Planned Parenthood is in Denial
-
By your own example you need modern medicine and it's advances like a c-section to equalize those.
Not necessarily true, because week early premature babies can survive without modern medicine.
And besides, we don't even talk about equal when it comes to end of life care. Someone has terminal cancer, gets care, and survives 15 years, but during that 1 year they needed modern medicine, they weren't worth less.
-
I personally think it would be better to institute universal welfare than to make any individual financially responsible for any other individual against their will
Universal welfare does just that. You just defined it differently because... "universal" is some magical word that grows money on trees.
-
how can all those people be fucking freely and not suffer the consequences?
There's $5.00 that solves the problem.
I mean, I'm pretty amazed that some people will get in a fuss about having to pay health costs for fat people, but when it comes down to comparing birth control vs. abortion costs, oh no it's war on women.
-
On a personal level, though, I realize this is just a values difference. I personally am quite anti-consequences. To me, if something is a negative consequence of some other thing, it's still negative, and in my world-view negative things should be eliminated any time that it is possible to do so. As hinted at earlier, I mostly designate as negative those things that restrict people's ability to make decisions for themselves.
Excluding rape or any other forced sex for the purpose of this discussion:
If it's a negative experience for a woman to have a pregnancy/child, then she should choose not have sex in the first place. Because obviously if pregnancy is negative, the the decision to have sex which can lead to such pregnancy should be viewed as negative too. Am I following your logic correctly, or did I miss something?
-
Well, you say:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am one of those. I argue against abortion because it is the end of a life.
But then again, so's shooting an animal, or frying a death row inmate, so Im just gonna take it at twisting your views as you see fit and ignore it.
Now, for your real argument:
You stated that a pregnant woman who is denied an abortion is being denied the right to her own body. But in 99% of cases, that woman chose to have sex.
And that's what hurts you - that women can choose to have sex and avoid the consequences.
And then you say:
In the anti-abortion setup, the woman has shown her consent to support another life by choosing to have sex.
which is total bullshit in like 99% of cases in the 21st century. Guess what, people don't just fuck to have kids. It's not Victorian England anymore, buddy.
Nowadays it's like saying "well you might break your back while having sex, so we shouldn't treat people for broken backs if they broke it while having sex, because that's the consequences they get".
I mean Jesus fuck. I can disagree with @boomzilla, since he seems to go from the assumption that abortion is MURDERING OUR BABIEEEES and working everything from that point, but hey, he believes it is, I think it's not, and there's no point to discuss it because it can only evolve into a shouting match of "you're wrong".
But for you, it's all about the consequences. You can say you're supporting baby rights all you want, but bottom line is, as you've admitted, that people should suffer through the consequences of their actions even if there would be a way to get away from it in which nobody gets hurt, because only that's just. And I kindly ask you to fuck off from telling other people how to live their lives.
There's $5.00 that solves the problem.
Right, because every unplanned kid could have been prevented by just having worn a condom and fucking responsibly.
Oh wait, not the case.
-
week early premature babies
but they still passed the transition you claim doesn't make a difference for you. I just like to point out that nature cares about that transition.
-
@xaade said:
other than passage through a birth canal
Have you seen this trick? It is a totally awsom feature if nature! It definitely makes a difference.Twice, in fact. It's awesome.
WARNING
Below is one example of an issue where Liberals and Conservatives both hate people like me equally. I generally do not share my thoughts on this matter due to the highly charged emotions usually connected with the positions people take on issues like this. At the risk of being forever tarred and feathered again like I was re:vaccines last year, here goes.
** Deep breath **
I have observed this in human beings (some direct, some indirect):
- They are created at conception. At this stage, the genetic blueprint of the person is established for which during its entire life cycle it will be maintained.
- From conception up until a few weeks before birth (assuming a normal term pregnancy), the amount of time that this person can exist separated from the woman/mother is practically zero. It is completely and utterly dependent on the mother for its existence, as technology is not sufficiently advanced to substitute at this point.
- After birth, the person can exist for short periods of time (a few hours to a day or so at most) separated from the mother(1).
- As the person develops, they can exist for longer and longer periods separated from the mother(1), until they have aged sufficiently to survive on their own.
- The cycle repeats for the next generation.
The difference from conception to adulthood is simply ability to survive separated from the mother in which that person was conceived due to stage in development. That's all there is to it. Genetic blueprint does not change.
Here's the really controversial part (not trying to be offensive, but it certainly comes across as such): Anything else added is complication used to push forward an agenda, whether the person realizes they're doing it or not.
Examples:
- "God meant for that child to be:" religious authority used to influence decisions and control the population, borne out of a historical need to push the population ever higher in a (until recently) hostile(2) to survive-in world.
- "It's a fetus, not a child!" Semantics, political or otherwise, used to justify as "ok" the extermination of a person, that has not yet reached full adulthood and thus be able to survive on their own. never mind defend themselves against such "choice".
(1) At this point one could argue that anyone can feed/care for the person, but having the mother do it is usually optimal.
(2) Hostile in terms of disease, predators, elements, over which we have mitigated all substantially; hostile in terms of other rival humans - we're apparently still working on that.
Filed under: Now where do I go for political asylum?
Also filed under: Need sleep
-
I don't think you're following my logic correctly. I think if you were following my logic correctly you'd arrive at the same conclusions I did. And if you disagree with that, it means that you're not following my logic. My logic is so up itself it once did an ironic cover of one of its own songs:
Anyway, the short answer is: one option good, more options better.
-
But "pro-consequences"? So it's really about you wanting people to suffer more for what you consider bad decisions?
This is a dilemma. Obviously, we want to make life better. People respond to incentives, both positive and negative. Removing consequences is one way of removing incentives. We've used our intelligence to tame a lot of the universe around us, but there are limits, and if we throw away enough of our advantage by removing too many consequences it'll come back to bite us.
I'm not sure where to draw the line (and I'm quite sure it's in different places for different things). But having a fear of consequences often leads to better behavior. Behavior that's better for the individual and for the rest of us.
-
But having a fear of consequences often leads to better behavior. Behavior that's better for the individual and for the rest of us.
How does "people fucking less" by itself lead to a better behavior? It's not like you're deterring people from murdering other people, or from stealing, or anything actually causing harm to other human beings. You're deterring them from safe, sane, consensual fucking.
Which is not only forbidding for the sake of forbidding, but I'm pretty sure that in the end you'd only be making matters worse, since people will find some way to satisfy their lusts. Potentially less safe, sane and consensual.
Keep the guy scared of having to raise a kid, and he won't stop having sex, he'll try to find a way to have sex and not have to raise a kid.
-
How does "people fucking less" by itself lead to a better behavior?
That is the better behavior. You really can't see how that's not a bad thing? Stuff like not having babies when you're not ready. Not getting / spreading disease. I think there are other negative consequences to a person's (and to the society that person lives in) mental / social health that come along with lots of casual promiscuity.
You're deterring them from safe, sane, consensual fucking.
No, it's giving them incentives to take the safe bit seriously.
Which is not only forbidding for the sake of forbidding
Bullshit. As I already explained.
but I'm pretty sure that in the end you'd only be making matters worse, since people will find some way to satisfy their lusts. Potentially less safe, sane and consensual.
Bullshit. Lots of people manage this. Lots don't. No one here is claiming (no matter what you imagine) that anything is going to make us all angels. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make things better.
Keep the guy scared of having to raise a kid, and he won't stop having sex, he'll try to find a way to have sex and not have to raise a kid.
People are going to find ways to have sex. They always have, always will (except in Japan apparently). The drive to have sex is part of us or we wouldn't be here. It's great to have a higher standard of living and be able to do things in ways that people who came before us couldn't, and that includes sex. But don't pretend that it doesn't have consequences, even if you can severely blunt them. And even that has its own consequences. Wanting to ignore them doesn't make them go away.
-
Especially prostitution, which I would feel comfortable saying something like “100% minus a couple of perverts of the people who support legalized prostitution are pro-choice” about.
But to be consistent, it would have to be the other way around, like this:
100% minus a couple of perverts of the people who are pro-choice support legalized prostitution (for the buyer as well as the seller)
-
Stuff like not having babies when you're not ready. Not getting / spreading disease.
This hasn't worked as an incentive for more then 1000 years of evolution. I don't think this is going to change.
-
This hasn't worked as an incentive for more then 1000 years of evolution.
Nice
pick to make a point I made but look like you're contradicting me.
-
Nice
Thanks! I found it rather successful as well.
to make a point I made
you propose less or safer, but I say that this is a battle we lost a few 1000 years ago. hitting them with a clue bat isn't going to solve this.
-
Because no one ever controls their urge to procreate? I guess that would explain RAPE CULTURE.
-
-
Tantric, baby!
-
But for you, it's all about the consequences. You can say you're supporting baby rights all you want, but bottom line is, as you've admitted, that people should suffer through the consequences of their actions even if there would be a way to get away from it in which nobody gets hurt, because only that's just. And I kindly ask you to fuck off from telling other people how to live their lives.
And once again, you focus on just one of my arguments, that was given in the context of separating the abortion and opt-out organ donation debates. I have made posts in this thread that indicate part of my stance is about killing a defenceless human.
But then again, so's shooting an animal, or frying a death row inmate, so Im just gonna take it at twisting your views as you see fit and ignore it.
Let's take a look at each of these.
Hunting
I am opposed to pure sport hunting. That is, hunting where the only benefit gained from the hunt is a story and a trophy. That is wrong. I have no problem with hunting where the animal is put to use: food, leather, etc. There are multiple reasons why, but the primary reason is that no matter how much people want to deny it, we are part of nature. Controlled hunting has been shown to be beneficial to local wildlife populations. Making use of the animals killed at least puts some use to them without encouraging the proliferation of scavengers, which could in turn screw with the local ecology.Death Sentences
Death row inmates have had a chance at life. They committed a crime so heinous that a jury of their peers (and in some states a judge or two as well) decided that they needed to be executed. No only that, but there is generally a period of about a decade, or more, during which a death row inmate has a chance to appeal the conviction and verdict. So death sentences are not only slow to be reached, but ample time is given for such a decision to be changed.Abortions
The fetus in an abortion has had no chance at life. It has done nothing wrong. The only thing held against it is that it is alive. Abortion decisions are arrived at in a matter of days or weeks, and there is no chance for appeal or reprieve. In fact, once the decision is made, the abortion is performed within days.Forgive me for not going into detail on the differences between each of them in a post where I was just trying to show the difference between my positions on abortion and opt-out organ donation. I'm sorry that you can't handle the nuanced differences in each of these scenarios without having them explained to you.
-
Right, because every unplanned kid could have been prevented by just having worn a condom and fucking responsibly.
Shall we compare percentages?
You can't use a vanishingly small minority to justify millions of abortions.
A condom reduces pregnancy by 99%, and other acts like rape are so uncommon.
So if we were to allow abortions to cover those cases only, abortions would be magnitudes more rare.
It's dishonest to suggest otherwise.
as technology is not sufficiently advanced to substitute at this point.
Technology is also required to be sufficiently advanced to safely perform an abortion.
religious authority
Is a personal reason, not a legal argument.
Not everyone pushes their religion as law.The difference from conception to adulthood is simply ability to survive separated from the mother in which that person was conceived due to stage in development. That's all there is to it. Genetic blueprint does not change.
Exactly my point.
Birth is an arbitrary point in the fluid transition from dependence on other beings to survive.
Any argument that can be used to abort a fetus can be used to murder a child.
There is nothing super important about birth other than a step towards independence, but that step is much smaller than we think.
If a child is 100% dependent on its mother before birth, it's 99.999999% dependent afterward. Even if we replaced the mother with a robot, it could still die as human interaction is needed for safe development.
-
-
Shall we compare percentages?
A condom reduces pregnancy by 99%
The CDC claims that 18 / 100 women using only condoms gets pregnant within a year. Condoms are not a panacea for pregnancies.Any argument that can be used to abort a fetus can be used to murder a child.
The right to life of the fetus vs the right of the mother to make her own decisions. Pro-life sides with the fetus, while pro-choice sides with the mother.
When a baby is born, they are no longer in the mother, so there is no longer a conflict of rights.If a child is 100% dependent on its mother before birth, it's 99.999999% dependent afterward. Even if we replaced the mother with a robot, it could still die as human interaction is needed for safe development.
Even children in Ethiopia have a 19% chance of survival when their mother dies in childbirth. (Source)
I would be shocked if that percentage was not significantly higher in a first world country.
-
There are multiple reasons why, but the primary reason is that no matter how much people want to deny it, we are part of nature.
You know what else is part of nature? Animals eating their young. Also shitting in woods.
I'm not going to argue against hunting, but we could do better than nature. That's the part of the whole "civilization" thing.
Controlled hunting has been shown to be beneficial to local wildlife populations.
And some human populations would benefit from controlling their size, too. Your point?
Making use of the animals killed at least puts some use to them
Fetal tissue has multiple research uses, which is what the whole fucking talk is all about. Your point?
The fetus in an abortion has had no chance at life. It has done nothing wrong. The only thing held against it is that it is alive.
Same for animals.
Abortion decisions are arrived at in a matter of days or weeks, and there is no chance for appeal or reprieve.
What the fuck do you want to do, perform a hearing with the fetus? Wait for it to gather its papers and file a formal appeal? Drag the case until the kid turns adolescent or adult, and then decide "yep, actually we were right in the first place" and shoot him dead? I honestly don't see the point, again.
Also, the whole point of abortion is to not wait too long, before the kid develops a nervous system, an understanding of pain, and/or becomes born.
I'm sorry that you can't handle the nuanced differences in each of these scenarios without having them explained to you.
I'm sorry that you can't see how a lot of the arguments you just raised in support of hunting and death sentence can be used to support abortion. I'm also sorry that your differences show how inconsistent and cherry-picked your moral framework is.
Shall we compare percentages?
Shall we? Pearl index for condoms is 2 in best case, 15 in "typical use". Most people that end up having an abortion do so because their anticonception failed - sometimes because they used it improperly, sometimes because shit happens.
What the fuck were you thinking, that people visit abortion clinics for fun? Or because they're too cheap to spend a dollar for a condom?
-
Except that nature doesn't agree with you.
Nature is Mother Nature, so of course she wants the child to stay alive. Duh.
-
Fetal tissue has multiple research uses, which is what the whole fucking talk is all about. Your point?
So does your brain and your heart.
I'm sorry that you can't see how a lot of the arguments you just raised in support of hunting and death sentence can be used to support abortion. I
Yes, but if you use those arguments, you're relying on some further assumptions, so saying that someone is inconsistent over several issues that have significant differences is pretty meaningless.
I'm also sorry that your differences show how inconsistent and cherry-picked your moral framework is.
Sophistry does that to a person.
-
So does your brain and your heart.
Are you claiming that your brain and heart have no possible research uses?
Cheap shot, I know…
-
@boomzilla said:
So does your brain and your heart.
Are you claiming that your brain and heart have no possible research uses?
Cheap shot, I know…Are you claiming that's what I said?
-
Also, the whole point of abortion is to not wait too long, before the kid develops a nervous system, an understanding of pain, and/or becomes born.
This part seems to often get left out of the conversation, which confuses the heck out of me. How can a rational discussion occur without discussing when "too long" is?
-
So does your brain and your heart.
Well yeah, and you can have it when I'm dead, and make yourself a nice Frankenstein monster, I won't care.
Your point? Because if you say "it's wrong to kill for resources", you want to take it up with @abarker, not me.
Yes, but if you use those arguments, you're relying on some further assumptions, so saying that someone is inconsistent over several issues that have significant differences is pretty meaningless.
I don't see those differences as being that significant. If you're okay with taking innocent animal life for resources, but you're not okay with taking innocent human life for resources, that begs for a question - what's the real difference? And inb4 "well duh, one's human and the other's not" - it's a circular argument.
How can a rational discussion occur without discussing when "too long" is?
It's a pointless discussion, though. One side is all "it starts with the conception!!!", the other is all "it starts with the birth!!!", and there are no meaningful arguments for either.
That's why I'm not flaming here harder - we don't really have a perfect answer to that. Though I disagree with @boomzilla in that
I'd prefer to err on the side of life than death
ignores a lot of issues and isn't inherently better.
-
One side is all "it starts with the conception!!!", the other is all "it starts with the birth!!!", and there are no meaningful arguments for either.
But at least we're not arguing about women's rights, fathers rights, child support, organ harvesting, forced Ultrasounds, Incest, Rape, Welfare Funding, Crime Rates, religion, mammograms/pap smears, hunting, death penalty, how inflated the football is, or any other completely irrelevant distractions that have nothing to do with the actual issue.
-
Your point? Because if you say "it's wrong to kill for resources", you want to take it up with @abarker, not me.
I'm going to say "it's wrong to kill people for resources," but I know that just sounds like arbitrary cherry picking to you.
If you're okay with taking innocent animal life for resources, but you're not okay with taking innocent human life for resources, that begs for a question - what's the real difference? And inb4 "well duh, one's human and the other's not" - it's a circular argument.
I'm a human and I value human life more than animal life. You're free to value different things the same. Why should I give a shit about "innocent" animal life? Should I care as much about an ant as a deer?
That's why I'm not flaming here harder - we don't really have a perfect answer to that. Though I disagree with @boomzilla in that
No, we agree on that. I've said before (probably in this topic) that I see a continuum of horrible evil (i.e., partial birth abortion) to meh (preventing implantation of an embryo). A big problem with the US is nonsense Supreme Court judgments that shut down almost any compromise that could be made politically. So you end up with two very extreme sides.
-
Most people that end up having an abortion do so because their anticonception failed
Citation?
What the fuck were you thinking, that people visit abortion clinics for fun?
It's a BOY!!!
-
So you end up with two very extreme sides.
QFT
If people just treated abortion more like a necessary evil, than a righteous action of autonomy, then we might be on better footing.
-
Citation?
Of 954 women surveyed who sought abortions, 954 of them were pregnant.
-
What the fuck were you thinking, that people visit abortion clinics for fun?
-
None of that relates to contraceptive failing.
The reasons could be identical to women who are not yet pregnant.
-
None of that relates to contraceptive failing.
The reasons could be identical to women who are not yet pregnant.
And yet, none of the 954 women who were part of this survey and sought an abortion were not pregnant.
Hardly proof that only pregnant women ever seek abortions, but I think it's suggestive.
-
Is it not possible that they were irresponsible and did not use contraceptive?
-
Is it not possible that they were irresponsible and did not use contraceptive
Before I google that for you, does it matter?
For example, if you used a named brand condom plus a birth control pill, you could get an abortion up to week 20, off brand condom up to week 13, timing it week 8, trusting to luck week 6?
-
Before I google that for you, does it matter?
It matters in the sense that what you cited was not a citation of what was said, which was:
Most people that end up having an abortion do so because their anticonception failed - sometimes because they used it improperly, sometimes because shit happens.
-
Guess I'm not quite following how you get pregnant, when you don't want to be, without contraception/anticonception failing- unless you start saying "Oh, timing it doesn't count, you have to at least be using a 25 cent condom"?
-
er?
For example, if you used a named brand condom plus a birth control pill, you could get an abortion up to week 20, off brand condom up to week 13, timing it week 8, trusting to luck week 6?
No, I'm not interested in changing the law.
My point is that, if they didn't at least try contraceptives, they are even less justified in an abortion.
And now that you mention timing, it is an important aspect.
I understand that not every woman is clockwork, but it took us 5 years to get pregnant because the time window was so small.
-
Guess I'm not quite following how you get pregnant, when you don't want to be, without contraception/anticonception failing- unless you start saying "Oh, timing it doesn't count, you have to at least be using a 25 cent condom"?
Some people change their minds for various reasons. Some people ignore consequences just to spite @abarker. Just because you wouldn't do it...
-
how you get pregnant, when you don't want to be
I know we're in the third trimester, but we both just lost our jobs, and I don't want to go through the pain of adoption.
-
Is it not possible that they were irresponsible and did not use contraceptive?
Same difference. Except the contraceptive in question was "wishing for the best". Not a very low Pearl index on that, but it's something...
And honestly, you know you're dealing with would-be-Darwin-if-they-just-didn't-end-up-with-a-kid levels of irresponsibility, and you want to entrust such people with raising a child? Like fuck that's not gonna go wrong...
-
And honestly, you know you're dealing with would-be-Darwin-if-they-just-didn't-end-up-with-a-kid levels of irresponsibility, and you want to entrust such people with raising a child? Like fuck that's not gonna go wrong...
Yes, honesty is refreshing.
So far when I refute the logic used to justify abortion I get:
- It would be bad for irresponsible parents to have children.
- It's more convenient to give up for adoption than it is to remove a fetus intact.
Therefore the great equalizing force is abortion.
Let's not create more opportunity to shrink the rich poor gap, let's just abort the poor.
The real justification for killing fetuses comes down to purely convenience.
It is real convenient to not have all these irresponsible inner city kids.
It is real convenient to not be responsible for my fetus and bring it to term and give it up for adoption.That's why I said the only real argument is mother vs. fetus rights.
Everything else is a sham.
And please don't act like the child's potential quality of live is a motivator, it's everyone else quality of life being impacted, not the child.
I'm not saying you don't have a reasonable argument for abortion.
I'm just saying that we need to be honest about the grim reality of it.
It's not autonomy, or rape, or failing condemns.
It's convenience.
And if people are ok with that, that's their decision.
-
I know we're in the third trimester, but we both just lost our jobs, and I don't want to go through the pain of adoption.
And since the quote in question is
Most people that end up having an abortion do so because their anticonception failed - sometimes because they used it improperly, sometimes because shit happens.
Your contention is that 51%+ of all abortion are "Changed your mind", instead of "Accidental Pregnancy"?
I'm not trying to make a strawman here, I'm trying to restate your position so that I'm sure I understand it.
-
That's why I said the only real argument is mother vs. fetus rights.
Everything else is a sham
I fully agree with the above.
So why are you asking about contraception? Does the balance of rights change if a condom was used?
-
Does the balance of rights change if a condom was used?
Nope.
Just the level of moral justification.
-
Let's not create more opportunity to shrink the rich poor gap, let's just abort the poor.
