passes through some of the water, oxygen and nutrients that she takes in to the baby rather than using it all herself.

     

    You say potato, I say potahto.  Regardless of if you use active or passive language, the fetus gets it’s food from the mother’s body.  And you’ve consistently used language that ignores this fact when convenient–you haven’t denied it, exactly, but you have implied it.

  • kevin-rahe

    You and i clearly have different interpretations of the term ‘unconditionally’.

     

    No, we don’t.  It’s just that you’re using it to describe the viability of the fetus/baby, and I’m using it to identify the form of the term “viable” that I’m using, as I described.  We’re both right in our respective use of the word, but since your meaning is the one assumed in this context by simply saying that a fetus is “viable” or not, then it’s me who has to take the extra step of clarification, which is what I did.

     

    you’ve consistently used language that ignores this fact when convenient

     

    I would only do so to counter statements that imply falsehoods about the relationship between a mother and her unborn baby, in an attempt to emphasize the biologically correct view.  I have no reason to hide anything that is true.

  • rogueokie

    I saw those numbers too and they were a surprise. 

    It is true though,  Americans as a whole very evenly divided  when it comes to opinions on abortion, there is nothing that stands out in regards to gender OR religion. There are just as many Christians supporting reproductive rights for women as are in support of forced-birth policies.

    Well, with one notable exception, Jewish people tend to be overwhelmingly pro-choice.  Why?  I ask my Jewish friend, is this true in your experience?  Yes, she says.  In Jewish culture, a child does not become fully human until he or she has been living and breathing independently for a week.  That is what the bris is all about! This is the day the child is welcomed into the tribe, and the human race.

    Just thought that was fascinating.  Way to go for the pragmatics. 

     

     

  • rogueokie

    BORN

     

     

    No it is not tissue. It is a person, O.K, I’ll go with that assertion.  That means we are talking about a relationship between two humans, the potential mother, and the potential child.  I’m not a biologist, and so I don’t have anything to add to that discussion.  I do have a sense of what is fair, and I know a double standard when I see one.  Looking at the fetus as a human brings much more relevant questions to bear than simply, is it alive?  Because you can go round on that question for life and never get anywhere.  As my Christian friend would say, “it is a faith issue”.

     

    What human has the right to use and in the process permanently alter, another’s body and mind either in part or in whole, without that person’s continued consent?  In other words, does anyone have a claim to any part of your body or mind that can be considered more important than your own?

     

    On the back of my driver’s license there is a little box (checked) that says I am an organ donor.  It is ok to use my organs to help the ill, the disabled or to save someone else’s life.  I had to consent to that, and I can revoke it at any time.  Because that is what autonomy is all about, control of my body.  The law assumes that we have that autonomy, not by the presence of a driver’s license, but by directly asking what we want done with the body at our death.  If that box has not been checked, your organs cannot be used, even if that means a child dies.

     

    It is important to note that the law does not so easily assume the same autonomy with regard to a woman’s uterus, or we would not be having this discussion.  That in itself is a slice of patriarchal thought to ponder.

     

    By your logic; if you drive, you must be morally consenting to organ donation, because no matter how you may try to prevent it you may die in a car accident and you get into the car knowing that.  Of course you are excused if you were forced into the car by someone else, but otherwise, failure to donate your organs is potentially, murder.  (Potential is relevant as a fetus, no matter how human, is yet a potential human with many obstacles to overcome)  If you do not consent to the use of your organs someone could die.  That person, just like anyone else, has a “right to life”, or to be more accurate, the right to fight for life. 

     

    Now keep in mind that in terms of the uterus, we are talking about an organ still in use by a living person. Logically, you could extend this idea to the living organs of post-born people.  If someone needed your kidney and you still have a healthy pair, so that taking one would not endanger your life, you could be sued for it because what I hear you saying; is that organs are public property and belong under public control?

     

    Think carefully there because, Born, we all have a “right to life”.   

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    So a system in which a woman who cannot provide for all her children and as a result is allowed to kill one of them is broken. Yet somehow abortion, which allows a woman to do the aforementioned, is exempt from such a rationale? Please explain to how that works, because it does not.

     

    Indeed, if you erroneously equate terminating a pregnancy to murdering a born individual. If you’re going to put a fresh coat of paint on your “abortion is murder!” argument, at least give it some time to dry!

     

    I asked you this question before, only to obtain no answer, so I will ask again. When has murder ever been a matter of personal opinion? The answer is never, which I am sure you realize, which is why you continuously ignore the question.

     

    The answer is “never” if we are talking about born individuals. Again, killing a zygote equals murder? Good luck with that argument.

     

    And if she does not [ask for help with feeding her kids]? Then what?

     

    If her first impulse is to kill her (born) children, then, well, that’s why we have psychiatric commitment.

     

    Yes, you do a good job of proving how vapid and worthless my arguments are by contradicting yourself and throwing out parts of your own argument when it suits you to do so.

     

    Elaborating an argument is not the same as self-contradiction, nor throwing out parts of it, genious. Though I’m sure you’ll continue looking for little inconsistencies, as in whose opinions I give weight to. God forbid the anti-choice argument win on the strength of its own merits rather than a dialectic technicality.

     

    So you basically did exactly what I said you would do, which is argue that an action is permissible so long as the one engaging in the action deems it permissible? In which case you still would have to support a woman who wants to kill her youngest child because she cannot feed him/her as, according to your logic, the woman owns her body and everything flows from that. What are the chances you throw out your own argument, though? Fairly high, I would say.

     

    How does killing her youngest (born) child flow from her owning her own body? The child is not connected to her body in any way. If the woman does not want the child, she can give it up to foster care.

     

    Do you really have no better response to my arguments than wild misreading and exaggeration? I can just see your argument against the death penalty: “What’s to stop the state from just arresting and killing any person it wants?? Helloo, Stalin regime!”

     

    Unless, of course, access to abortion is promoted precisely because it allows the patriarchy to escape fatherhood, whereas sans access to abortion they would be stuck with a child they did not want.

     

    What males think of abortion is immaterial except to the extent that it unduly impinges on the decision of women whether or not to have one. If those men love love love abortion, but they’re not pressuring women to have them (or not have them), then there’s no problem.

     

    As I have seen you say many times, people internalize oppression even if they do not realize it (Or does the whole internalizing oppression argument only get invoked as it relates to opposition to abortion?). Essentially, this means that women would not be having abortions of their own free will, but rather because it is what is expected of them by a patriarchal society. For example, working off the above stated assumption, if access to abortion is promoted as a means by which the patriarchy (or just men in general) can escape fatherhood, then the fact that women have abortions related to issues in which they do not want to be a single parent or do not feel they can not afford a child or some other such financial reason would mean she is conforming to and reinforcing the patriarchy. So yet again I ask, how would your argument work?

     

    Sure, there are issues of how freely women can make decisions when there is an oppressive social script that they are expected to conform to. This is the basis of why radical feminists make seeming outre points such as, “All sex is rape.”

     

    However, you are making the point about how women may not necessarily have full agency in a given social context, to argue in favor of fully depriving them of agency (by prohibiting abortion). I suppose your solution to the whole stay-at-home versus working mother dilemma is to just make that decision for everyone, too.

     

    I really want to know how you link being against abortion to patriarchy, especially when you consider that historically abortion has been made legal at the request of males and illegal at the request of females, and especially when you consider the fact that women who are anti-abortion are more extreme in their views than are men who are anti-abortion. How, exactly, would your theory pan out if you lived in a country in which men viewed abortion more favorably than women?

    Please do explain, PCF.

     

    You’re asking me how denying women control over their own bodies and reproductive processes is linked to patriarchy?

     

    I suppose next you’re going to ask me what abortion has to do with womens’ health.

     

    Oh? So now you have gone from speaking of disadvantaged women as a whole to speaking of disadvantaged women as individuals? That sure is convenient, as it allows you to completely disregard the views of those women who do not agree with you, even if those women inhabit the group you claim to give more credence to. I really could point this out to you all night, because it is quite humorous to see you backtrack further and further.

     

    What backtracking? It’s not my problem that you are incapable of considering young women of reproductive age and meager means as a group. I’m guessing “marketing demographer” wouldn’t be a good career for you.

     

    If you have total control over your body, you can do to and with it as you please, regardless of the effects if has on another. That leads to an anarchy (and not the utopian kind). It is funny how you mention reality, when you apparently live in a world where people have absolute control over their own bodies whereas, on Earth, this is untrue, as there are a plethora of laws limiting what one can do to and with their body due to the effects that letting one have free reign would cause on others.

     

    Oh, you are under the misconception that “having control over your body” means “you can do anything you want with your body, including going all stab-stab-stabby on other people around you.” It does not. It does, however, mean that you cannot be required to donate an organ/tissue, be given a vaccination, or ingest something against your will, among other things.

     

    And now you know!

     

    Except you are not. And you do not know the woman. And you will never know her. As a result, you should mind your own business, right? Instead of flailing about, you would be better off just admitting the fact that it would not matter whether or not you knew the woman personally, if you would have ever met the woman or if she asked for help or not. You would oppose the ability of a man to do to a woman as he pleased, even if him doing to said woman did not affect you personally. In which case, you now have your answer as to why the whole people should not get involved in things they do not have a personal stake in line is fundamentally flawed, and half-applied.

     

    If she’s not asking for help from anyone, in some manner, then no, people should mind their business. Again, lots of couples enjoy consensual BDSM play, and it would be silly for us to stick our noses into their business to offer unwanted “help.”

     

    Of course– and here is the flaw with your reasoning– it does not matter whether or not they ask for help or if they want help. I cannot do ill to someone, and simply because that individual does not complain about it, get away with it. Or are you saying it should be that way?

     

    If a person doesn’t complain, there may be psychological trauma that needs to be sorted out, and this would justify an investigation. But if the person, clear-mindedly and free of duress, states that they are okay with this arrangement… then that’s their decision.

     

    OMG, respecting a person’s freely-made choice… what a radical notion!

     

    Is that not what is advocated around here [advocating for people, without them wanting it or having asked for it]?

     

    Progressive advocates fell into this trap frequently in the past, although the calling-out of the inherent colonialism of this approach has reduced its incidence.

     

    People have to ask for help, and the help that is given has to be what they ask for. Otherwise, you’re not helping them so much as making them pawns of your own agenda. (See: women in Iraq, circa 2003)

     

    No. The question was how far someone had to differ from the norm physically to not be considered a human being. One would think that if the question was easy to answer, you would have answered it already. Funnily enough, though, you have expended about ten times as much effort avoiding the question as it would have taken to answer the question. When people do that, it is usually a tell-tell sign that they cannot answer the question posed to them

     

    I leave the question open because of its utterly ridiculous nature.

     

    You have to keep in mind, BornIn1984, I’m not arguing your points to try to convince you. That would be beyond pointless. Rather, I’m arguing them so that everyone else reading this forum can see why your arguments are bunk, and maybe even learn a new pro-choice point or two.

     

    In other words, you are helping to make the pro-choice movement stronger. I’m sure you’ll walk away from this thinking you have the stronger argument because you haven’t changed your mind—and really, nothing I say will prevent that—but other folks here, not least those on the fence, will see why you’ve got nothing.

     

    Keep asking that question, please!

     

    And then there are still the questions as to what tissue is and what type of tissue the unborn are, since you believe they are tissue.

     

    You and I are tissue. You and I are cells. Lots of different kinds of tissues and cells. Too bad you don’t have more of the “brain” variety.

     

    Barring rape, it is only there because of the actions of the woman. That is kind of a rather big deal which blows a huge hole in your argument (which was the point of my last point, which you conveniently tossed aside).

     

    What does that have to do with anything? Are you seriously going to suggest that the supposed rights of the fetus are contingent on the prior acts of another person? That the fetus’s “inalienable right to life” depends on whether or not its father is a criminal? How does that argument work?

     

    Go ahead and try it. You will soon be relegated to obfuscation as you usually are.

     

    Yes, I’m certainly resigned to getting it from you. Perhaps the Libertarian anti-choicers can make their points more cogently.

     

    I have noticed that you continually base your argument on some concept of self-ownership without realizing that there is no such thing.

     

    I guess people can be forcibly given vaccinations, and made to donate organs against their will, then. Woohoo, we’re living in a dystopia already!

     

    And what is even worse, is that you somehow ignore the fact that, even granting some kind of right of self-ownership, there is no right to own others, which is essentially what you are arguing in the case of abortion, as you take away the ability of another to goven their own life. But you do not understand this, so continue on with your regularly scheduled arguments.

     

    Refusing someone the use of your own body is “essentially” owning them? That’s a rather strange definition of ownership you have there.

     

    Although if you define ownership as “taking away the ability of another to govern their own life,” you’re basically saying that the fetus owns the woman surrounding it. I thought you felt slavery was a bad thing!

     

    Yes, because it works contrary to every other law. For some odd reason or another, though, you somehow believe that the fact that abortion is held to a lower standard than everything to be wrong, and that it should be held to an even lower standard. That really does boggle the mind.

     

    I don’t consider “makes self-righteous people feel good about themselves” to be a particularly good standard. “Responsive to and respectful of the needs of women” sounds a lot better to me.

     

    It goes to show that you either do not understand your own argument, or you somehow do not really understand what it means to be a person under the law. Normally, that would be a bit of a false dichotomy, but in this case it is correct.

     

    If the fetus were a born person that had somehow crawled up into a woman’s uterus, hooked into her circulatory system, and now depended on her for his/her life, none of the arguments, nor her rights, would be any different.

     

    And why is that? To claim it is idiotic, you have to be defining what it is to be a person, which to do you would have to imposing your own personal definition of personhood on the legal definition of personhood, which would make you an idealogue, which is more-or-less the accussation levied against pro-lifers.

     

    Yes, I’m an ideologue for not granting a single-celled organism the same rights and considerations as a born person.

     

    Please keep making this argument, however. The more disconnected from reality anti-choicers seem, the better for us.

     

    Ah, yes. When you do not like science, pass it off as semantics.

     

    Yes, science gives clear-cut answers to all these kinds of questions, like whether viruses are alive or not.

     

    It would only be logically inconsistent if you ignored the difference between positive and negative rights, as you consistently do. But then, you ignoring this difference would not make it logically inconsistent. It means you would simply be living under a veil of ignorance (and not the one John Rawls talked about).


    Do you have an actual argument to make using +/- rights, or are you just going to keep referring to them and my supposed ignorance of them as a cheap substitute for one?

     

    And yet, you are back to not understanding the differences between negative and positive rights. I suppose the fact that, when abortion was illegal, mandatory organ donation was very much illegal, simply means that the law was logically inconsistent and that everyone at the time was merely ignorant.

     

    People sure were pretty ignorant when Dred Scott was decided, wouldn’t you say?

     

    And since SCOTUS never mentioned, nor has ever mentioned, mandatory organ donation in any of their abortion related cases, would mean that they are ignorant of this fact, too. Indeed, everyone is ignorant except you (And Are). It possibly could not be the fact that you have an understanding of rights and duties rivaling that of a first grader, which is why you continue to fail to see the difference between mandatory organ donation and preventing someone from killing another.

     

    Oh, I do see the difference between those. I don’t see so much of one between mandatory organ donation, and being forced to provide biological life support to another organism/person against one’s will.

     

    I am beginning to think Truth was right about your choice in names.

     

    Well, I certainly wouldn’t be ProChoiceGuineaPig, would I?

     

    Not that you really care about this, but do you know that ever since Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, SCOTUS has been slowly whittling away at Roe v. Wade, correct? Ehhh, probably not, though. Ignorance is, as they say, bliss.

     

    They say politics is cyclical, like a pendulum. Which reminds me of that scene from The Simpsons Movie with Homer and the wrecking ball

     

    Let us start with something simple. The fact that you do not give the arguments of the very group you said you would give more credence to more credence than other groups even though they would be disproportionately affected by bans on abortion, as you would rather give more credence to privileged and post-menopausal pro-choice women, who would be less affected by bans on about e their views more closely match the views of the group you said you were going to give credence to but did not because they did not match your views.

     

    That’s all you got? Seriously, why do you even bother?

     

    The credibility of an argument is not a function of the privilege (or lack thereof) of the person making it. Anyone can make a uncredible argument. Credibility comes from having a position that is in line with the reality of the subject in question. If you are privileged, you could just as well educate yourself on the subject, or be sheltered from it completely. If you are unprivileged, you are less sheltered from the subject, yet that still doesn’t preclude ignorance. If you are directly and inescapably affected by it, however, it’s a lot less likely that your argument is going to amount to useless posturing, because you’re going to know the reality and it’s your ass that’s on the line.

     

    The reality of abortion in the U.S. is that women go in for them when it is beneficial to their lives and the lives of those around them not to give birth to a child. Half the arguments against abortion boil down to saying that some other person who is not the woman has a better idea of what is best for her and those around her than the woman herself. The other half boil down to saying that the woman’s body does not belong to her. Both fail utterly at persuading anyone who genuinely cares about women as the human beings they are.

  • bornin1984

    Indeed, if you erroneously equate terminating a pregnancy to murdering a born individual. If you\\\’re going to put a fresh coat of paint on your \\\”abortion is murder!\\\” argument, at least give it some time to dry!

    Uh-huh…

    You: A social system in which a woman has to kill one of her children so that the other four may live is utterly broken.
    Me: If this is the case, then explain to me how abortion, as a social system, is not broken because it allows a woman to do just that.
    You: But abortion is different because it an an unborn child versus a born child!
    Me: And why does that make it different?
    You: Because it does!
    Me: And why does it?
    You: Because it does!
    Me: And why does it?
    You: Because it does!
    Me: And why does it?
    You: Because…

    And so on and so forth. You see, in order to prove your point, you have already implicitly assumed that there is a difference between a woman killing her born child to feed her other four children and a woman killing her unborn child to feed her other four children. Of course, when asked what the difference is, you just turn around and repeat that one is born and one is unborn, and that it is what it is, which is a classic case of begging the question. But I have pointed this out to you before, and you still do it. Like I have said many times before, you are not very smart.

    The answer is \\\”never\\\” if we are talking about born individuals. Again, killing a zygote equals murder? Good luck with that argument.

    The existence of fetal homicide laws render your born vs. unborn distinction false. So yet again I ask you, when has murder been a matter of personal opinion? It either is or is not. Murder is not murder so long as the one doing it does not think it is.

    If her first impulse is to kill her (born) children, then, well, that\\\’s why we have psychiatric commitment.

    And the above does not relate to a woman who wants to kill her unborn child because…? It is funny how you continue to predicate all of your arguments on an assumption which just so happens to also be your conclusion.

    Elaborating an argument is not the same as self-contradiction, nor throwing out parts of it, genious. Though I\\\’m sure you\\\’ll continue looking for little inconsistencies, as in whose opinions I give weight to. God forbid the anti-choice argument win on the strength of its own merits rather than a dialectic technicality.

    When I say throwing out parts of your own argument you do not like, I mean throwing out parts of your own arguments you do not like. You have a knack for making all kinds of claims, and when someone applies those claims unilaterally, you turn around and cry foul. For example:

    How does killing her youngest (born) child flow from her owning her own body? The child is not connected to her body in any way. If the woman does not want the child, she can give it up to foster care.

    Pack up your bags and go home, for you just lost.

    If someone owns their body, then any action that individual engages in stems from the fact that they own their body. Simplified, a woman who kills her child does so precisely because she has the ability to do so via the fact that she owns her body and can act according to her own will. To turn around, then, and prevent that women from acting according to her will, to deny her the ability to engage in an action bestowed upon her via the fact that she owns her body, is to deny some facet of self-ownership.

    Of course, that is just ridiculous, as I have pointed out before, because there is no such thing as the right to act according to your own will, much less a right to self-ownership as it relates to owning your own body. As I am tired of trying to explain this to you, just read the following:

    Full self-ownership is often held to have implications that it in fact does not have. It is sometimes held to entail, for example, that one owns one’s entire body. This does not follow automatically since it depends on whether the self-owning being is identical with his/her body. If the being in question is a mental being that need not occupy a body to exist (e.g., a Cartesian soul), then self-ownership alone does not guarantee ownership of the body.

    Full-self ownership is sometimes thought to guarantee that the agent has a certain basic liberty of action, but this is not so. For if the rest of the world (natural resources and artifacts) is fully (“maximally”) owned by others, one is not permitted to do anything without their consent (since it involves the use of their property). The protection that self-ownership affords is a basic protection against others doing certain things to one, and not a guarantee of liberty. But even this protection may be merely formal. For a plausible thesis of self-ownership must allow that some rights (e.g., those that imprisonment violates) may be lost as a result of past injustices committed by an agent. Hence, if the rest of world is owned by others, then anything one does without their consent violates their property rights, and as a result of such violations one may lose some or all of one’s rights of self-ownership. This point shows that, because agents must use natural resources (occupy space, breathe air, etc.), self-ownership on its own has no substantive implications. It is only when combined with assumptions about how the rest of the world is owned (and the consequences of violating those property rights) that substantive implications follow.

    It is often supposed that full self-ownership gives one property rights in ones’ products, but this is so only if the products are part of oneself (e.g., an improvement in one’s ability to do mental arithmetic). For any products that involve natural resources involve materials that may belong to others, and a person who makes something from stolen materials may not own the product. Again, it all depends on how the rest of the world is owned.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0O7oD-FIjogJ:klinechair.missouri.edu/on-line%2520papers/self-ownership%2520%28Ency%2520Ethics%29.doc+self-ownership+action&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    Of course, you will probably ignore this all the same, but here is hoping.

    Do you really have no better response to my arguments than wild misreading and exaggeration? I can just see your argument against the death penalty: \\\”What\\\’s to stop the state from just arresting and killing any person it wants?? Helloo, Stalin regime!\\\”

    Not understanding what you are seemingly trying to argue does not mean that someone is engaging in wild misreadings or exaggeration. It means that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

    What males think of abortion is immaterial except to the extent that it unduly impinges on the decision of women whether or not to have one. If those men love love love abortion, but they\\\’re not pressuring women to have them (or not have them), then there\\\’s no problem.

    Funny how you go on about internalizing oppression when it comes to women opposing abortion, the opposition of which could possibly be done entirely of her free will, yet turn around and completely throw out such a rationale when it comes to women supporting abortion. Why, exactly, do you do this?

    Sure, there are issues of how freely women can make decisions when there is an oppressive social script that they are expected to conform to. This is the basis of why radical feminists make seeming outre points such as, \\\”All sex is rape.\\\”

    While that is nice and all, it does not address what I wrote out. As I say quite often, it incredibly funny how you refuse to scream about patriarchy when confronted with a situation in which abortion is promoted by the patriarch as a way to serve their interests (no children, or fewer children than they would have otherwise), and women who have abortions for reasons related to the fact that those men would not want to be fathers or to take care of her children to be promoting and reinforcing the patriarch. Surprising? Not really. Why not? Because anything which does not paint opposition to abortion as a result of patriarchy, or support for abortion as being a result of rejecting patriarchy, you ignore.

    However, you are making the point about how women may not necessarily have full agency in a given social context, to argue in favor of fully depriving them of agency (by prohibiting abortion). I suppose your solution to the whole stay-at-home versus working mother dilemma is to just make that decision for everyone, too.

    Ummm, no. See my above response. Oh, and I see we are back to you not understand what self-ownership is. I cannot say I am too terribly surprised.

    You\\\’re asking me how denying women control over their own bodies and reproductive processes is linked to patriarchy?

    Indeed I am, because to claim patriarchy you would have to, one, explain how the desire to limit abortion is predicated on controlling women instead of preventing women from killing someone else and, two, explain how this rationale would hold up in a society where women, in general, are more disapproving of abortion then are men who are disapproving of abortion (or just are all-around more disapproving of abortion then men, in general). I have asked this before with no answer, so I am asking again. They are not hard questions.

    I suppose next you\\\’re going to ask me what abortion has to do with womens\\\’ health.

    I would ask that too while pointing out that the majority of abortions are done for a reason completely unrelated to the health of the women, but you would ignore it just the same.

    What backtracking? It\\\’s not my problem that you are incapable of considering young women of reproductive age and meager means as a group. I\\\’m guessing \\\”marketing demographer\\\” wouldn\\\’t be a good career for you.

    You do realize that you have gone from young women of reproductive age and meager means as a group, to young women of reproductive age and meager means as individuals when it was pointed out to you that that said group was generally disapproving of abortion, correct? No? Then let me refresh your memory because you said, and I quote verbatim:

    God forbid minority females of reproductive age and meager means have a different take on things than other segments of their own minority.

    That is called backtracking.

    Oh, you are under the misconception that \\\”having control over your body\\\” means \\\”you can do anything you want with your body, including going all stab-stab-stabby on other people around you.\\\” It does not. It does, however, mean that you cannot be required to donate an organ/tissue, be given a vaccination, or ingest something against your will, among other things.

    And now you know!

    You just, as you often do, let me run you into a glaring contradiction. You say that having control over your body does not mean that you can do to others as you want regardless of the effect it has on another. If this is true, then abortion becomes impermissible for then you are doing to the unborn regardless of the effects it has on them. But if this is permissible, then so, too, is it permissible to allow one to do to another as they see fit. Of course, you will respond that you are not doing to the unborn, but rather refusing to do for the unborn, but this is false because pregnancy requires a physical interaction between the mother and unborn, whereas something is already being provided, and the only way to end that connection without natural birth would require impeding upon the life of the unborn. Yet again, this is one of those things you cannot work yourself out of.

    If she\\\’s not asking for help from anyone, in some manner, then no, people should mind their business. Again, lots of couples enjoy consensual BDSM play, and it would be silly for us to stick our noses into their business to offer unwanted \\\”help.\\\”

    Except it is not BDSM. It is 100% assault and battery.

    If a person doesn\\\’t complain, there may be psychological trauma that needs to be sorted out, and this would justify an investigation. But if the person, clear-mindedly and free of duress, states that they are okay with this arrangement… then that\\\’s their decision.

    If someone does not ask for help, they should be left alone. But if that person does not complain, then it is probably because they may be sufferring psychological trauma, which is cause for intervention. See the problem? You have just justified getting involved, either through the fact that the woman asks for help or the fact that she does not ask for help. As is usual, you are playing games you cannot lose.

    OMG, respecting a person\\\’s freely-made choice… what a radical notion!

    Do you really have that short of a memory span that you do not remember what you typed out about a minute prior?

    Progressive advocates fell into this trap frequently in the past, although the calling-out of the inherent colonialism of this approach has reduced its incidence.

    People have to ask for help, and the help that is given has to be what they ask for. Otherwise, you\\\’re not helping them so much as making them pawns of your own agenda. (See: women in Iraq, circa 2003).

    No, actually, they do not, and I really cannot believe you would make that assertion on this site, of which there are quite a few articles declaring that people speak out on behalf of women being abused in country X. It is hard for me to imagine that you could be this ignorant of things.

    I leave the question open because of its utterly ridiculous nature.

    Actually, it is not ridiculous, since you apparently believe that you can determine what a human being is based on the way it looks.

    You have to keep in mind, BornIn1984, I\\\’m not arguing your points to try to convince you. That would be beyond pointless. Rather, I\\\’m arguing them so that everyone else reading this forum can see why your arguments are bunk, and maybe even learn a new pro-choice point or two.

    Yes, PCF. My arguments are so bunk, that you ignore them left-and-right.

    In other words, you are helping to make the pro-choice movement stronger. I\\\’m sure you\\\’ll walk away from this thinking you have the stronger argument because you haven\\\’t changed your mind—and really, nothing I say will prevent that—but other folks here, not least those on the fence, will see why you\\\’ve got nothing.

    Apparently, I have more than you.

    Keep asking that question, please!

    I will. After all, there is nothing better than to watch someone continue to deliberately refuse to answer a question they themselves invited :)

    You and I are tissue. You and I are cells. Lots of different kinds of tissues and cells. Too bad you don\\\’t have more of the \\\”brain\\\” variety.

    Uh-huh… Well, someone apparently failed basic biology.

    subatomic part -> atom -> molecule -> cell parts -> tissues -> organs -> organ systems -> individuals -> populations -> communities -> ecosystems

    http://www.una.edu/faculty/pgdavison/BI%20101/Overview%20Fall%202004.htm

    At any rate, explain to me how you and I could be tissue, PCF? Last I checked, tissue is a cellular organizational level intermediate between cells and a complete organism defined an aggregate of cells in an organism that have similar structure and function. For you and I to be tissue, both of those definitions would have to be false. And, for the record, there are not lots of different kinds of tissue. As far as animals are concerned, there are only four. So since you believe you are tissue, what kind of tissue are you? :)

    What does that have to do with anything? Are you seriously going to suggest that the supposed rights of the fetus are contingent on the prior acts of another person? That the fetus\\\’s \\\”inalienable right to life\\\” depends on whether or not its father is a criminal? How does that argument work?

    It does not depend on whether or not the father is a criminal or not. It depends upon whether the rights of another were violated, with rape being a violation of autonomy.

    Yes, I\\\’m certainly resigned to getting it from you. Perhaps the Libertarian anti-choicers can make their points more cogently.

    Oddly enough, you try to give the same, failed, psuedo-snarky comments to every pro-lifer. Should I start digging up some of your comments directed towards arex, or Vera or Progo35?

    I guess people can be forcibly given vaccinations, and made to donate organs against their will, then. Woohoo, we\\\’re living in a dystopia already!

    The lesson here is to not argue things you do not understand. Just see my link provided above.

    Refusing someone the use of your own body is \\\”essentially\\\” owning them? That\\\’s a rather strange definition of ownership you have there.

    It is only strange if you somehow refuse to note the difference between refusing something and taking something away from someone. Actually, since you recognize the fact that you do not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone, but you will go to jail if you forcibly take a kidney away from someone, it is evident that you do understand the difference. For whatever reason, though, you simply refuse to acknowledge this difference when it comes to abortion. But seeing as how that is what you typically do, it is not surprising in the least.

    Although if you define ownership as \\\”taking away the ability of another to govern their own life,\\\” you\\\’re basically saying that the fetus owns the woman surrounding it.

    Only if the woman has no choice in whether or not she becomes pregnant as when compared to the unborn who, has no choice in whether or not it is conceived or not.

    I thought you felt slavery was a bad thing!

    It is.

    I don\\\’t consider \\\”makes self-righteous people feel good about themselves\\\” to be a particularly good standard. \\\”Responsive to and respectful of the needs of women\\\” sounds a lot better to me.

    Well, I see you are back to claiming that you are responsive and respectful of the needs of women, except you are not all that responsive and respectful to the needs of women when it comes to areas outside of abortion, nor are really respectful of women as a whole who disagree with you on abortion, as then their opinions are deemed irrelevant, themselves enablers of a patriarchal society and self-righteous. Convenient how that turns out.

    If the fetus were a born person that had somehow crawled up into a woman\\\’s uterus, hooked into her circulatory system, and now depended on her for his/her life, none of the arguments, nor her rights, would be any different.

    Yes, the argument would be no different if you ignored the forcible entry part.

    Yes, I\\\’m an ideologue for not granting a single-celled organism the same rights and considerations as a born person.

    Please keep making this argument, however. The more disconnected from reality anti-choicers seem, the better for us.

    Indeed you are, because then you are deciding what human is worth protecting and what human is not. At any rate, it never ceases to be a source of amusement whenever a pro-choicer claims that pro-lifers are disconnected from reality, when pro-choicers themselves seem to live in a world where the majority of Americans do not perceive abortion as murder, where the majority of Americans do not believe that the unborn should have its rights protected from conception onwards, where the majority of Americans would limit abortions to specific instances and where younger generations are far less supportive of abortion than their elders. So, I suppose, the question is who, exactly, is disconnected from reality?

    Yes, science gives clear-cut answers to all these kinds of questions, like whether viruses are alive or not.

    Some question, yes. Some questions, no. Whether or not the unborn at all stages are human beings? Most definitely.

    Do you have an actual argument to make using +/- rights, or are you just going to keep referring to them and my supposed ignorance of them as a cheap substitute for one?

    Indeed I do. For as long as you are fail to notice the difference between not being killed and not being provided for, then I will continue to point it out.

    People sure were pretty ignorant when Dred Scott was decided, wouldn\\\’t you say?

    Not ignorant, since it was wildly decried in the North (and eventually renderred moot by the 13th Amendment).

    Oh, I do see the difference between those. I don\\\’t see so much of one between mandatory organ donation, and being forced to provide biological life support to another organism/person against one\\\’s will.

    Actually you do not, for the right of someone to not be killed is not contingent upon what someone else wants or does not want, henceforth why I will continue to point out to you the difference between negative versus positive rights. If you do not want to provide for the unborn, then that is easily avoided by not getting pregnant.

    Well, I certainly wouldn\\\’t be ProChoiceGuineaPig, would I?

    Because then you would be overestimating your brain power.

    They say politics is cyclical, like a pendulum. Which reminds me of that scene from The Simpsons Movie with Homer and the wrecking ball…

    Except it really is not.

    That\\\’s all you got? Seriously, why do you even bother?

    Because you bother to type things out and then turn around and conveniently forget what you said.

    The credibility of an argument is not a function of the privilege (or lack thereof) of the person making it. Anyone can make a uncredible argument. Credibility comes from having a position that is in line with the reality of the subject in question. If you are privileged, you could just as well educate yourself on the subject, or be sheltered from it completely. If you are unprivileged, you are less sheltered from the subject, yet that still doesn\\\’t preclude ignorance. If you are directly and inescapably affected by it, however, it\\\’s a lot less likely that your argument is going to amount to useless posturing, because you\\\’re going to know the reality and it\\\’s your ass that\\\’s on the line.

    And the backtracking continues. Since you do not remember what you wrote out initially, then I will refresh your memory.

    Yes, if the anti-abortion argument is being made by a woman, of reproductive age, and without the means of traveling to another state (or country) to obtain an abortion if she ever needed one, then that would have more credence. Because then her own reproductive autonomy would be affected as much as other womens\\\’.

    And:

    No, I dismiss their views if they can escape the effects of the legal regime they want to bring about. Apparently, that is hard for you to understand!

    It is funny how quickly you forget what you originally typed out and change your argument. You have gone from giving credence the an argument based on whether or not that person is able to get around said instituted abortion bans to giving credence to an argument so long as it is not based on ignorance, which as far as you are concerned is an argument which argues in favor of access to abortion. You see, the reason you have done so is because reality, which you profess to love but seemingly do not, says that the more likely you are to be affected by a ban on abortion, the more likely you are to support bans on abortion restrictions. Of course, because that contradicts the premise of your argument entirely, you throw it out, even though you were the one who initially brought it up. That is irony for you.

    The reality of abortion in the U.S. is that women go in for them when it is beneficial to their lives and the lives of those around them not to give birth to a child. Half the arguments against abortion boil down to saying that some other person who is not the woman has a better idea of what is best for her and those around her than the woman herself. The other half boil down to saying that the woman\\\’s body does not belong to her. Both fail utterly at persuading anyone who genuinely cares about women as the human beings they are.

    Ugh, right. Yeah, see. This is why, as I point out quite often, future generations are much less likely to support abortion (which is a trend that has been true since the 1980s). You somehow rationalize an action based on the feelings of the one engaging in it and someone argue that an action is okay so long as the person who engages in it engaged in it (as it was not okay, they would not have engaged in it). This is utterly nonsensical, and ignores the effect such an action has on another. Just because someone wants to kill someone else, does not mean they should be allowed to do so. Just because they do so, does not mean it was an acceptable choice. Just because the unborn has to reside in the woman for nine months does not mean it is hers to do with as she pleases (and indeed it is not for those full nine months). We, as a society, do not apply this logic elsewhere, and we should not apply it to abortion.

    For whatever reason of another, though, you do not understand this and are content go going on about how those arguments do not persuade anyone who does not genuinely care about women. If that then, is true, then apparently few people care about women, because those arguments have been far more persuasive at shaping public opinion towards abortion than do whatever feeble arguments regarding feminism, the right to privacy, abortion being a matter about equality and freedom from religion that you like to throw around. But I have pointed this out to you hundreds of times as is, and you have ignored it every time, so I am not holding my breath.

  • prochoiceferret

    And so on and so forth. You see, in order to prove your point, you have already implicitly assumed that there is a difference between a woman killing her born child to feed her other four children and a woman killing her unborn child to feed her other four children. Of course, when asked what the difference is, you just turn around and repeat that one is born and one is unborn, and that it is what it is, which is a classic case of begging the question. But I have pointed this out to you before, and you still do it. Like I have said many times before, you are not very smart.

     

    fetus depends on womanbody

     

    child does not

     

    kthxbai

     

    The existence of fetal homicide laws render your born vs. unborn distinction false. So yet again I ask you, when has murder been a matter of personal opinion? It either is or is not. Murder is not murder so long as the one doing it does not think it is.

     

    Fetal homicide laws do not negate a woman’s right to an abortion. They are used primarily to increase penalties for physically attacking a pregnant woman, and in some cases, to prohibit non-medical abortions (e.g. throwing oneself down stairwells, although in practice this has placed women under legal suspicion when an unprovoked miscarriage occurs).

     

    Seriously, killing a zygote? Murder? I’d love to see the Law & Order episode that starts with a bloody tampon found in a wastebasket.

     

    And the above does not relate to a woman who wants to kill her unborn child because…? It is funny how you continue to predicate all of your arguments on an assumption which just so happens to also be your conclusion.

     

    Then why are you arguing about all these tangents, instead of focusing on the conclusion itself?

     

    Pack up your bags and go home, for you just lost.

     

    You think you won, because you willfully misinterpreted what it means to own one’s body, again? I suppose you gotta take what you can get.

     

    If someone owns their body, then any action that individual engages in stems from the fact that they own their body. Simplified, a woman who kills her child does so precisely because she has the ability to do so via the fact that she owns her body and can act according to her own will. To turn around, then, and prevent that women from acting according to her will, to deny her the ability to engage in an action bestowed upon her via the fact that she owns her body, is to deny some facet of self-ownership.

    Of course, that is just ridiculous, as I have pointed out before, because there is no such thing as the right to act according to your own will, much less a right to self-ownership as it relates to owning your own body.

     

    Yes, you can’t just do whatever you want (like shoot up a high school). I thought this was obvious, but apparently you need to be sure.

     

    If there is no right to self-ownership, then, well, who owns your kidney?

     

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0O7oD-FIjogJ:klinechair.missouri.edu/on-line%2520papers/self-ownership%2520%28Ency%2520Ethics%29.doc+self-ownership+action&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    Of course, you will probably ignore this all the same, but here is hoping.

     

    You’re arguing that people don’t own their bodies if they don’t own the air, water, and food that they take in?

     

    I’m just gonna say… yyyyyyeah…

     

    Not understanding what you are seemingly trying to argue does not mean that someone is engaging in wild misreadings or exaggeration. It means that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

     

    Yes, I suppose I don’t understand why you have such a hard-on for forcing unwantedly pregnant women to stay that way.

     

    Funny how you go on about internalizing oppression when it comes to women opposing abortion, the opposition of which could possibly be done entirely of her free will, yet turn around and completely throw out such a rationale when it comes to women supporting abortion. Why, exactly, do you do this?

     

    Because legal, voluntary abortion is inherently less oppressive than illegal or coerced abortion. If you want an abortion, you can have one; if you don’t want it, you can give birth. No one is forced to do something they don’t want.

     

    (Except, perhaps, for the people who are “forced” to live in a society that permits abortion. They can get a discount on a tiny fiddle.)

     

    While that is nice and all, it does not address what I wrote out. As I say quite often, it incredibly funny how you refuse to scream about patriarchy when confronted with a situation in which abortion is promoted by the patriarch as a way to serve their interests (no children, or fewer children than they would have otherwise), and women who have abortions for reasons related to the fact that those men would not want to be fathers or to take care of her children to be promoting and reinforcing the patriarch. Surprising? Not really. Why not? Because anything which does not paint opposition to abortion as a result of patriarchy, or support for abortion as being a result of rejecting patriarchy, you ignore.

     

    Women should not and must not be coerced into having an abortion. That is as anti-choice as coercing her (or preventing her) from having an abortion.

     

    Do you actually care about the issues of domestic and intimate-partner violence that typically lead women into coerced abortions when it happens, and how this can be addressed, or are you just bringing it up as an excuse to ban all abortions, coerced or not?

     

    Ummm, no. See my above response. Oh, and I see we are back to you not understand what self-ownership is. I cannot say I am too terribly surprised.

     

    I certainly don’t understand it the way you do, where self-ownership supposedly gives you the right to do absolutely anything you want.

     

    Indeed I am, because to claim patriarchy you would have to, one, explain how the desire to limit abortion is predicated on controlling women instead of preventing women from killing someone else

     

    “We don’t want to control women! We just want to prevent them from killing their unborn babies!”

     

    Do you really expect us to believe that you have such boundless sympathy and generosity in your hearts that your only interest is to ensure the well-being of fetuses, embryos, zygotes in a woman’s womb? I must have missed the times that this same limitless benevolence eradicated hunger, lack of health care, and persistent social injustice for millions of born people in this country, and billions around the world.

     

    I suppose all the rhetoric that calls out women who have abortions as “sluts” and “whores” who “should have kept their legs closed” is just a minor fringe of misogynists piggybacking onto the otherwise pure-hearted movement.

     

    Oh, and the entire history of men controlling women in nearly every aspect of their lives is all in the past—today, social conservatives completely accept that women are independent and can make their own decisions.

     

    Sorry, BornIn1984. You can’t fool us with that old sheepskin.

     

    and, two, explain how this rationale would hold up in a society where women, in general, are more disapproving of abortion then are men who are disapproving of abortion (or just are all-around more disapproving of abortion then men, in general). I have asked this before with no answer, so I am asking again. They are not hard questions.

     

    You may want to actually read the article you’re commenting on.

     

    I would ask that too while pointing out that the majority of abortions are done for a reason completely unrelated to the health of the women, but you would ignore it just the same.

     

    Much like you ignore that 100% of pregnancies affect the woman’s health. Late-term complications, permanent injury, and possible death would sure suck if the pregnancy weren’t wanted in the first place, wouldn’t they?

     

    You do realize that you have gone from young women of reproductive age and meager means as a group, to young women of reproductive age and meager means as individuals when it was pointed out to you that that said group was generally disapproving of abortion, correct?

     

    No, because you’ve only pointed out that women as a whole are generally disapproving of abortion. And believe me, I know a lot of sanctimonious blowhards who happen to own a vagina, and would put you to shame.

     

    You just, as you often do, let me run you into a glaring contradiction. You say that having control over your body does not mean that you can do to others as you want regardless of the effect it has on another. If this is true, then abortion becomes impermissible for then you are doing to the unborn regardless of the effects it has on them. But if this is permissible, then so, too, is it permissible to allow one to do to another as they see fit. Of course, you will respond that you are not doing to the unborn, but rather refusing to do for the unborn, but this is false because pregnancy requires a physical interaction between the mother and unborn, whereas something is already being provided, and the only way to end that connection without natural birth would require impeding upon the life of the unborn. Yet again, this is one of those things you cannot work yourself out of.

     

    You seem to have forgotten the whole fetus sucking life support from the woman’s body without her consent thing. If the fetus were floating in space, unconnected to any other person—the way you obviously like to think of it—then you might have a point. But pregnancy has that pesky “woman” requirement, so your ostensibly bulletproof argument falls flat once again.

     

    Except it is not BDSM. It is 100% assault and battery.

     

    That’s terrible. So I suppose you’re going to organize a police raid on her house, so that you can help her… as well as all the other houses in the neighborhood, in case someone there is getting abused too. Since you’re obviously not willing to rely on these victims ever asking anyone for help.

     

    If someone does not ask for help, they should be left alone. But if that person does not complain, then it is probably because they may be sufferring psychological trauma, which is cause for intervention. See the problem? You have just justified getting involved, either through the fact that the woman asks for help or the fact that she does not ask for help. As is usual, you are playing games you cannot lose.

     

    It’s one thing if a third party observes what appears to be abuse, and phones in a tip. It’s quite another to just get involved, without any prompting, just on the possibility that there might be abuse going on. Unless you really want to raid every household in the country.

     

    Do you really have that short of a memory span that you do not remember what you typed out about a minute prior?

     

    I remember you started this whole tangent with “I want you to respect my choice for your reproductive decisions even though they don’t affect me!” Which is still ridiculous, despite all your DV-in-ND blather.

     

    No, actually, they do not, and I really cannot believe you would make that assertion on this site, of which there are quite a few articles declaring that people speak out on behalf of women being abused in country X. It is hard for me to imagine that you could be this ignorant of things.

     

    Advocacy for the unprivileged is as much about listening to them as advocating, which is not the same as just presuming to speak for them. Although I’m sure you were aware of this.

     

    Actually, it is not ridiculous, since you apparently believe that you can determine what a human being is based on the way it looks.

     

    Yes, that’s why it might not be utterly silly to call this…

     

     

    …a “human being.”

     

    At any rate, explain to me how you and I could be tissue, PCF? Last I checked, tissue is a cellular organizational level intermediate between cells and a complete organism defined an aggregate of cells in an organism that have similar structure and function. For you and I to be tissue, both of those definitions would have to be false. And, for the record, there are not lots of different kinds of tissue. As far as animals are concerned, there are only four. So since you believe you are tissue, what kind of tissue are you? :)

     

    I guess we’re not made of cells, either.

     

    It does not depend on whether or not the father is a criminal or not. It depends upon whether the rights of another were violated, with rape being a violation of autonomy.

     

    Oh, okay. So the unborn have an inalienable right to life… unless their mothers’ rights were violated. Then, it’s open season on them!!

     

    I’m a bit surprised that violation of the woman’s autonomy would be such a big deal for you, however.

     

    Oddly enough, you try to give the same, failed, psuedo-snarky comments to every pro-lifer. Should I start digging up some of your comments directed towards arex, or Vera or Progo35?

     

    Ooh! “ProChoiceFerret’s Greatest Hits!”

     

    The lesson here is to not argue things you do not understand. Just see my link provided above.

     

    “We own the air, the water, the food… and YOU!”

     

    It is only strange if you somehow refuse to note the difference between refusing something and taking something away from someone. Actually, since you recognize the fact that you do not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone, but you will go to jail if you forcibly take a kidney away from someone, it is evident that you do understand the difference. For whatever reason, though, you simply refuse to acknowledge this difference when it comes to abortion. But seeing as how that is what you typically do, it is not surprising in the least.

     

    Why yes, women who abort do refuse to continue providing for a fetus!

     

    Only if the woman has no choice in whether or not she becomes pregnant as when compared to the unborn who, has no choice in whether or not it is conceived or not.

     

    Did the unborn have a choice or not in whether it was conceived from rape?

     

    Well, I see you are back to claiming that you are responsive and respectful of the needs of women, except you are not all that responsive and respectful to the needs of women when it comes to areas outside of abortion, nor are really respectful of women as a whole who disagree with you on abortion, as then their opinions are deemed irrelevant, themselves enablers of a patriarchal society and self-righteous. Convenient how that turns out.

     

    I didn’t know that women had a need to be self-righteous.

     

    Yes, the argument would be no different if you ignored the forcible entry part.

     

    So it’s really not about the life of the unborn, but about whether or not the woman had consensual sex. I knew that already, of course, but it’s nice for you to admit it.

     

    Indeed you are, because then you are deciding what human is worth protecting and what human is not. At any rate, it never ceases to be a source of amusement whenever a pro-choicer claims that pro-lifers are disconnected from reality, when pro-choicers themselves seem to live in a world where the majority of Americans do not perceive abortion as murder, where the majority of Americans do not believe that the unborn should have its rights protected from conception onwards, where the majority of Americans would limit abortions to specific instances and where younger generations are far less supportive of abortion than their elders. So, I suppose, the question is who, exactly, is disconnected from reality?

     

    Polls dictate reality? I guess evolution really is a myth.

     

    Some question, yes. Some questions, no. Whether or not the unborn at all stages are human beings? Most definitely.

     

    I’d like to see the scientific reference that flatly states that “the unborn at all stages are human beings,” as opossed to just being genetically human, or not-yet-fully-developed human beings.

     

    Indeed I do. For as long as you are fail to notice the difference between not being killed and not being provided for, then I will continue to point it out.

     

    So you don’t have an argument, then. And abortion comes down to a woman no longer providing for a fetus. Oh well.

     

    Not ignorant, since it was wildly decried in the North (and eventually renderred moot by the 13th Amendment).

     

    Oh, so only about half the country was being ignorant?

     

    Actually you do not, for the right of someone to not be killed is not contingent upon what someone else wants or does not want, henceforth why I will continue to point out to you the difference between negative versus positive rights. If you do not want to provide for the unborn, then that is easily avoided by not getting pregnant.

     

    It’s easy being a male, isn’t it?

     

    Because then you would be overestimating your brain power.

     

    At least you’re better at tossing insults than arguing in favor of indefensible reproductive policy.

     

    It is funny how quickly you forget what you originally typed out and change your argument. You have gone from giving credence the an argument based on whether or not that person is able to get around said instituted abortion bans to giving credence to an argument so long as it is not based on ignorance, which as far as you are concerned is an argument which argues in favor of access to abortion. You see, the reason you have done so is because reality, which you profess to love but seemingly do not, says that the more likely you are to be affected by a ban on abortion, the more likely you are to support bans on abortion restrictions. Of course, because that contradicts the premise of your argument entirely, you throw it out, even though you were the one who initially brought it up. That is irony for you.

     

    Yes, I suppose being able to escape abortion bans and thus not having to worry about one’s reproductive choices, and being ignorant about the real reasons why women have abortions, have nothing to do with the credibility of a woman’s argument against abortion.

     

    You stick to those poll numbers like Linus sticks to his security blanket, don’t you? God forbid a majority of people start thinking that separation of church and state is “too radical.”

     

    Ugh, right. Yeah, see. This is why, as I point out quite often, future generations are much less likely to support abortion (which is a trend that has been true since the 1980s). You somehow rationalize an action based on the feelings of the one engaging in it and someone argue that an action is okay so long as the person who engages in it engaged in it (as it was not okay, they would not have engaged in it). This is utterly nonsensical, and ignores the effect such an action has on another. Just because someone wants to kill someone else, does not mean they should be allowed to do so. Just because they do so, does not mean it was an acceptable choice. Just because the unborn has to reside in the woman for nine months does not mean it is hers to do with as she pleases (and indeed it is not for those full nine months). We, as a society, do not apply this logic elsewhere, and we should not apply it to abortion.

     

    And there you go again, pretending that a fetus is an independent entity that is not sucking life support from the body of a woman. Why can’t the woman just leave it alone?? It’s not like it’s doing anything to her!

     

    But then, there are many times that society does not respect the consent of a woman, so why shouldn’t it add one more?

     

    For whatever reason of another, though, you do not understand this and are content go going on about how those arguments do not persuade anyone who does not genuinely care about women. If that then, is true, then apparently few people care about women, because those arguments have been far more persuasive at shaping public opinion towards abortion than do whatever feeble arguments regarding feminism, the right to privacy, abortion being a matter about equality and freedom from religion that you like to throw around. But I have pointed this out to you hundreds of times as is, and you have ignored it every time, so I am not holding my breath.

     

    Yes, we do live in a sexist, misogynistic society! Apparently, this is news to some of us.

  • beenthere72

    “(Except, perhaps, for the people who are “forced” to live in a society that permits abortion. They can get a discount on a tiny fiddle.)”

     

    LMAO

     

     

  • bornin1984

    fetus depends on womanbody

    child does not

    kthxbai

    But you are begging the question, PCF. You are still burdened with explaining why this difference is important.

    Fetal homicide laws do not negate a woman\\\’s right to an abortion. They are used primarily to increase penalties for physically attacking a pregnant woman, and in some cases, to prohibit non-medical abortions (e.g. throwing oneself down stairwells, although in practice this has placed women under legal suspicion when an unprovoked miscarriage occurs).

    Funny. I do not believe I said anything about whether or not the existence of fetal homicide laws negating the right to an abortion. I asked, as I have three or four times now, when murder has been a matter of personal opinion. To repeat myself, murder is not murder based on the feelings of the one engaging in it. I am sure you realize this.

    Seriously, killing a zygote? Murder? I\\\’d love to see the Law & Order episode that starts with a bloody tampon found in a wastebasket.

    Then suggest it. That still does not address what I wrote out, though.

    Then why are you arguing about all these tangents, instead of focusing on the conclusion itself?

    I am, as your conclusion just so happens to be those tangents. That is generally what is meant when someone tells you that you are begging the question or engaging in circular logic.

    You think you won, because you willfully misinterpreted what it means to own one\\\’s body, again? I suppose you gotta take what you can get.

    I am not the one who does not understand what they are seemingly trying to argue. That would be you, as was evidenced by the source I provided you which explained what I had been trying to tell you in detail (I can provide you with more if you so desire). Speaking of which…

    Yes, you can\\\’t just do whatever you want (like shoot up a high school). I thought this was obvious, but apparently you need to be sure.

    You do realize how badly you are contradicting yourself, correct? Of course you cannot do anything you want, and do you know why you cannot? Because, allowing one to do anything they want would invariably mean that they would be allowed to adversely affect others. Of course, when I point out to you that this is the same thing you argue in regards to abortion, in other words arguing that you should be allowed to take away from someone else, you turn around and then argue that you should be allowed to do so because you own your body and that you are not really doing to someone, but rather not doing for someone. But this fails on two fronts. The first because, as was pointed out in the link I gave you, the protection that self-ownership affords is a basic protection against others doing certain things to one, and not a guarantee of liberty. The second because, following your logic, if you were to unplug someone from life support, that you would not be doing to them, but rather taking away from them. To this you will turn around and argue that, even though you are doing to someone by taking them off of life-support and having them die as a result, it is not the same thing as disconnecting the unborn from the uterus and having the unborn die as a result because the unborn is connected to the body of the woman. But this ignores the fact that, not only is self-ownership, at its core, the right to not be infringed upon, but it is not the right to act, which is what you are asserting when you claim that self-ownership entails the right to have an abortion (remember that whole abortion is an expression of liberty thing in Roe v. Wade?). If, as you say, self-ownership does not include the liberty to act, then how can it include abortion which is that which you say it is not?

    If there is no right to self-ownership, then, well, who owns your kidney?

    No one, which is why you cannot sell it ;)

    You\\\’re arguing that people don\\\’t own their bodies if they don\\\’t own the air, water, and food that they take in?

    I\\\’m just gonna say… yyyyyyeah…

    Because it is easier to do, I will just quote the link you were given.

    This point shows that, because agents must use natural resources (occupy space, breathe air, etc.), self-ownership on its own has no substantive implications. It is only when combined with assumptions about how the rest of the world is owned (and the consequences of violating those property rights) that substantive implications follow.

    Or, put into terms you can understand, but probably will not all the same as I have explained this to you before, even granting there is some kind of right to self-ownership, it does not follow that this means anything, as meaning is only granted when applied to the consequences granting said right would have on, and in relation to, others. It is actually pretty simple.

    Yes, I suppose I don\\\’t understand why you have such a hard-on for forcing unwantedly pregnant women to stay that way.

    Yes, as well as not understanding why people would oppose one group from killing another, you also do not understand the concept of self-ownership even though you have proceeded to base a rather large portion of your argument on it.

    Because legal, voluntary abortion is inherently less oppressive than illegal or coerced abortion. If you want an abortion, you can have one; if you don\\\’t want it, you can give birth. No one is forced to do something they don\\\’t want.

    (Except, perhaps, for the people who are \\\”forced\\\” to live in a society that permits abortion. They can get a discount on a tiny fiddle.)

    I see. So you basically threw out your internalizing oppression line that you like to give whenever someone points out a fact you do not like, yet dismiss when it does not suit you to use? You see, PCF, no one, aside from you, has mentioned anything about force or coercion. No, what I said, and what you have thusly ignored, is that you cannot go on about how people internalize oppression and support those things that are not in their best interest because they have been reared that way by society when it comes to opposition to abortion, which for the sake of argument we will say is done at the behest of the patriarchy because it is in their best interest to do so, yet somehow turn around and refuse to also argue the same thing when faced with a situation in which access to abortion is promoted by the patriarchy because it is in their best interest to do so. It does not work, and requires you to selectively apply your own rationale.

    Women should not and must not be coerced into having an abortion. That is as anti-choice as coercing her (or preventing her) from having an abortion.

    That is great, but what does that have to do with internalizing oppression? Someone who internalizes something still acts of their own free will.

    Do you actually care about the issues of domestic and intimate-partner violence that typically lead women into coerced abortions when it happens, and how this can be addressed, or are you just bringing it up as an excuse to ban all abortions, coerced or not?

    As it relates to this discussion? Not terribly, no.

    I certainly don\\\’t understand it the way you do, where self-ownership supposedly gives you the right to do absolutely anything you want.

    You do realize that the above stated is your argument, which I have pointed out is ridiculous, not mine, correct?

    \\\”We don\\\’t want to control women! We just want to prevent them from killing their unborn babies!\\\”

    Do you really expect us to believe that you have such boundless sympathy and generosity in your hearts that your only interest is to ensure the well-being of fetuses, embryos, zygotes in a woman\\\’s womb? I must have missed the times that this same limitless benevolence eradicated hunger, lack of health care, and persistent social injustice for millions of born people in this country, and billions around the world.

    It is a good thing that opposition to murder does not hinge on whether or not those who would otherwise be killed are cared for if they are not allowed to be killed, otherwise you might have had a point.

    I suppose all the rhetoric that calls out women who have abortions as \\\”sluts\\\” and \\\”whores\\\” who \\\”should have kept their legs closed\\\” is just a minor fringe of misogynists piggybacking onto the otherwise pure-hearted movement.

    Which are only a fraction of the comments men get if they were to ever state that they did not intend to father a child and do not want to provide for it, or would rather go to college or have a career than care for achild. Apparently, you somehow do not realize that the words deadbeat and loser have a distinctly male connotation behind them. If you go over to the NOW website, you will get a good example of this.

    Oh, and the entire history of men controlling women in nearly every aspect of their lives is all in the past—today, social conservatives completely accept that women are independent and can make their own decisions.

    I was born in 1984. Why do I care what happened to women hundreds of years ago? Yes, women are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, except when it comes to murder. Perhaps you should be on the Casey Anthony defense team. Then you can tell everyone how she should get off on account of her being an independent being capable of making her own decisions. Apparently, you think that the fact that people are allowed to make their own decisions means that people are allowed to make the wrong decisions when, indeed, they are not. And the laws sees to this.

    Sorry, BornIn1984. You can\\\’t fool us with that old sheepskin.

    Who is us? It seems to me the only person being fooled is yourself, and there you are the one doing the fooling.

    You may want to actually read the article you\\\’re commenting on.

    Indeed I did, which is generally more than I can say for you.

    Much like you ignore that 100% of pregnancies affect the woman\\\’s health. Late-term complications, permanent injury, and possible death would sure suck if the pregnancy weren\\\’t wanted in the first place, wouldn\\\’t they?

    No, actually, I did not ignore it. 100% of pregnancies affect the health of the woman in some form, and 4% of abortions are done because of pregnancies affecting the health of the woman. To argue that 100% of abortions should be legal because only 4% of abortions are done because of pregnancies related to the health of the woman is, well, fairly dishonest. Hard to understand? Not in the slightest.

    No, because you\\\’ve only pointed out that women as a whole are generally disapproving of abortion. And believe me, I know a lot of sanctimonious blowhards who happen to own a vagina, and would put you to shame.

    That, and the fact that the better off you are, the more likely you are to support access to abortion.

    You seem to have forgotten the whole fetus sucking life support from the woman\\\’s body without her consent thing. If the fetus were floating in space, unconnected to any other person—the way you obviously like to think of it—then you might have a point. But pregnancy has that pesky \\\”woman\\\” requirement, so your ostensibly bulletproof argument falls flat once again.

    This again? Your argument is akin to arguing that a woman can kick her, say, five-year old out of her home if she somehow stops consenting to that five-year old being there. That is, you have somehow assumed that explicit consent is needed for the woman to be held responsible for her offspring. This is false. She is held responsible, even if she does not want to be, mainly because society says she has to be. This is where duties and obligations come from, and is even true before birth birth. As I have pointed out time and time again, the fact that abortion is not legal-on-demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy renders your assertion patently false. It is quite funny how you keep asserting that my argument falls flat, while you simultaneously ignore large portions of my argument and throw out the parts that do not agree with you.

    That\\\’s terrible. So I suppose you\\\’re going to organize a police raid on her house, so that you can help her… as well as all the other houses in the neighborhood, in case someone there is getting abused too. Since you\\\’re obviously not willing to rely on these victims ever asking anyone for help.

    No, I am not.

    It\\\’s one thing if a third party observes what appears to be abuse, and phones in a tip. It\\\’s quite another to just get involved, without any prompting, just on the possibility that there might be abuse going on. Unless you really want to raid every household in the country.

    So you have somehow forgotten what the original example was? Remember, I said that you know that said woman is being abused, only she has not asked anyone for help or asked for anyone to get involved. But since it does not affect you in any way, you would have to argue that she should be left alone to be abused, since that affects you in the same manner as a woman in the same state having an abortion.

    I remember you started this whole tangent with \\\”I want you to respect my choice for your reproductive decisions even though they don\\\’t affect me!\\\” Which is still ridiculous, despite all your DV-in-ND blather.

    So you not only do not remember what I typed out, but you do not remember what you typed out, either? That does not surprise me.

    Advocacy for the unprivileged is as much about listening to them as advocating, which is not the same as just presuming to speak for them. Although I\\\’m sure you were aware of this.

    Except we are not talking about advocacy for the unprivileged, but rather advocacy for the abused and mistreated who are unwilling to speak for themselves.

    Yes, that\\\’s why it might not be utterly silly to call this…

    …a \\\”human being.\\\”

    That could be a number of things at that gestational age, which is why we do not classify organisms based on the way they look. Of course, since you believe we do, then how far from the norm does one have to deviate to be considered a human being still?

    I guess we\\\’re not made of cells, either.

    Made of cells, yes? You are a cell, no. Well, you might think of yourself as a cell, but most everyone else knows better. At any rate, are you going to answer my question regarding tissue, or are you content to pretend as if you did not see it?

    Oh, okay. So the unborn have an inalienable right to life… unless their mothers\\\’ rights were violated. Then, it\\\’s open season on them!!

    No right exists that violates the preexisting rights of someone else.

    I\\\’m a bit surprised that violation of the woman\\\’s autonomy would be such a big deal for you, however.

    Only in your mind does someone believing that abortion should be illegal correlate to hating women or whatever.

    Ooh! \\\”ProChoiceFerret\\\’s Greatest Hits!\\\”

    A label with zero songs on it is not going to sell very well.

    Why yes, women who abort do refuse to continue providing for a fetus!

    They take away from the fetus, thereby violating its rights. I know that it is not in your best interest to acknowledge this fact, but it does not change the fact that it is, well, a fact.

    Did the unborn have a choice or not in whether it was conceived from rape?

    Indeed it does not.

    I didn\\\’t know that women had a need to be self-righteous.

    They do not, though it does seem to be an inate characteristic of those who deem themselves pro-choice.

    So it\\\’s really not about the life of the unborn, but about whether or not the woman had consensual sex. I knew that already, of course, but it\\\’s nice for you to admit it.

    You cannot violate the right of someone else and claim a right to life. Let me break into your house or apartment, and then when you try to throw me out, even with force, let me tell you that I have a right not to be infringed upon by you and let us see how well that goes over.

    Polls dictate reality? I guess evolution really is a myth.

    It does when you realize that public opinion shapes public policy, while public opinion does not shape a scientific fact.

    I\\\’d like to see the scientific reference that flatly states that \\\”the unborn at all stages are human beings,\\\” as opossed to just being genetically human, or not-yet-fully-developed human beings.

    So basically, you have not only decided that a not-yet-fully-developed human being is not really a human (which, I suppose, people under the age of 20, at least, are not human beings since development does not end at birth), and somehow decided that when the zygote is deemed as being genetically complete, they only mean genetically human as would be a cell, instead of a complete individual, albeit immature? Really? At any rate, just one quote:

    \\\”Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.\\\”

    [O\\\’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.

    So you don\\\’t have an argument, then. And abortion comes down to a woman no longer providing for a fetus. Oh well.

    I think you mean that I do not have an argument that you have not thusly ignored.

    Oh, so only about half the country was being ignorant?

    Less, actually ;)

    It\\\’s easy being a male, isn\\\’t it?

    Apparently, it is much easier being a female, considering a female is more likely to make the aforementioned argument than a male is.

    At least you\\\’re better at tossing insults than arguing in favor of indefensible reproductive policy.

    And yet I am so good at both, even though I do not need to resort to insults, that you end up scratching your head and claim that I am not really good at either (because you cannot think of an adequate response to the things I type out).

    Yes, I suppose being able to escape abortion bans and thus not having to worry about one\\\’s reproductive choices, and being ignorant about the real reasons why women have abortions, have nothing to do with the credibility of a woman\\\’s argument against abortion.

    Okay. So now not only are you stating that poor women who would not be able to escape the abortion bans they are looking to institute would be able to escape the abortion bans they are looking to institute, but now that those women who oppose abortion do not know why women have abortions? Ignoring the first statement because it is laughable, the second is pretty absurd, as many times on this site have I stated why women have abortions, only to have someone call it wrong (i.e., SaltyC or Are), only to have me turn around and provide data from Guttmacher, only to have them conveniently disappear. But I am sure you care about that.

    You stick to those poll numbers like Linus sticks to his security blanket, don\\\’t you? God forbid a majority of people start thinking that separation of church and state is \\\”too radical.\\\”

    Did you know that religion is not the biggest predictor of attitudes towards abortion? We went over this in another thread. Need I direct you there?

    And there you go again, pretending that a fetus is an independent entity that is not sucking life support from the body of a woman. Why can\\\’t the woman just leave it alone?? It\\\’s not like it\\\’s doing anything to her!

    I do believe I said this earlier, but it can only do to her as a result of her actions. Otherwise, it would not exist, and there would be no problem.

    But then, there are many times that society does not respect the consent of a woman, so why shouldn\\\’t it add one more?

    Ah, the consent angle again. It is a good thing that people are not held to specific duties and obligations solely because they consent to it. I do not really have the patience to explain this in detail, so you can just read the aforementioned, starting on page 16 -> http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/Boonin.pdf. It explains it pretty well.

    Yes, we do live in a sexist, misogynistic society! Apparently, this is news to some of us.

    It is news to everyone who has not set out to believe that we live in a sexist, misogynistic society. As I said earlier, you can find anything if you look hard enough :)

  • beenthere72

    Your Bei is showing.

     

    As for ‘us’  – that accounts for me and everybody else on this site that sides with PCF, which I believe to be just about anybody on here that is pro-choice and just about everybody I know in RL as well.     PCF is just world’s better at arguing on my behalf or else you can be damn sure I’d jump in here too and support her.    Just because we’re not all jumping into this conversation doesn’t mean we don’t agree with her.   She just has immeasurable patience for you while I just want to tell you to f*off and go away.    You’re exhausting.     You’re not going to change our minds.  You’re simply trying to ‘win’ arguments so you can pat yourself on the back.    ‘I told her, didn’t I!?!?’  Misogynist written all over it. 

     

    And the rest after that was again:  TLDR

     

     

  • squirrely-girl

    As I said earlier, you can find anything if you look hard enough :)

    Does this include your humanity?

  • bornin1984

    Yet again, I have to ask who this us is because, as I typically point out, while you are going on about misogyny and the like, public attitude is changing (as it has been for nearly twenty years), just not in the direction you seem to think or want. So, apparently, someone is being influenced one way or another. I am almost reminded of the whole Pauline Kael (misquote) regarding the 1972 presidential election in which Nixon trounced George McGovern, in which she stated that she could not believe Nixon had won as no one she knew voted for him. As it relates to this issue, I really do think you should get outside of your little bubble, because you (and not you specifically) seem to live in a world completely of your own fashioning, and when someone points out to you that you are wrong, and provides actual, requisite evidence of you being wrong, you ignore it, and when something happens that is contrary to your stated views, then you pass it off as patriarchy.

    At any rate, PCF is not that good when it comes to debate, which is why I entertain her. I do find it funny when she tries responding to my posts– almost like clockwork– only to run herself into contradiction after contradiction, only to find herself having to climb out of a logical hole only to fall into a bigger one. It is rather amusing, so when she responds to my posts, I respond to her posts. And thus the cycle continues.

    Also, since you are back to quoting me, I noticed how you accused me of ignoring one of your posts, and when I responded to it, you ignored my post. Why was that? At any rate, of course it is about being right. Of course it is about influencing others. Of course, it is has to hard have a debate of sorts without first starting from a fact-based position, or else you are just arguing opinions, and that is an exercise in futility. Of course, that is probably for the best as far as pro-choicers are concerned, because then they can pass off the abortion debate as one of opinions, which ignores every and any kind of moral issue involved in abortion. At any rate, as I have found throughout my discussions with you, whenever you find out that you were wrong about something, or even mistaken, instead of admitting your error, you either disappear, start talking about how my posts are too long or just flat out start flinging petty insults. That is no skin off of my nose, really, as in the long run you do your own movement a disservice which, I suppose, is not that bad of a thing, as fewer people labeling themselves as pro-choice is always a good thing.

    Late edit: Fixed a few things.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Pack up your bags and go home, for you just lost.

     

    Born – honestly I wish you would pack it up and go home. You are annoying, belligerent, rude, and immature. You bring absolutely nothing to this conversation. You have done nothing to change my views. I am even more staunchly PROCHOICE than ever before.

     

  • prochoiceferret

    But you are begging the question, PCF. You are still burdened with explaining why this difference is important.

     

    The problem is not that I haven’t explained (I have, many many times), it’s that you believe that the severe effects of the fetus on the woman’s body are immaterial. If you don’t think that a woman should have a say in what this thing that isn’t even a developed human being yet does to her body, then all of your other flailing and philosophical justifications follow. None of it hides the fact that your position is utterly monstrous (while being pedestrianly misogynistic, alas), but I’m sure it helps salve your conscience.

     

    This one bit was interesting, however:

     

    Did the unborn have a choice or not in whether it was conceived from rape?

    Indeed it does not.

     

    You seem to believe that a fetus that was conceived from rape does not have an “inalienable right to life.” I’m rather fascinated by this. Could you explain how you, being apparently quite keen on ensuring the rights of the fetus, are willing to deny them simply because of the circumstances of its conception?

     

    When does such a fetus gain the right to life, if ever? If it is born, and grows into a five-year-old, can the mother legally kill it?

     

    If the woman forgives her rapist while pregnant, does the fetus automatically regain its right to life?

     

    I think many of us here are curious about this oddly selective application of your “pro-life” principles.

  • bornin1984

    The problem is not that I haven\’t explained (I have, many many times), it\’s that you believe that the severe effects of the fetus on the woman\’s body are immaterial. If you don\’t think that a woman should have a say in what this thing that isn\’t even a developed human being yet does to her body, then all of your other flailing and philosophical justifications follow. None of it hides the fact that your position is utterly monstrous (while being pedestrianly misogynistic, alas), but I\’m sure it helps salve your conscience.

    If the above is truly your argument, then you do not have much of an argument at all. First of all, both you and I know that the majority of people would allow a woman to have an abortion if her life is on the line or her health will be significantly impacted. The problem you are having, is that unlike the majority of people, you want abortion to be legal for even the smallest of discomforts yet turn around and claim that anyone who would not allow a woman to have an abortion for any such small reasons do not care about the major health complications that can arise from pregnancy. This is dishonest. Second of all, development does not end at birth. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that once the unborn exits the uterus, that it is fully developed, whereas upon exiting the uterus, it is sufficiently enough developed to survive sans the woman, though it will still develop for the next, at least, twenty or so years. It does not matter what stage of development someone is at. This does not affect whether or not someone else is allowed to kill them (well, usually anyway. Apparently abortion gets it own set of rules and circumstances). At the end of the day, the only thing monstrous is arguing that there is some kind of right to kill another. It still is funny how you label being opposed to one group killing another at their leisure to be misogyny. That really does boggle the mind.

    You seem to believe that a fetus that was conceived from rape does not have an \”inalienable right to life.\” I\’m rather fascinated by this. Could you explain how you, being apparently quite keen on ensuring the rights of the fetus, are willing to deny them simply because of the circumstances of its conception?

    When does such a fetus gain the right to life, if ever? If it is born, and grows into a five-year-old, can the mother legally kill it?

    If the woman forgives her rapist while pregnant, does the fetus automatically regain its right to life?

    I think many of us here are curious about this oddly selective application of your \”pro-life\” principles.

    Do you remember the last time we went over this, when I said I would much rather not allow abortion in cases of rape, but rather make it so that emergency contraception is readily available to victims of rape, and you accused me of wanting to take the easy way out? I am sure you do.

  • prochoiceferret

    If the above is truly your argument, then you do not have much of an argument at all. First of all, both you and I know that the majority of people would allow a woman to have an abortion if her life is on the line or her health will be significantly impacted.

     

    Pregnancy significantly impacts the woman’s health, so abortion should always be allowed. Good argument!

     

    The problem you are having, is that unlike the majority of people, you want abortion to be legal for even the smallest of discomforts yet turn around and claim that anyone who would not allow a woman to have an abortion for any such small reasons do not care about the major health complications that can arise from pregnancy. This is dishonest.

     

    I’m sure that will come as a surprise to all the woman with major unwanted-pregnancy complications who were unable to get an abortion early on, when it was still just a “small discomfort.”

     

    Second of all, development does not end at birth. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that once the unborn exits the uterus, that it is fully developed, whereas upon exiting the uterus, it is sufficiently enough developed to survive sans the woman, though it will still develop for the next, at least, twenty or so years. It does not matter what stage of development someone is at. This does not affect whether or not someone else is allowed to kill them (well, usually anyway. Apparently abortion gets it own set of rules and circumstances).

     

    Correct, because in abortion (and pregnancy in general), you have the situation of one “person” directly living off the body of another. Apparently, you think this really isn’t a big deal.

     

    At the end of the day, the only thing monstrous is arguing that there is some kind of right to kill another. It still is funny how you label being opposed to one group killing another at their leisure to be misogyny. That really does boggle the mind.

     

    Yes, your ability to ignore the fact that the fetus does not have the right to non-consensual life support—just like anyone else—is pretty incredible.

     

    Do you remember the last time we went over this, when I said I would much rather not allow abortion in cases of rape, but rather make it so that emergency contraception is readily available to victims of rape, and you accused me of wanting to take the easy way out? I am sure you do.

     

    So you do support the right of one group to kill another at their leisure. I just have to ask… what horrible thing did the children of rape ever do to you that you want to kill them?

  • bornin1984

    Pregnancy significantly impacts the woman\’s health, so abortion should always be allowed. Good argument!

    Except it does not, henceforth why only 4% of abortions are done because of health complications (and I will even be generous and let you get away with claiming that 10% of all pregnancies are potentially fatal to the woman). Bad application on your part.

    I\’m sure that will come as a surprise to all the woman with major unwanted-pregnancy complications who were unable to get an abortion early on, when it was still just a \”small discomfort.\”

    You mean those 4% (or let us just make it 10%, for the sake of being gratuitous) of women you somehow think account for 100% of all abortions?

    Correct, because in abortion (and pregnancy in general), you have the situation of one \”person\” directly living off the body of another. Apparently, you think this really isn\’t a big deal.

    It is funny how you somehow think that the unborn lives off the woman, when the woman actually directs nutrients towards the unborn and accommodates it/facilitates its growth. It is pretty hard to treat those two things as similar. How hard is it, exactly, to open up a biology book?

    Yes, your ability to ignore the fact that the fetus does not have the right to non-consensual life support—just like anyone else—is pretty incredible.

    Oh, look. You have gone from the consent angle, to the non-consensual life support angle, which is still false. I would ask you to show me a situation in which you can take away from someone and have them die, but I have asked this many times in the past, and you never answer it. Why not? Quite possibly because you cannot think up of a scenario, because outside of abortion one does not exist.

    So you do support the right of one group to kill another at their leisure. I just have to ask… what horrible thing did the children of rape ever do to you that you want to kill them?

    Probably far less than I did to be subjected to your terrible reading skills.

  • beenthere72

    I don’t ignore you, I just don’t care to engage in discussion with you.   It’s not worth my time.   I have a full time job, a family, a social life and frankly would rather keep my sanity than humor the likes of you.

     

    As for my little bubble and so-called changing public attitudes towards abortion  (this poll seems to say otherwise:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/126374/republicans-dems-abortion-views-grow-polarized.aspx) …  have you ever been to the Northeast?   It’ll be a long time, if ever, that that opinion gains a majority around these parts.    

     

    Funny, it seems most states are mostly pro-choice:  http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife.htm&nbsp;

     

    Excuse me while I go back to work now…

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Except it does not, henceforth why only 4% of abortions are done because of health complications (and I will even be generous and let you get away with claiming that 10% of all pregnancies are potentially fatal to the woman). Bad application on your part.

     

    96% of pregnancies do not have an impact on the woman’s health?

     

    It is funny how you somehow think that the unborn lives off the woman, when the woman actually directs nutrients towards the unborn and accommodates it/facilitates its growth. It is pretty hard to treat those two things as similar.

     

    The fetus isn’t living off the woman? Great, so it won’t mind the eviction notice!

     

    Oh, look. You have gone from the consent angle, to the non-consensual life support angle, which is still false. I would ask you to show me a situation in which you can take away from someone and have them die, but I have asked this many times in the past, and you never answer it. Why not? Quite possibly because you cannot think up of a scenario, because outside of abortion one does not exist.

     

    Pregnancy is a pretty unique human experience, isn’t it? Although others have posited a similar situation with a violinist.

     

    Probably far less than I did to be subjected to your terrible reading skills.

     

    How can you live with yourself, advocating for the murder of innocent unborn rape-gestated babies? I’m sure that if they could talk, they would say, “BornIn1984! Don’t let them kill me just because my Daddy raped my Mommy!”

  • bornin1984

    96% of pregnancies do not have an impact on the woman\’s health?

    To quote myself (and then some):

    100% of pregnancies affect the health of the woman in some form, and 4% of abortions are done because of pregnancies affecting the health of the woman. To argue that 100% of abortions should be legal because only 4% of abortions are done because of pregnancies related to the health of the woman is, well, fairly dishonest.

    The fetus isn\’t living off the woman? Great, so it won\’t mind the eviction notice!

    Probably not, on account of it being dead, and the dead not caring. With that being said, it must really bother you to have to rely on failed sarcasm when you are presented with a point you cannot respond to.

    Pregnancy is a pretty unique human experience, isn\’t it?

    Only if only humans become pregnant.

    Although others have posited a similar situation with a violinist.

    Tried and failed, I might add. Almost like someone else I know.

    How can you live with yourself, advocating for the murder of innocent unborn rape-gestated babies? I\’m sure that if they could talk, they would say, \”BornIn1984! Don\’t let them kill me just because my Daddy raped my Mommy!\”

    How can I live with myself? Fairly easily, considering what I have typed out and you have ignored :)

  • prochoiceferret

    100% of pregnancies affect the health of the woman in some form, and 4% of abortions are done because of pregnancies affecting the health of the woman. To argue that 100% of abortions should be legal because only 4% of abortions are done because of pregnancies related to the health of the woman is, well, fairly dishonest.

     

    It’s a good thing that I argue that 100% of abortions should be legal because 100% of pregnancies affect the health of the woman.

     

    But alas, it’s dishonest to say that abortion shouldn’t be legal because of the fetus’s right to life, when you selectively deny that right due to the actions of third parties.

     

    Tried and failed, I might add. Almost like someone else I know.

     

    You still think I’m trying to convince you?

     

    How can I live with myself? Fairly easily, considering what I have typed out and you have ignored :)

     

    I’m sure you’ll have a good explanation to give all those little snowflake rape-babies when you are burning in the smoking pits of Hell.

  • bornin1984

    I don\’t ignore you, I just don\’t care to engage in discussion with you. It\’s not worth my time. I have a full time job, a family, a social life and frankly would rather keep my sanity than humor the likes of you.

    Yet, for whatever reason or another, does not seem to have stopped you from periodically showing up to try to make some snide remark towards me.

    As for my little bubble and so-called changing public attitudes towards abortion (this poll seems to say otherwise: http://www.gallup.com/poll/126374/republicans-dems-abortion-views-grow-p…) … have you ever been to the Northeast? It\’ll be a long time, if ever, that that opinion gains a majority around these parts.

    I really do think that you might want to go through and read the entire series.

    According to two-year averages of these results since 2001, Republicans have become more likely to call themselves pro-life since polling conducted in 2003/2004, as have Republican-leaning independents since 2005/2006. Independents who lean to neither party also became more likely to call themselves \”pro-life\” between 2003/2004 and 2005/2006, but have since held steady.

    From 2001 to 2010, the percentage of Republicans calling themselves rose from 62% to 68%; Republican-leaning independents from 47% to 61%, no affiliation independents from 35% to 45%; Democratic-leaning independents from 26% to 34%; and Democrats from 35% to 31%. That is a net gain in pro-life for every group sans Democrats.

    All age groups have become more attached to the pro-life label since 2005, with particularly large increases among young adults and those aged 50 to 64 years in the latest period between 2007/2008 and 2009/2010.

    From 2001 to 2010, the percentage of those between 18 – 29 labeling themselves as pro-life rose from 43% to 47%; those between 30 – 49, 43% to 45%; those between 50 – 64, 45% to 50%; and those greater than 65 from 47% to 54%.

    And finally:

    Both genders have also become more likely to identify as pro-life, with the increase among women coming mainly since 2008, whereas the increase in men started after 2006.

    From 2001 to 2010, the percentage of men labeling themselves as pro-life rose from 46% to 49%, while women from 42% to 48%.

    Everything taken from here -> http://www.gallup.com/poll/128036/new-normal-abortion-americans-pro-life.aspx#1. There is also this -> http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/generational-differences-abortion-narrow.aspx for other reading.

    Funny, it seems most states are mostly pro-choice: http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife….

    You mean that five years ago more people were pro-choice than pro-life? I could have told you that. In fact, most everyone could have told you that.

  • bornin1984

    It\’s a good thing that I argue that 100% of abortions should be legal because 100% of pregnancies affect the health of the woman.

    So your argument is that the comfort of one trumps the life of another?

    But alas, it\’s dishonest to say that abortion shouldn\’t be legal because of the fetus\’s right to life, when you selectively deny that right due to the actions of third parties.

    I do?

    You still think I\’m trying to convince you?

    So you are preaching to the choir? It is no wonder you seem to have such a distorted view of reality. You only interact with those who already hold your stated views.

    I\’m sure you\’ll have a good explanation to give all those little snowflake rape-babies when you are burning in the smoking pits of Hell.

    Why would I be in Hell?

  • beenthere72

    Bottom Line

    Among all Americans, public opinion on abortion appears to have been fairly stable since 1975, with modest changes in the percentages of Americans taking either of the two most extreme positions. This overall stability in views obscures a transformation that has taken place in the ways the two major parties approach the issue.”

     

    Honestly, the number of people that think Sarah Palin would make a good president scare me more than the increasing number of pro-life Republicans.    Oh yeah, and they’re the same people.  Genius.  

     

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    So your argument is that the comfort of one trumps the life of another?

     

    No, because the health effects of pregnancy are not merely a matter of “comfort,” and the “life of another” is not entitled to subject the woman to those effects.

     

    (Go ahead, call pregnancy a “minor inconvenience.” You know you want to!)

     

    I do?

     

    Yes, you do. If the fetus was conceived as the result of a rape (the third party being the man), then you’re willing to deny it the right to life. For you, there exists this whole class of innocent people who can just be killed without legal repercussion. I suppose you could call them “unpersons.”

     

    So you are preaching to the choir? It is no wonder you seem to have such a distorted view of reality. You only interact with those who already hold your stated views.

     

    Oh, I interact with those who don’t. I tend to lose them at “women have rights,” however.

     

    Why would I be in Hell?

     

    Because you gave succor to the murder of innocent rape babies, and that’s the kind of thing anti-choicers say will get you a prime spot in the Lake of Fire.

  • bornin1984

    No, because the health effects of pregnancy are not merely a matter of \”comfort,\” and the \”life of another\” is not entitled to subject the woman to those effects.

    The health effects of pregnancy do not come into play the overwhelming majority of the time. Most of those health effects, whether you want to admit it or not, are non-fatal, non-life threatening and a matter of comfort. But since this does not play into your rationale, and works directly against it, then I can see how you would continue to ignore it.

    (Go ahead, call pregnancy a \”minor inconvenience.\” You know you want to!)

    It is far much less of a minor convenience than is being killed :)

    Yes, you do. If the fetus was conceived as the result of a rape (the third party being the man), then you\’re willing to deny it the right to life. For you, there exists this whole class of innocent people who can just be killed without legal repercussion. I suppose you could call them \”unpersons.\”

    I do? Because that is news to me.

    Oh, I interact with those who don\’t. I tend to lose them at \”women have rights,\” however.

    Oh? And who has said that women do not have rights?

    Because you gave succor to the murder of innocent rape babies, and that\’s the kind of thing anti-choicers say will get you a prime spot in the Lake of Fire.

    I did?

  • prochoiceferret

    The health effects of pregnancy do not come into play the overwhelming majority of the time. Most of those health effects, whether you want to admit it or not, are non-fatal, non-life threatening and a matter of comfort. But since this does not play into your rationale, and works directly against it, then I can see how you would continue to ignore it.

     

    I can see why you would make the argument you do if you’re that ignorant about the side effects and repercussions of pregnancy, and/or so willing to automatically classify anything non-fatal or non-life-threatening as “a matter of comfort.”

     

    It is far much less of a minor convenience than is being killed :)

     

    There are lots of “minorly inconvenient” things one can do that would save lives, but that does not in itself impose an obligation to do them.

     

    I do? Because that is news to me.

     

    Yes, I too was surprised to hear that you would not step in to protect the life of a fetus that was conceived from rape.

     

    Oh? And who has said that women do not have rights?

     

    You, and many others, who assert that they don’t even have the right to their own bodies.

     

    (I didn’t mean that “pro-lifers” felt that women didn’t have any rights at all. A woman’s right to give a man a blow job is still secure, along with a few others.)

     

    I did?

     

    I’m sure your God won’t be terribly impressed with that response.

  • bornin1984

    I can see why you would make the argument you do if you\’re that ignorant about the side effects and repercussions of pregnancy, and/or so willing to automatically classify anything non-fatal or non-life-threatening as \”a matter of comfort.\”

    Tell me again what percentage of abortions are done for health concerns? Now tell me what percentage of abortions are done for no reasons even remotely related to her health again? Exactly. Ignorance, indeed.

    There are lots of \”minorly inconvenient\” things one can do that would save lives, but that does not in itself impose an obligation to do them.

    Not saving a life; not taking one. All of which we make people do if it would involve not taking the life of another. Well, sans abortion, that is. Abortion gets its own set of special rules.

    Yes, I too was surprised to hear that you would not step in to protect the life of a fetus that was conceived from rape.

    Oh?

    You, and many others, who assert that they don\’t even have the right to their own bodies.

    Ah, this angle again. You could always go back and read that link I gave you, but since it does not conform to your view of what self-ownership meant, you ignored it. A big shocker there, right?

    (I didn\’t mean that \”pro-lifers\” felt that women didn\’t have any rights at all. A woman\’s right to give a man a blow job is still secure, along with a few others.)

    And she still has the right to say no. Unless, of course, you want to be one of those forced birth equals rape people.

    I\’m sure your God won\’t be terribly impressed with that response.

    And which one is that?

  • prochoiceferret

    Tell me again what percentage of abortions are done for health concerns? Now tell me what percentage of abortions are done for no reasons even remotely related to her health again? Exactly. Ignorance, indeed.

     

    So let me see if I understand your argument:

     

    “Most abortions are done for a (primary) reason that is not related to health concerns… therefore, health concerns are not a valid justification for a woman’s right to abortion.”

     

    I’m sure the culture warriors would love to riff on that:

     

    “Most speech is created for a (primary) reason that is not related to political debate… therefore, political debate is not a valid justification for the right to free speech.”

     

    Not saving a life; not taking one. All of which we make people do if it would involve not taking the life of another. Well, sans abortion, that is. Abortion gets its own set of special rules.

     

    No, the lack of a right to obtain biological life support from an unwilling person’s body is a pretty universal rule.

     

    Oh?

     

    Yes. Is not the fact that the woman consented to sex significant to your argument that the fetus can stay inside her even if she doesn’t want it there?

     

    Ah, this angle again. You could always go back and read that link I gave you, but since it does not conform to your view of what self-ownership meant, you ignored it. A big shocker there, right?

     

    Self-ownership as a concept is a bit pointless if you say that someone can still own air/water/food after some other person ingests it. I suppose you believe “free speech” as a concept includes the right to libel, incitement, and yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, too.

  • bornin1984

    So let me see if I understand your argument:

    \”Most abortions are done for a (primary) reason that is not related to health concerns… therefore, health concerns are not a valid justification for a woman\’s right to abortion.\”

    I\’m sure the culture warriors would love to riff on that:

    \”Most speech is created for a (primary) reason that is not related to political debate… therefore, political debate is not a valid justification for the right to free speech.\”

    I would let you try that again, but you will just get it wrong again. Therefore, I will help you out.

    Most abortions are done for no reason related to the health of the woman at all (Go to Guttmacher and look it up). If pregnancy posing health risks to the mother is the basis of your justification for why abortion should be legal, then it is therefore dishonest to say that abortion should be legal for any and all reasons unrelated to the fact of the pregnancy posing a health risk to the mother. Abortions should be made legal in cases where there is a risk to the health of the mother, and illegal in all the others.

    Of course, you do not understand that, which is funny because this is even after I pointed out to you above that most people would allow an abortion if the life or health of the mother was at risk. Your ability to construct logical arguments is, well, non-existent.

    No, the lack of a right to obtain biological life support from an unwilling person\’s body is a pretty universal rule.

    Except it is not, as evidenced by the fact that abortion is not legal everywhere, and that even where it is legal, it is not legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Of course, as you have demonstrated repeatedly, you do not understand this in the slightest.

    Yes. Is not the fact that the woman consented to sex significant to your argument that the fetus can stay inside her even if she doesn\’t want it there?

    You are the one using the consent angle, not me. I do not know how many times I have pointed out to you that people are not held to certain duties and obligations because they necessarily want to be, but because society wants them to be. Just see one of my responses above.

    Self-ownership as a concept is a bit pointless if you say that someone can still own air/water/food after some other person ingests it.

    The fact that you think someone said this, leads me to believe that you really do not understand the things you read or are attempting to argue.

    I suppose you believe \”free speech\” as a concept includes the right to libel, incitement, and yelling \”Fire!\” in a crowded theater, too.

    No, but you sure do.

  • prochoiceferret

    If pregnancy posing health risks to the mother is the basis of your justification for why abortion should be legal, then it is therefore dishonest to say that abortion should be legal for any and all reasons unrelated to the fact of the pregnancy posing a health risk to the mother. Abortions should be made legal in cases where there is a risk to the health of the mother, and illegal in all the others.

     

    Yep, that still works:

     

    “If speech enabling political debate is the basis of your justification for why speech should be free, then it is therefore dishonest to say that speech should be free for any and all reasons unrelated to the fact of the speech enabling political debate. Speech should be made free in cases where there is political debate, and restricted in all the others.”

     

    Of course, you do not understand that, which is funny because this is even after I pointed out to you above that most people would allow an abortion if the life or health of the mother was at risk.

     

    The fetus has the right to wreak havoc on the woman’s body as long as it doesn’t kill her or permanently disable her in some way?

     

    Do people in general have this right, or are you just granting it to that special class of “persons” who haven’t been born yet?

     

    Except it is not, as evidenced by the fact that abortion is not legal everywhere, and that even where it is legal, it is not legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Of course, as you have demonstrated repeatedly, you do not understand this in the slightest.

     

    Boy, those big anti-slavery debates must have been pretty short affairs before the Civil War.

     

    You are the one using the consent angle, not me. I do not know how many times I have pointed out to you that people are not held to certain duties and obligations because they necessarily want to be, but because society wants them to be. Just see one of my responses above.

     

    Oh, so now you’re blaming society for the deaths of those rape-gestated unborn babies? What’s it gonna be next, a difficult childhood?

     

    The fact that you think someone said this, leads me to believe that you really do not understand the things you read or are attempting to argue.

     

    That’s funny, I was about to say the same thing about you.

     

    No, but you sure do.

     

    Oh?

  • bornin1984

    Yep, that still works:

    \”If speech enabling political debate is the basis of your justification for why speech should be free, then it is therefore dishonest to say that speech should be free for any and all reasons unrelated to the fact of the speech enabling political debate. Speech should be made free in cases where there is political debate, and restricted in all the others.\”

    Indeed it does and you just reinforced my point. So thank you. Of course, you probably do not realize this, but par for the course.

    The fetus has the right to wreak havoc on the woman\’s body as long as it doesn\’t kill her or permanently disable her in some way?

    Do people in general have this right, or are you just granting it to that special class of \”persons\” who haven\’t been born yet?

    It seems to me that you do not understand what a right is, unceremoniously labeling anything and everything as a right which, while convenient, does not make it correct. At any rate, just the right to not be killed.

    Boy, those big anti-slavery debates must have been pretty short affairs before the Civil War.

    According to you, they would have been. Universality and all that.

    Oh, so now you\’re blaming society for the deaths of those rape-gestated unborn babies? What\’s it gonna be next, a difficult childhood?

    I did not know I was blaming anyone. You really should up your reading skills.

    That\’s funny, I was about to say the same thing about you.

    You were going to tell me that the fact that you do not understand what you read or write out means that you do not understand what you are trying to argue? That sure would have saved me the trouble.

    Oh?

    Yup.

  • saltyc

    Born, you are just too stupid for words.

    Now tell me what percentage of abortions are done for no reasons even remotely related to her health again? Exactly. Ignorance, indeed.

     

    The answer is 0%.

    I have asked you to back this ridiculous assertion that pregnancy health risks are irrelevant to abortions up and you HAVEN’T. You showed some response to a questionnaire about the primary reasons women give for having abortions. Hello? knock knock, primary doesn NOT mean EVERY. Got that? The fact that health considerations were not in the top of the list does NOT mean that health considerations are not important to the decision. Women DO NOT always PUT THEIR OWN HEALTH FIRST IDIOT.

    EVERY pregnancy poses a health risk,  Hello? knock knock you there? I said EVERY and OF COURSE every woman having an abortion knows this.

    If there were a survey that asked Americans why they don’t use cocaine on a regular basis, and the top 5 reasons were things like: I don’t like the way it makes me feel, it would interfere with my employment, it would screw up my marriage, it would ruin me financially, and I don’t want to support crime,

    if those were the top primary reasons, then would someone who’s not an idiot assume that therefore the health impact of cocaine is irrelevant?

    I guess you would because YOU’RE A TOTAL IDIOT!!!!

     

    Asshole.

  • bornin1984

    Just because you ignored something, Salty, does not mean you were not shown this before. Therefore, yet again, I will post for you what you ignored.

    Percentage of women reporting that specified reasons contributed to their decision to have an abortion, 2004

    Having a baby would dramatically change my life: 74%
    Would interfere with education: 38%
    Would interfere with job/employment/career: 38%
    Have other children or dependents: 32%
    Can’t afford a baby now: 73%
    Unmarried: 42%
    Student or planning to study: 34%
    Can’t afford a baby and child care: 28%
    Can’t afford the basic needs of life: 23%
    Unemployed: 22%
    Can’t leave job to take care of a baby: 21%
    Would have to find a new place to live: 19%
    Not enough support from husband or partner: 14%
    Husband or partner is unemployed: 12%
    Currently or temporarily on welfare or public assistance: 8%
    Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems: 48%
    Not sure about relationship: 19%
    Partner and I can’t or don’t want to get married: 12%
    Not in a relationship right now: 11%
    Relationship or marriage may break up soon: 11%
    Husband or partner is abusive to me or my children: 2%
    Have completed my childbearing: 38%
    Not ready for a(nother) child: 32%
    Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant: 25%
    Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child: 22%
    Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion: 14%
    Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus: 13%
    Physical problem with my health: 12%
    Parents want me to have an abortion: 6%
    Was a victim of rape: 1%
    Became pregnant as a result of incest: <0.5%

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

    So once again I state, the majority of abortions have absolutely nothing to do with the health of the woman. You not liking this, or thinking that it is not a fact, does not make it untrue. Amazing the propensity of your side to not look things up. I am sure I will have to repeat this in the future, though.

  • prochoiceferret

    So once again I state, the majority of abortions have absolutely nothing to do with the health of the woman.

     

    Sorry, but a woman not citing “physical problem with my health” for an abortion does not mean she is unconcerned about the effects of later pregnancy on her health, and whether or not a woman is concerned about a pregnancy’s effects on her health at all doesn’t change the fact that pregnancy has a major impact on her health. Try again.

  • prochoiceferret

    Indeed it does and you just reinforced my point. So thank you.

     

    Oh, okay. I didn’t know that you were intentionally arguing that your anti-choice views have no place in a free society. You’re welcome!

     

    It seems to me that you do not understand what a right is, unceremoniously labeling anything and everything as a right which, while convenient, does not make it correct. At any rate, just the right to not be killed.

     

    Which, apparently, is a valid justification for violating the human rights of other people.

     

    According to you, they would have been. Universality and all that.

     

    I’m sure the abolitionists would have been all ready and psyched to argue their principles, before the pro-slavers won the debate by citing laws which supported slavery as incontrovertible proof that the abolitionists were wrong.

     

    I did not know I was blaming anyone. You really should up your reading skills.

     

    I hope you have a better response than that for your Maker—who will probably hand you a Bible, and say, “No, up yours.”

     

    You were going to tell me that the fact that you do not understand what you read or write out means that you do not understand what you are trying to argue? That sure would have saved me the trouble.

     

    You may not be saving yourself much trouble by posting here, but you’ve done a great job of showing why the anti-choice movement is like one of those cartoon mummies. Take away the wrappings/misogyny, and there’s nothing left!

     

    Yup.

     

    [citation needed]

  • bornin1984

    Sorry, but a woman not citing \”physical problem with my health\” for an abortion does not mean she is unconcerned about the effects of later pregnancy on her health…

    It really does, PCF, as women do not have preemptive abortions for health related problems that have yet to occur or be diagnosed or have a history of happening to her (or even in her family). Women, as you like to point out, are not stupid. At any rate, since you seemingly believe that the majority (that is 50% plus) of women having an abortion do so because they are concerned about the effects of pregnancy on their health, then the onus would be on you to provide evidence for this assertion. Good luck with that, though, as you are going to need it, as it is a well-known fact that health plays very little role in the decision to abortion. I await to see what you find :)

    and whether or not a woman is concerned about a pregnancy\’s effects on her health at all doesn\’t change the fact that pregnancy has a major impact on her health. Try again.

    Which does not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions are not done for any reason related to the health of the woman. Which is what I have said many times now, and have provided the requisite information to back up.

    It really does suck having to argue against fact, does it not? You could save yourself the trouble and stop trying, though I doubt you will.

  • bornin1984

    Oh, okay. I didn\’t know that you were intentionally arguing that your anti-choice views have no place in a free society. You\’re welcome!

    Oh, really? That is what was being argued? Somehow, I do not think it was.

    Which, apparently, is a valid justification for violating the human rights of other people.

    The ability to kill at your leisure is a human right?

    I\’m sure the abolitionists would have been all ready and psyched to argue their principles, before the pro-slavers won the debate by citing laws which supported slavery as incontrovertible proof that the abolitionists were wrong.

    Luckily, the abolitionists did not argue that abolitionism was universally accepted, but that slavery was, whether or not it was perceived that way, universally immoral. But I am sure you knew this.

    I hope you have a better response than that for your Maker—who will probably hand you a Bible, and say, \”No, up yours.\”

    And which maker would that be?

    You may not be saving yourself much trouble by posting here, but you\’ve done a great job of showing why the anti-choice movement is like one of those cartoon mummies. Take away the wrappings/misogyny, and there\’s nothing left!

    You cannot take away that which does not exist.

    [citation needed]

    See your previous four or five responses. Maybe even six, I have lost count.

  • prochoiceferret

    It really does, PCF, as women do not have preemptive abortions for health related problems that have yet to occur or be diagnosed or have a history of happening to her (or even in her family). Women, as you like to point out, are not stupid. At any rate, since you seemingly believe that the majority (that is 50% plus) of women having an abortion do so because they are concerned about the effects of pregnancy on their health, then the onus would be on you to provide evidence for this assertion. Good luck with that, though, as you are going to need it, as it is a well-known fact that health plays very little role in the decision to abortion. I await to see what you find :)

     

    Oh, just women feeling the effects of pregnancy, like morinng sickness, and talking with their doctors before they decide to have an abortion. I’m sure that all those ladies giving “can’t afford it” or “not the right time” or whatever else as a reason for aborting are not thinking at all about the further impact that the pregnancy would otherwise have on their body.

     

    I don’t see why you even bother trying to make this argument, however, because even if 99% of women had abortions to fit into a prom dress, it still wouldn’t work. Pregnancy has severe effects on a woman’s body and health—and no, this is not just limited to the risk of dying or disability—and as long as a woman can choose to abort on the basis of avoiding a risk to her health, she can choose on whatever other basis she wants. Much like free speech and political debate.

     

    Which does not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions are not done for any reason related to the health of the woman. Which is what I have said many times now, and have provided the requisite information to back up.

     

    No, your information only notes “physical problem with my health.” That’s like saying that an engine repair counts as car maintenance, but an oil change does not. Avoiding potential health problems down the road is just as much a “health-related” reason to have an abortion as a medical emergency.

     

    It really does suck having to argue against fact, does it not? You could save yourself the trouble and stop trying, though I doubt you will.

     

    Arguing against facts does suck, but I’m not the one engaging in that futile venture.

  • bornin1984

    Oh, just women feeling the effects of pregnancy, like morinng sickness, and talking with their doctors before they decide to have an abortion. I\’m sure that all those ladies giving \”can\’t afford it\” or \”not the right time\” or whatever else as a reason for aborting are not thinking at all about the further impact that the pregnancy would otherwise have on their body.

    Indeed they are not (and all the requisite studies done on reasons why women abort point to that fact). Give a woman who cannot afford a child a million dollars and suddenly she wants to keep the child even though there are the same health risks involved in a wanted vs. unwanted pregnancy. In fact, for a woman who cites health concerns as a reason for aborting, then no other reason would ultimately matter, because the effect pregnancy has on the body is independent of things such as relationship problems, work, whether or not one wants to finish school or even financial stability. Even if the aforementioned situations change, the pregnancy still works the same. Of course, since you can change the behavior of the woman when it comes to abortion by altering one of the aforementioned situations, then it stands to reason that health concerns do not play a big role in the majority of abortions. In other words, you should try again.

    I don\’t see why you even bother trying to make this argument, however, because even if 99% of women had abortions to fit into a prom dress, it still wouldn\’t work. Pregnancy has severe effects on a woman\’s body and health—and no, this is not just limited to the risk of dying or disability—and as long as a woman can choose to abort on the basis of avoiding a risk to her health, she can choose on whatever other basis she wants. Much like free speech and political debate.

    Then your argument, as I have always known, is nonsense, for it is predicated not on what is, but what can be (whatever happened to living in reality?). Next I guess you will tell me that I should be able to kill someone before they kill me, even if they are posing zero threat to my life, or will even do so. After all, if I can kill someone in my own self-defense, I should be able to kill them for whatever reason. That is your logic at work, after all.

    No, your information only notes \”physical problem with my health.\” That\’s like saying that an engine repair counts as car maintenance, but an oil change does not. Avoiding potential health problems down the road is just as much a \”health-related\” reason to have an abortion as a medical emergency.

    And, pray tell, what percentage of women have abortions to avoid potential health problems down the road, since apparently you do not like the statistics I provided, and seem to know differently? 20%? 30%? 50%? 100%? Oh, that is right. You do not know, because you form your entire argument around the fact that just 12% of women cite health concerns as forming any part of their decision to abort as incorrect, yet cannot provide any requisite information that would lend itself to your assertion (that is, a greater percentage of woman choose to abort because of potential health risks down the line). The only information you have given for your argument being true, is that you say it is true. Unfortunately for you, here on Earth, that is not going to fly.

    So, in other words, I guess this would be the time you put up or shut-up :)

    Arguing against facts does suck, but I\’m not the one engaging in that futile venture.

    Sure you are not. That is, if you call arguing against data compiled by an ostensibly pro-choice organization does not constitute arguing against fact. Like I said, it must bother you so, so much :)

  • saltyc

    Physical problem with my health? That would mean that she already has a condition that would make a pregnancy especially dangerous.

     

    But even the healthiest body will be put under strain, stress and disorder from the healthiest pregnancy. And THAT MATTERS.

     

    It matters whether or not women state it as the reason they’re having an abortion.

    Not that those other reasons aren’t enough, because they are.
    Again, if someone said they don’t want to use cocaine because they don’t like the way it makes them feel, does that mean health effects are irrelevant???

    I spoke to one woman who was aborting for the regular reasons, and couldn’t afford it and I had already given out all the vouchers (I usually am able to help only 1/3 of the women who call) I told her if she waited til next week I would have more vouchers, and she said she didn’t want to stay pregnant that much longer. She hated being physcially pregnant, and women don’t say that on the surveys because WOMEN ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO PUT THEIR OWN HEALTH FIRST. THEY’RE ONLY EXPECTED TO DO SO FOR EXTRAORDINARY HEALTH SITUATIONS, NOT THE NORMAL BAD EFFECTS OF PREGNANCY BUT THEY STILL MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    But you don’t know because you don’t talk to women about why they aborted, you dfon’t give a shit about them, disparaging their very real and legitimate reasons. That’s why your point of view is irrelevant to the discussion.

     

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Indeed they are not (and all the requisite studies done on reasons why women abort point to that fact). Give a woman who cannot afford a child a million dollars and suddenly she wants to keep the child even though there are the same health risks involved in a wanted vs. unwanted pregnancy. In fact, for a woman who cites health concerns as a reason for aborting, then no other reason would ultimately matter, because the effect pregnancy has on the body is independent of things such as relationship problems, work, whether or not one wants to finish school or even financial stability. Even if the aforementioned situations change, the pregnancy still works the same. Of course, since you can change the behavior of the woman when it comes to abortion by altering one of the aforementioned situations, then it stands to reason that health concerns do not play a big role in the majority of abortions. In other words, you should try again.

     

    Men: The real experts on what it’s like to be a woman!

     

    Then your argument, as I have always known, is nonsense, for it is predicated not on what is, but what can be (whatever happened to living in reality?). Next I guess you will tell me that I should be able to kill someone before they kill me, even if they are posing zero threat to my life, or will even do so. After all, if I can kill someone in my own self-defense, I should be able to kill them for whatever reason. That is your logic at work, after all.

     

    I guess you’re not too keen on broad free-speech rights, then.

     

    And, pray tell, what percentage of women have abortions to avoid potential health problems down the road, since apparently you do not like the statistics I provided, and seem to know differently? 20%? 30%? 50%? 100%? Oh, that is right. You do not know, because you form your entire argument around the fact that just 12% of women cite health concerns as forming any part of their decision to abort as incorrect, yet cannot provide any requisite information that would lend itself to your assertion (that is, a greater percentage of woman choose to abort because of potential health risks down the line). The only information you have given for your argument being true, is that you say it is true. Unfortunately for you, here on Earth, that is not going to fly.

     

    Funny, I thought you were talking about a world where pregnancies didn’t have any kind of effect on a woman’s health at all.

     

    Sure you are not. That is, if you call arguing against data compiled by an ostensibly pro-choice organization does not constitute arguing against fact. Like I said, it must bother you so, so much :)

     

    Good luck making that data say something it does not.

  • bornin1984

    Men: The real experts on what it\’s like to be a woman!

    Moreso of an expert than you, though one does not need to be an expert. They just have to know how to read compiled data. At any rate, I will take the fact that you not-so-slyly avoided answering anything in the above quoted to be a sign of capitulation? It has been noted. Thank you :)

    I guess you\’re not too keen on broad free-speech rights, then.

    About as much as I am not keen on allowing people to scream fire in a crowded movie theater (or does that constitute free speech in your world, even though you just said it does not?). And I will also take your silence on the above quoted part about me being allowed to kill someone because they can kill me to be the fact that you agree that there is a right to kill others for any reason because one has the right to defend themselves. Once again, it has been noted. Thank you :)

    Funny, I thought you were talking about a world where pregnancies didn\’t have any kind of effect on a woman\’s health at all.

    Funny. Someone does not know how to read. At any rate, to quote myself:

    So, in other words, I guess this would be the time you put up or shut-up :)

    So when are you going to put up, PCF? I am still waiting for you to provide this data which gives credence to the assertion that most women have abortions because of health concerns that might happen down the road. Why are you refusing to find said data, PCF?

    Good luck making that data say something it does not.

    It says exactly what it says– that the majority of women do not have an abortion because of reasons relating to their health. Since you think it is false, then the onus is on you to provide sources which dispute that claim. I am still waiting for you to produce something, though. So go ahead. Produce something. I will wait :)

  • bornin1984

    I have realized something about you.

    You will make a claim, and after someone shows you that your claim is wrong, you turn around and not only come up with all sorts of excuses as to why the data you were provided was wrong, but you turn around and someone start telling people that they do not know anyone who has had an abortion and yada yada yada.

    Newsflash: As I pointed out to someone in another thread, about 60 – 70% of people in the United States know someone who has had an abortion. Contrary to whatever pro-choicers like to commonly state about how women do not talk about having abortions, they do (In a bit of irony, though, if someone who has had an abortion turns around and speaks out about it, relating her personal experiences and how it negatively affected her, then most pro-choicers will then turn around and tell her to shut-up because she made her choice. It happens quite a bit on this site. Apparently, you can only speak out about abortion after having one if you are going to speak in favor of it. But I digress). Contrary to whatever you generally like to go on about, it is a well-known fact that, overwhelmingly, women simply do not abort because of their own health. Even women who have had abortions will tell you this. They do it for reasons unrelated to it, such as wanting to go to school, or the fact that they do not think they can afford another child, or the fact that they are having relationship problems, etc., and no amount of ranting and raving or claims about not caring about women on your part is going to change this. So why are you even bothering? I really do not know.

    And the fact that you have to compare the use of cocaine to pregnancy is, well, quite humorous and sad at the same time.

  • prochoiceferret

    Moreso of an expert than you, though one does not need to be an expert. They just have to know how to read compiled data. At any rate, I will take the fact that you not-so-slyly avoided answering anything in the above quoted to be a sign of capitulation? It has been noted. Thank you :)

     

    You may want to tell Guttmacher about your interpretation of their data, too. I’m sure they’ll be quite surprised.

     

    About as much as I am not keen on allowing people to scream fire in a crowded movie theater (or does that constitute free speech in your world, even though you just said it does not?). And I will also take your silence on the above quoted part about me being allowed to kill someone because they can kill me to be the fact that you agree that there is a right to kill others for any reason because one has the right to defend themselves. Once again, it has been noted. Thank you :)

     

    Good luck turning that dead horse back into a high horse.

     

    So when are you going to put up, PCF? I am still waiting for you to provide this data which gives credence to the assertion that most women have abortions because of health concerns that might happen down the road. Why are you refusing to find said data, PCF?

     

    I suppose next you’re going to ask for the hard data showing that people prefer to be alive rather than dead.

     

    It says exactly what it says– that the majority of women do not have an abortion because of reasons relating to their health. Since you think it is false, then the onus is on you to provide sources which dispute that claim. I am still waiting for you to produce something, though. So go ahead. Produce something. I will wait :)

     

    Data showing that 12% of aborting women do it due to a “physical problem with my health” is not the same thing as data showing that 88% of aborting women disregarded their own present and future health entirely when they made their decision. But then, what’s a little “creative misinterpretation” when it comes to saving unborn babies from their mothers?

  • saltyc

    Good luck turning that dead horse back into a high horse.

    I have to use that one.

  • saltyc

    You will make a claim, and after someone shows you that your claim is wrong,

    No no no, YOU made the claim and I am disputing it.

    YOU claim that health considerations are irrelevant to abortion rights because of a survey where women reported their reasons for having an abortion. When in fact, a pregnancy significantly impacts on the health of a women and is a risk to her life, even if she doesn’t know her full risk in the first trimester, and even if it’s not a major concern to her.

     Just the fact alone that every pregnancy significantly and negatively impacts and poses a risk to her life is enough reason to let her decide for whatever reason she chooses. You thrive on tedium, don’t you?

     

    And the fact that you have to compare the use of cocaine to pregnancy is, well, quite humorous and sad at the same time.

    Yeah, it is a ridiculous comparison when you consider that cocaine use has a far lower mortality rate than childbirth does.

    Come again? Yeah, I said it, it’s true. Pregnancy is riskier than cocaine use. Look it up. Does that mean health effects are irrelevant to cocaine use? No it doesn’t.

     OK, now tell me, how many women do you know who had an abortion? What percentage of your  friends, relatives and aquaintances have had one? Since women are so OK with talking about it, about a third of the women you know had one, so they must have told you, do you know who they are?

     

  • beenthere72

    Funny, I thought he was telling you that he was moreso an expert on being a woman than you are.     He’s taking this ‘controlling the baby making’ thing to a new level.  

  • bornin1984

    You may want to tell Guttmacher about your interpretation of their data, too. I\’m sure they\’ll be quite surprised.

    It is not just my interpretation. It is what it says, much to your consternation. I realize that having to acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions simply are not done for any reason related to the health of the woman is a hard thing for you, but you should do it anyway.

    Good luck turning that dead horse back into a high horse.

    An ignored horse is not a dead horse. As it is, I am still waiting for a response :)

    I suppose next you\’re going to ask for the hard data showing that people prefer to be alive rather than dead.

    When you make claims, you have to defend them. Such is the way of the world. So, please, go ahead and defend your claim. Show me how the majority of abortions are done because of reasons related to the health of the woman. Since it is true, then you should have no problems proving it as true, right? One would only think.

    Data showing that 12% of aborting women do it due to a \”physical problem with my health\” is not the same thing as data showing that 88% of aborting women disregarded their own present and future health entirely when they made their decision. But then, what\’s a little \”creative misinterpretation\” when it comes to saving unborn babies from their mothers?

    *ahem*

    Only 4% of abortions are done because of health concerns. Only 12% of women cite health concerns as being part of their decision to abort. Now, you turn around and scream how just because 12% of women cite physical problems with their health as reasons for an abortion does not mean that more than 12% of women do not abort for any reasons related to her health. I said, okay. Fine. Produce something which shows that more that health concerns affect more than just 12% of all decisions to abort. To this, you turn around and refuse to do so.

    Now why is that, PCF? Do not tell me it is because you simply cannot find any stats to back up your assertion (which I already know). Amazing how you have no problem telling me that my interpretation of the data is incorrect while simultaneously being unwilling, or I should say unable, to produce anything which would give credence to your assertion. Creative misinterpretation indeed, PCF. Creative misinterpretation, indeed.

  • bornin1984

    No no no, YOU made the claim and I am disputing it.

    Except you did not. All you did was claim that it was wrong because you say it is.

    YOU claim that health considerations are irrelevant to abortion rights because of a survey where women reported their reasons for having an abortion. When in fact, a pregnancy significantly impacts on the health of a women and is a risk to her life, even if she doesn\’t know her full risk in the first trimester, and even if it\’s not a major concern to her.

    No, I said that the majority of abortions are not done for any reason related to the health of the women, nor do health concerns play a factor in this. I am too lazy to restate what I stated once before, so I will just quote myself (a point which PCF conveniently ignored):

    Give a woman who cannot afford a child a million dollars and suddenly she wants to keep the child even though there are the same health risks involved in a wanted vs. unwanted pregnancy. In fact, for a woman who cites health concerns as a reason for aborting, then no other reason would ultimately matter, because the effect pregnancy has on the body is independent of things such as relationship problems, work, whether or not one wants to finish school or even financial stability. Even if the aforementioned situations change, pregnancy still works the same. Of course, since you can change the behavior of the woman when it comes to abortion by altering one of the aforementioned situations, then it stands to reason that health concerns do not play a big role in the majority of abortions.

    It is only the most ardent of pro-choicers who somehow refuse to acknowledge the fact that most women simply do not abort for health concerns, but rather reasons independent of health concerns. Talk about discounting and discrediting the reasons women abort, which I thought you were against. Irony to its fullest.

    Just the fact alone that every pregnancy significantly and negatively impacts and poses a risk to her life is enough reason to let her decide for whatever reason she chooses. You thrive on tedium, don\’t you?

    No, it really is not. We do not let one party do to another based on what the other party can do to the first party. I cannot up and kill you just because there is a chance you might kill me. You have to be posing me a threat. Abortion does not get its own set of rules.

    Yeah, it is a ridiculous comparison when you consider that cocaine use has a far lower mortality rate than childbirth does.

    Come again? Yeah, I said it, it\’s true. Pregnancy is riskier than cocaine use. Look it up. Does that mean health effects are irrelevant to cocaine use? No it doesn\’t.

    No, it is ridiculous because, one, no one said that health effects were irrelevant when it came to pregnancy (honestly, at least read what others type out) and, two, because when something is illegal, that will be the overwhelming reason why people do not do it.

    OK, now tell me, how many women do you know who had an abortion? What percentage of your friends, relatives and acquaintances have had one? Since women are so OK with talking about it, about a third of the women you know had one, so they must have told you, do you know who they are?

    Enough, none, none and two.

    Yes, Salty. Much to your consternation, women do talk about their abortions. And much to your consternation, they typically do not come out and talk about how great it was and how it was the best decision of their lives (not saying they do not exist). What usually happens, is that when they talk about their abortions, they usually do talk about how they either regret it, or how they thought it was the right decision at the time but over the years have come to realize it was the wrong one, or they talk about how they had multiple abortions due to circumstance, etc. Of course, whenever said women start talking, the other side usually comes out and responds with something along the lines of you had your choice, so stop trying to take choices away from others or something to that effect (I am looking at SG, in particular). That is kind of why whenever I hear pro-choicers start talking about getting women who have had abortions to start talking, I chuckle to myself. They already do, except the ones who do not speak positively of it somehow get their views discredited.

    Anyway, just a bit of off-topic rambling there :)

  • beenthere72

    Born, I had 2 abortions for “it’s *my* life” reasons (and ‘it’s none of your business’ reasons).    I did not want to be pregnant.   I did not want to have a baby.   I did not want to have a baby by the person that got me pregnant.  

     

    Could there have been ‘health reasons’ farther along into the pregnancy if I took it to term?   You betcha, but we’ll never know now, will we?   I wasn’t about to wait and find out. 

     

    Now I’m sure you were dying for someone to step up and admit to this, so let’s see what’cha got besides the abortion is murder junk.    I don’t feel like arguing about when a zygote is considered a person, yadda yadda.

     

     

  • saltyc

    No, it is ridiculous because, one, no one said that health effects were irrelevant when it came to pregnancy (honestly, at least read what others type out)

    Oh good, then, the next time someone points out that pregnancy poses significant health risks and that that is a reason why abortion should remain legal, then you won’t start yammering about how most women abort for reasons other than health, since that is irrelevant, agreed, good. Whew, glad that’s over.

     me:

    Just the fact alone that every pregnancy significantly and negatively impacts and poses a risk to her life is enough reason to let her decide for whatever reason she chooses. You thrive on tedium, don’t you?

    born:

    .
    No, it really is not. We do not let one party do to another based on what the other party can do to the first party. I cannot up and kill you just because there is a chance you might kill me. You have to be posing me a threat. Abortion does not get its own set of rules.

     

    *Spit take*

    WHAT? (slap of forehead) pregnancy significantly and negatively impacts on the health of a woman, not has a chance of impacting not can impact, DOES impact.  it ALWAYS poses a threat to her health.

    Me:

    how many women do you know who had an abortion? What percentage of your friends, relatives and acquaintances have had one?

    Born:

    Enough, none, none and two.

     

    So out of all your friends, relatives and acquaintances, only two acquaintances have had abortions? Even though it’s one in three women? And you don’t suspect that there were more that you don’t know of? You’re so full of shit it smells to read your posts.

    I talk to women who are trying to get abortions, and one of the biggest reasons they can’t afford one is that they can’t tell their relatives or friends. Ther was one girl who waited for a month and a half til her 18th birthday, pushing the time limit, just so she wouldn’t have to tell her mother because of the parental notification law where we live. Don’t you think the stigma and the shame propounded by people like you has something to do with what they will tell people they know? Oftentimes there’s the one understanding aunt who will help her out financially and keep her secret.

    Born, you have not lived enough for someone of 26, really, you seem much younger, you need to get out more and listen intsead of preaching, then you might hear women with stories that don’t fit your agenda.

     

    they usually do talk about how they either regret it, or how they thought it was the right decision at the time but over the years have come to realize it was the wrong one, or they talk about how they had multiple abortions due to circumstance, etc

     

    Yah, to you, I could believe that, why would a woman be honest when you would only look down your nose at her? There’s more to people than what they think you want to hear them say.

  • bornin1984

    Oh good, then, the next time someone points out that pregnancy poses significant health risks and that that is a reason why abortion should remain legal, then you won\’t start yammering about how most women abort for reasons other than health, since that is irrelevant, agreed, good. Whew, glad that\’s over.

    Or, I will say that she should be allowed to have an abortion if her health will be negatively affected, but not before there is a need for it. Much like I would argue that you should not be allowed to kill your next door neighbor unless they are threatening your life. And now you know. So, yes, I am glad that is over.

    …Unless, of course, you think that you should be allowed to kill your neighbor for any reason you want because (s)he might kill you.

    WHAT? (slap of forehead) pregnancy significantly and negatively impacts on the health of a woman, not has a chance of impacting not can impact, DOES impact. it ALWAYS poses a threat to her health

    No it does not. Can and does are two completely different things. People are not allowed to do based on what can happen, but rather what does. Let me give you a simple abortion-based illustration. A woman is not allowed to abortion her 25th week of pregnancy because she might develop unspecified complications three weeks down the line. She is only allowed to abort once it is determined that those complications will arise, or has already arisen. Yet your argument would be that she should be allowed to do just that at her 25th week, based on the prospect of what can. You are either being disingenuous, or you really do not understand what you are typing out.

    So out of all your friends, relatives and acquaintances, only two have had abortions? Even though it\’s one in three women? And you don\’t suspect that there were more that you don\’t know of? You\’re so full of shit it smells to read your posts.

    I do not know why I have to point this out to you, but you should very well know that one in three women everywhere do not have an abortion. As you should very well know, abortions are not evenly distributed between the country, with a disproportionate amount of women in blue states obtaining the majority of abortions. At any rate, you really should learn to read. I did not say I only knew two people who had an abortion. I said I knew enough. I said I have two acquaintances I know of who have had an abortion. You are welcome for the clarification.

    I talk to women who are trying to get abortions, and one of the biggest reasons they can\’t afford one is that they can\’t tell their relatives or friends. Ther was one girl who waited for a month and a half til her 18th birthday, pushing the time limit, just so she wouldn\’t have to tell her mother because of the parental notification law where we live. Don\’t you think the stigma and the shame propounded by people like you has something to do with what they will tell people they know? Oftentimes there\’s the one understanding aunt who will help her out financially and keep her secret.

    The fact that she could not talk to her parents is her fault, not the fault of anyone else, and most certainly not the fault of a law. Also, I was tempted to type something out about keeping secrets, but I will save it for later.

    Born, you have not lived enough for someone of 26, really, you seem much younger, you need to get out more and listen intsead of preaching, then you might hear women with stories that don\’t fit your agenda.

    Number one, I am 25. Number two, what are you talking about? You are the only one (well, you a few others), who throw out the opinions of women when they do not agree with you. Must I really start pulling up quotes? Number two, it is the tried and true age line. It is not like I have not heard that one before.

    Yah, to you, I could believe that, why would a woman be honest when you would only look down your nose at her? There\’s more to people than what they think you want to hear them say.

    Uh-huh. Funny how I do not look my nose down at anyone. You just believe that, because it is what you believe of all pro-lifers. You will only see what you want to see. Amazing how you continue to discredit the views of women who do not agree with your own.

  • prochoiceferret

    Give a woman who cannot afford a child a million dollars and suddenly she wants to keep the child even though there are the same health risks involved in a wanted vs. unwanted pregnancy. In fact, for a woman who cites health concerns as a reason for aborting, then no other reason would ultimately matter, because the effect pregnancy has on the body is independent of things such as relationship problems, work, whether or not one wants to finish school or even financial stability. Even if the aforementioned situations change, pregnancy still works the same. Of course, since you can change the behavior of the woman when it comes to abortion by altering one of the aforementioned situations, then it stands to reason that health concerns do not play a big role in the majority of abortions.

     

    So let me see if I understand your argument:

     

    “A woman might decide it is worthwhile to undergo the health risks of an unwanted pregnancy in exchange for a million dollars… therefore her health would have had nothing to do with her decision to have an abortion.”

  • prochoiceferret

    Or, I will say that she should be allowed to have an abortion if her health will be negatively affected, but not before there is a need for it. Much like I would argue that you should not be allowed to kill your next door neighbor unless they are threatening your life. And now you know. So, yes, I am glad that is over.

     

    Now, perhaps, Mr. 1984 will regale us with his own ideas of just how badly the women’s health and life must be threatened before she is allowed to take control of what is happening inside her body.

     

    Hopefully not, however. Hearing about Iron-Curtain-era Romania was enough dystopian visualization for me.

     

    …Unless, of course, you think that you should be allowed to kill your neighbor for any reason you want because (s)he might kill you.

     

    And of course, he continues to treat a fetus as though it were a completely independent entity, having no impact on the woman surrounding it.

     

    No it does not. Can and does are two completely different things. People are not allowed to do based on what can happen, but rather what does. Let me give you a simple abortion-based illustration. A woman is not allowed to abortion her 25th week of pregnancy because she might develop unspecified complications three weeks down the line. She is only allowed to abort once it is determined that those complications will arise, or has already arisen. Yet your argument would be that she should be allowed to do just that at her 25th week, based on the prospect of what can. You are either being disingenuous, or you really do not understand what you are typing out.

     

    And there goes the conflation of early- with late-term abortion, as if those two procedures were done for the same reasons, and presented the same risks (to say nothing of the legal differences).

     

    The fact that she could not talk to her parents is her fault, not the fault of anyone else, and most certainly not the fault of a law. Also, I was tempted to type something out about keeping secrets, but I will save it for later.

     

    I hope he wouldn’t say this to a young woman with abusive parents.

     

    Number one, I am 25. Number two, what are you talking about? You are the only one (well, you a few others), who throw out the opinions of women when they do not agree with you. Must I really start pulling up quotes? Number two, it is the tried and true age line. It is not like I have not heard that one before.

     

    Which just goes to show, people don’t always stop being know-it-all teenagers when they turn twenty.

  • saltyc

    pregnancy significantly and negatively impacts on the health of a woman, not has a chance of impacting not can impact, DOES impact. it ALWAYS poses a threat to her health

    .
    Born:

    No it does not.

     

    Have you been pregnant? I have carried one out and pushed my daughter out my vagina. It had a very large impact on my health while I was pregnant. It was also considered by doctors as a very good pregnancy.

    Also, you know that waiting til it’s known for certain that a pregnancy will cause a woman’s death til you perform an abortion, will probably not even save her, because by then the pregnancy is too far along for a simple procedure. Why do pro-lifers favor late-term abortion anyway? Do you know that plenty of women die at childbirth, even where abortion is allowed to save the woman’s life? Because if you wait til everyone is sure it’s too late. That’s why a woman is entitled to be sure she wants to go through with it long before an imminent death is certain.

     

    I did not say I only knew two people who had an abortion. I said I knew enough. I said I have two acquaintances I know of who have had an abortion. You are welcome for the clarification.

     

    Who else had an abortion that you know, that was not a friend relative or acquaintance? And do you admit that it is possible that a friend or relative of yours had an abortion, but didn’t tell you? Hmmm?

     

    Must I really start pulling up quotes?

    Yes, pull up the quotes. Or get out and live, one or the other would be good.

  • beenthere72

    “The fact that she could not talk to her parents is her fault”

     

    Not all teenagers have such wonderful, open relationships with their parents.  This would be the parents fault for not fostering the type of parent/daughter relationship where she would feel comfortable approaching her parents about such a private, stressful, disappointing situation.   She is already full of shame and if you have the type of parents that make you feel even more ashamed about the situation, why would you want to put yourself through that.

     

    I speak from experience. 

  • bornin1984

    Now, perhaps, Mr. 1984 will regale us with his own ideas of just how badly the women\’s health and life must be threatened before she is allowed to take control of what is happening inside her body.

    Enough to justify taking the life of another. Sort of the argument society applies to issues of self-defense and how one does not get to shoot someone else in the head for punching them in the stomach.

    And of course, he continues to treat a fetus as though it were a completely independent entity, having no impact on the woman surrounding it.

    We allow one to do to another based on what the individual doing wants? As much as I ask this question and as much as I answer it, I think we both know the answer :)

    And there goes the conflation of early- with late-term abortion, as if those two procedures were done for the same reasons, and presented the same risks (to say nothing of the legal differences).

    Picking up a new word from me does not mean you understand that word. At any rate, the argument Salty used is not dependent on the law as I doubt, should the law say that abortion is now illegal throughout all of pregnancy save for specific reasons, that suddenly Salty, or any pro-choicer here, would turn around and suddenly argue that abortion should be illegal aside from specific instances. Unless, of course, that is what you are arguing, in which case we agree :)

    I hope he wouldn\’t say this to a young woman with abusive parents.

    No, actually, I would because the aforementioned reason is why we have laws aimed at protecting children from abusive parents.

    Which just goes to show, people don\’t always stop being know-it-all teenagers when they turn twenty.

    And in the case of some people, it continues well into their 60s.

    So let me see if I understand your argument:

    \”A woman might decide it is worthwhile to undergo the health risks of an unwanted pregnancy in exchange for a million dollars… therefore her health would have had nothing to do with her decision to have an abortion.\”

    Here is a very simple question for you: Do you think a woman would exchange her health for a million dollars? I guess you really do perceive women to be money grubbing leeches. Very women friendly of you, PCF.

    (See? I can do it, too.)

  • bornin1984

    Have you been pregnant?

    Lots of times.

    I have carried one out and pushed my daughter out my vagina. It had a very large impact on my health while I was pregnant. It was also considered by doctors as a very good pregnancy.

    So you have extrapolated from that that all pregnancies significantly and negatively affect the health of the women? So if I, hypothetically speaking of course, as said women obviously do not exist, were to find some women who said to you that their pregnancies did not do significantly and negatively affect their health, then what? Would you call them liars? Because that is the only way your statement could be true.

    Why do pro-lifers favor late-term abortion anyway?

    Last I checked, NOW and NARAL, along with a few other organizations, were not in the pro-life camp.

    Do you know that plenty of women die at childbirth, even where abortion is allowed to save the woman\\\’s life? Because if you wait til everyone is sure it\\\’s too late.

    It is because complications sometimes arise. Yes, it happens. That is not a justification for abortion at any time. That, at best, is a justification for abortion when that complication arise. To go back to my self-defense example, should I be allowed to kill someone for any reason even though they run the risk of killing me first?

    That\\\’s why a woman is entitled to be sure she wants to go through with it long before an imminent death is certain.

    Once again, this argument is false. If it were true a woman would be able to have an abortion at any time she wants during pregnancy. But she cannot. Continuing to state something which is simply untrue will not make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

    Who else had an abortion that you know, that was not a friend relative or acquaintance?

    People that you do not know and probably think they do not exist. So as I said the first time, enough.

    And do you admit that it is possible that a friend or relative of yours had an abortion, but didn\\\’t tell you? Hmmm?

    If the best you have is something along the lines of they might not have told me that they have had an abortion, then you are out of luck, because no one ever said women tell everyone everything, but rather that much to the consternation of pro-choicers, women who do have abortions do talk about it with people, and they are generally not the abortion-was-the-best-decision-I-ever-made lines.

    Yes, pull up the quotes. Or get out and live, one or the other would be good.

    Number one, I get out quite a lot. Number two, see your first (or was it second) response on this page in response to something I wrote out.

  • beenthere72

    Are you suddenly a woman, Born?  With lots of babies?  PLEASE fill us in.