Planned Parenthood is in Denial


  • Fake News

    Word. My mom and her sister weren't blood relatives with each other. My grandparents told them at an appropriate age that they were adopted, also. Things worked out just fine for them.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    What about high-school kids getting disowned by their parents due to pregnancy?

    How does abortion fix that? They already got pregnant and are legally required to get permission from their parents to have an abortion. So those kids get disowned either way.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    What about women losing their jobs because they can't afford nine months off?

    What? Nine months off? I think you need to take a look again. Women can still work while they are pregnant.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    What about those women that get killed by their lovers because of the pregnancy?

    I can't find any statistics indicating that is a serious risk. I'm guessing that is one of those "I read a story once" type thing that you decided to turn into a ridiculous question.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    What about a million ways in which a pregnancy can be a health risk factor?

    I believe that I covered this earlier. Let me put it this way: I believe that exceptions can be made in situations where the mother's health or life is threatened by the pregnancy. This includes situations where a medical treatment for some other illness is necessary to save the mother's life, but could potentially kill the fetus.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    What about fetuses which have no chance to live after birth, or those for which life is going to be a living hell until they inevitably die at a young age?

    You know, modern medicine is amazing. It can detect all sorts of things before a child is born. But even then, we are still surprised sometimes. For example, one of my friends and his wife were told when they were expecting their second child that the kid had a fetal abnormality. He would only live for a few days, at most, after he was born. That kid is now 3 years old. My friend and his wife wouldn't trade the last few years, difficult as they have been, for anything.

    Abortion in this case amounts to pre-emptive euthanasia. By this argument, should we do away with all life support technology? Should we even bother trying to save the guy who broke his neck in a motorcycle accident? After all, his life will be hell. What about the woman just diagnosed with cerebral palsy? Let's just kill her before she starts hurting too much.



  • @Rhywden said:

    Right. And since you're resorting to ad-hominems, maybe I'll just point out that your opinions are worthless to me in turn.

    That last post you replied to was 99% fact. You can check those figures yourself. It's not my fault you say ignorant shit.


  • BINNED

    And I have anecdotes about the negative aspects ... That doesn't make it a terrible solution but it isn't the perfect you have in mind. Doesn't make it an absolute terrible solution either but it just isn't a catch all solution

    @abarker said:

    Because it's sure as hell a lot better

    That is your interpretation of a 'better' situation. I'm not saying it is or it isn't but you are judging someones quality of life in absolute terms. Who are you to decide on that? Why are you better placed to make that judgement that the would-be mother or father?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Luhmann said:

    I'm not saying it is or it isn't but you are judging someones quality of life in absolute terms.

    Um...zero life, as in, not alive, seems pretty absolute.


  • Fake News



  • @Luhmann said:

    And I have anecdotes about the negative aspects

    Did you miss that I included one of those too? I did a contrast-and-compare.

    @Luhmann said:

    Who are you to decide on that? Why are you better placed to make that judgement that the would-be mother or father?

    Except they aren't a would-be parent. They're looking at abortion. Just wanting to get rid of the child. And they aren't in any position to make a judgement call about possible quality of life if they give the kid up for adoption because they generally don't know how that kid will be raised or what kind of quality of life they will receive. How is no life better than a chance at a good life?



  • Are we saying it's ethical to end a pregnancy because they probably will have a low quality of life?

    I'll go ahead and say that is a pretty disgusting point of view. Either it's a life, or it's not.

    IIF it's a life, it doesn't matter if the parents are rich, poor, married, single, whatever. None of those are crimes worthy of death, much less summary execution without a trial.

    If it's not a life, it still doesn't matter! Either it's ethical to end a pregnancy up to X weeks, or it's unethical to murder a baby after X weeks. Unless you want to argue that rich fetuses become babies sooner than poor ones?



  • @cdosrun1 said:

    Are we saying it's ethical to end a pregnancy because they probably will have a low quality of life?

    That seems to be what @Luhmann is implying.

    @cdosrun1 said:

    I'll go ahead and say that a pretty disgusting point of view.

    Agreed.



  • @abarker said:

    They already got pregnant and are legally required to get permission from their parents to have an abortion.

    Um, no. Or rather, not necessarily. I hate to give information supporting the other side of this debate, but facts are facts.

    Only two US states require that the parents give consent. 18 others require permission from only one parent. In three states, both parents must be notified, but consent is not required, and in 11, only one parent must be notified. Six states require neither notification of, nor consent from, either parent. Nine states have notification and/or consent laws, but due to lawsuits, there are injunctions preventing enforcement of those laws.

    There are also stories — I can't vouch for the accuracy, nor if true, how common it is — of girls being taken to neighboring states with laxer laws to avoid notification and/or consent laws in the girls' home states.

    In other countries, Canada does not inform parents without the girl's consent. South Africa will advise a girl to consult her parents, but she can choose not to do so. Spain requires notification (unless abusive household), but not consent, for 16 <= age < 18. Sweden never requires notification or consent. Australia does not require consent or notification, except WA, where notification is required for girls < 16. And so on. More information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minors_and_abortion.


  • ♿ (Parody)



  • Harvesting potatoes was legal in Soviet Russia. It would be insane not to use them to feed people.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    An American and a Russian General meet up at Disarmament talks and start boasting about their armies. The Russian general says “My army is the best fed army in the world. Each day the Red Army soldier eats 1500 calories”.

    The American Army General says “That’s nothing, the US Army gets 4000 calories a day”.

    The Russian says “Nonsense, nobody can eat that many Potatoes in a day”.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Harvesting potatoes was legal in Soviet Russia. It would be insane not to use them to feed people.

    That makes me infer you're suggesting cannibalism. Ew. I hope I'm wrong.



  • Actually, I'm suggesting a bullshit analogy. But to each his own...


  • ♿ (Parody)

    Your analogy was bullshit, so congrats. Unless you know of people who thought it was morally wrong to dig up potatoes.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Unless you know of people who thought it was morally wrong to dig up potatoes.

    I can probably find you some freegans on Tumblr.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Unless you know of people who thought it was morally wrong to dig up potatoes.

    Arrogant Worms - Carrot Juice is Murder – 04:30
    — Kevin Campigotto



  • @boomzilla said:

    Your analogy was bullshit, so congrats.

    I mean, come on @boomzilla. You're better than that. Are you seriously pulling out a reductio ad Hitlerum and trying to defend it? And not even a proper one, where you equate something your opponent does to what Hitler did, but a totally mangled one, where you say:

    1. A implies B.
    2. C implies D.
    3. A is kinda-sorta-similar to C, and C is what Hitler did and obviously evil
    4. Therefore, B is as evil as D

    And you just made all formal logicians in the audience grind their teeth to the gums.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    I mean, come on @boomzilla. You're better than that.

    No, you totally missed the point.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Are you seriously pulling out a reductio ad Hitlerum and trying to defend it?

    Just because bullshit Hitler arguments exist doesn't mean you can simply dismiss a good one.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    And not even a proper one, where you equate something your opponent does to what Hitler did, but a totally mangled one, where you say:

    Exactly, because it wasn't a reductio ad Hitlerum argument.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    And you just made all formal logicians in the audience grind their teeth to the gums.

    Not at all. It was a little bit hyperbolic, I'll admit. Hitler only killed a few million Jews. Abortion in the US is somewhere between Stalin and Mao in terms of body count. So much for Black Lives Matter, eh?



  • @boomzilla said:

    Exactly, because it wasn't a reductio ad Hitlerum argument.

    So I guess the guy was proving to us that Hitler is evil by comparing him to Planned Parenthood.

    Well that's... certainly a novel approach to discussion, I admit...


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Well that's... certainly a novel approach to discussion, I admit...

    No, being obtuse is quite common around here. Classic trolling technique.



  • Well explain it then in terms of proper logic and not "IT'S KINDA LIKE HITLEEEEER!", because that's a total non sequitur as written.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    There are a couple of issues and both hang off of pro-abortion folks ignoring the moral objection of anti-abortion folks. Just because one evil has happened, we don't need to compound it.

    Of course, not all abortions are equal. And doing abortion in the "most humane way possible" :spit: doesn't always result in tissue that can be used. One of the outrages revealed was that for some late term abortions, they don't first euthanize the fetus like they normally would, because that wouldn't result in viable tissues. So they basically have to chop the fetus up while its still alive. And actually, I think there may be some question here if the baby comes out alive first and then is cut into samples.

    So while people may justify this practice with a hand wave, the details might be pretty fucking awful in a way that wouldn't have been true if we subsequently say, hey, we'll just use this stuff that's already here because of a legal procedure. And now we're into territory where many people who don't think that abortion is evil in and of itself, is being performed in a way that is pretty damned evil.

    In short, it's a simple minded opinion that ignores the reality of the situation. Plus, yeah, a lot of people do view it as something as evil as Hitler.



  • Two points to the opposition:

    1. Chopping up the late-term baby because you favor money over the mother is terrible.
    2. Hitler did have a lot of fans.


  • @boomzilla said:

    In short, it's a simple minded opinion that ignores the reality of the situation. Plus, yeah, a lot of people do view it as something as evil as Hitler.
    Speaking of simple minded opinion that ignores the reality of the situation...

    It's a simple fact than nearly everyone thinks that not all cases where someone causes the death of another -- even one who is innocent and has no say in the matter -- are morally equivalent. (Consider civilian deaths in wartime; unless you're Quaker-level pacifist, you almost certainly have many wars for which you view civilian deaths as a regrettable consequence of something for which the overall good outweighs that evil. Edit: heck, most people think that military actions for which it is known that they will cause catastrophic civilian deaths -- and to at least some extent are designed to -- can sometimes be justified.) And to put a "Holocaust death" on the same level as an "abortion death"... IMO that's ridiculous.



  • @EvanED said:

    And to put a "Holocaust death" on the same level as an "abortion death"... IMO that's ridiculous.

    Do they ever have similar values? By that I mean, is it ridiculous at 12 weeks, still ridiculous at 22 weeks, understandable at 30, reasonable after birth?



  • @cdosrun1 said:

    Do they ever have similar values? By that I mean, is it ridiculous at 12 weeks, still ridiculous at 22 weeks, understandable at 30, reasonable after birth?
    I think I wouldn't go quite that far, and I'm not exactly sure what breakpoint (your 30 weeks) I would use. But that's at least a reasonable approximation to what I think, yes.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Although I usually like to argue with you, I'm seriously considering blocking you just for posting that. None of us is politically correct, but there's a line somewhere. Comparing something to the Holocaust just to make a point (and being serious about it) is definitely beyond that line.

    Time to mute this thread.



  • @EvanED said:

    I think I wouldn't go quite that far, and I'm not exactly sure what breakpoint (your 30 weeks) I would use. But that's at least a reasonable approximation to what I think, yes.

    Ok, I think I'm getting a better idea of what your viewpoint is. Have you heard of the forced abortions at 7+ months by China? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_abortion_of_Feng_Jianmei is one of the most infamous examples.

    I'm not trying to say all abortions are the same as the Holocaust, and I'm definitely not trying to say taking a morning after pill is the same as what happened to Feng Jianmei. In fact, exactly the opposite- not all abortions are equal.

    To massively over-simplify, in China, 3rd trimester abortions are acceptable, if less so than a decade ago. In the US, 2nd trimester. In Europe, 1st. And each one of those examples are of very large political units which are made up of smaller ones, which have their own laws and regulations. Who has the right number- and how can we prove it to everyone else?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @EvanED said:

    It's a simple fact than nearly everyone thinks that not all cases where someone causes the death of another -- even one who is innocent and has no say in the matter -- are morally equivalent.

    Absolutely true.

    @EvanED said:

    And to put a "Holocaust death" on the same level as an "abortion death"... IMO that's ridiculous.

    I agree. No doubt some of those killed in the Holocaust had done something that rated some sort of punishment.

    I'll cop to some hyperbole 🚎.

    @asdf said:

    Comparing something to the Holocaust just to make a point (and being serious about it) is definitely beyond that line.

    Why? If I compared, say, Comic-Con to the Holocaust I'd be right there with you. If you simply disagree on the values of the lives destroyed in the Holocaust vs abortion over the years, we'll have to agree to disagree. In fact, there's one way that abortion seems worse than the Holocaust, and that's how accepted abortion is among "civilized" society. I get that many people aren't going to agree with me, but fainting couches for forum posters aren't going to change the moral calculus here as I see it.


  • BINNED

    @boomzilla said:

    Unless you know of people who thought it was morally wrong to dig up potatoes.

    The Jain cuisine is completely vegetarian and also excludes onions, potatoes, brinjals and garlic, similar to the shojin-ryori Buddhist cuisine of Japan.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    Consider this my apology to @Maciejasjmj for his excellent Jain vs the Soviets analogy.


  • BINNED

    @boomzilla said:

    Consider this my apology to @Maciejasjmj for his excellent Jain vs the Soviets analogy.

    It wasn't just pedantry. A co-worker at my last job once invited me and my then-wife over for dinner. His wife was a Jain and cooked everything without onions or garlic. The food was surprisingly good given the circumstances.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @cdosrun1 said:

    In Europe, 1st.

    It varies from country to country — it's not standardised at all at the EU level — but in the UK it's mostly limited to the first 24 weeks unless there's a major medical reason otherwise, such as a severe risk to the mother. The overwhelming majority are in the first trimester.

    The whole thing comes up for debate every few years, but the last legal change was with the 1990 act. There's currently not much stomach for fiddling with this part of the law.



  • @dkf said:

    It varies from country to country — it's not standardised at all at the EU level

    Great example of how my statement was a massive simplification, and that each example was a large political unit made up of smaller ones who have their own regulations.

    There are similar examples in the other two large units I mentioned as well- Each state within the US has their own regulations, much the same way each nation in the EU does. In some States, it's technically legal to have an abortion, but virtually impossible to setup a clinic to provide one.

    China has similar difference- Rural or Rich (Or particularly, Rich and Rural) couples find it much easier to avoid compulsory abortions than poor or urban couples.


  • Fake News



  • Interesting development - Planned Parenthood has obtained an injunction to prevent this video from being published.

    Source: NPR this morning



  • @Polygeekery said:

    Different people put the cutoff for life at different stages of the game. You, and others, put it at the moment of conception

    But (from a pure biochemical standpoint), there is no difference the instant before and the instance after. Therefore this is just another arbitrary point. Moving further back in time (pre-conception), yields some very serious ramifications [use your imagination]

    <<ducking and running>>


  • Fake News

    @riking said:

    Planned Parenthood has obtained an injunction to prevent this video from being published

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1tXlpRq-jY



  • I flagged 2 posts to a new topic: In a fight between Morals and Pedantry, Pedantry Wins (At least for @Polygeekery) in the Flags/Badges category.



  • @abarker said:

    How long is PP going to continue denying that the are making a profit from this?

    It's a strawman either way.

    They are not making a profit from it, but it sets up tons of ideological conflicts of interest. I will demonstrate.

    @abarker said:

    No negotiating

    For example, this could all be avoided if PP has the donatee provide transport.
    If no money went through PP hands for the donation, then they'd be clean of any conflicts.

    @abarker said:

    This is getting ridiculous.

    They can say it's clever editing, but they can't deny that they seem to get caught with a lot of people that have very unprofessional behavior.

    The immediate reaction of a sane person being asked to support a plan to traffic girls, would be, "I can't discuss this, and if you insist then I will report you to authorities." It's grotesque to even joke about human trafficking, much less entertain a plot. Even if you clarify upfront that you won't support it. When you are working for a charity, you represent them. You must assume everything you say is public.

    @lolwhat said:

    certainly interests me...

    I find it odd that the people that support PP in this, are complaining that the investigations are coming out of tax money. As if external accountability for tax money is not worthwhile. At this point, I think anyone receiving federal funds should be regularly audited for ethical conflicts of interest.

    If private businesses that receive subsidies have to conform to massive regulation and auditing, so should charities and individuals. Expenditures of welfare funds should be tracked.

    @abarker said:

    But they are negotiating to get as much as they can

    I have to show my receipts for travel expenses to get compensated. They don't?

    @Polygeekery said:

    No, I am saying that asshole attended the same creative editing classes that Michael Moore did.

    Anything can be taken out of context.

    If someone from a food company is recorded saying "Of course we have a massive infestation problem, but there's ways around the regulations. laughs" Do you assume it's taken out of context?

    @abarker said:

    That woman had nothing to do with obtaining the organs.

    A person can hide a huge private profit from $10 increases on each transaction. It doesn't mean PP is getting tons of money out of this, but if you found out a PP associate was increasing their salary by 10-20% off of this, what comes of that?

    @abarker said:

    In addition, that same woman made a point of indicating that she would ask her doctors to make an effort to preserve the more "desireable" organs, which is another illegal practice. Abortions are not permitted to be performed with the intended goal of harvesting specific organs. I imagine that is because doing so increases the risk of a partial birth abortion, which is an illegal practice.

    And if all that is sorted out and we still can't find profits, here-in lies the biggest conflict of interest.

    "Can you come back in a month? We want to wait until the organs are more well formed."

    PP defenders assume the abortion was going to happen anyway. But people could encourage more abortions or later term abortions, just so they can pat themselves on the back for the donations.

    "It's a boy!!!"

    @Kian said:

    Yes, there's corruption everywhere

    So it becomes an internal problem for PP to cleanse themselves of bad associates.
    That's a really good cause right there.

    @Polygeekery said:

    And you leave no room for the possibility that she may have been speaking facetiously?

    Except that in this case speaking facetiously is rather morbid.

    If anyone is showing glee for abortions, that should be a red flag.

    But we're so deep in defending abortions, that we overlook some disturbing behavior.

    @svieira said:

    Of course, when you have to worry that what you are doing may be perceived as selling the organs of recently deceased children you might have a systemic organizational problem.

    Exactly.

    Again, they'd solve the headache by simply having the donatee procure transport and storage.

    @Polygeekery said:

    Due to raisins, I am not allowed to turn a profit from the transaction, but you lowball me and put try to set a price well below what my costs are. So, I try to get a higher price.

    No, you get quotes, turn them in, and then walk away if the deal falls through. Or you contractually obligate the other person to provide the services needed. Or you contract a third party to provide these services, and they negotiate the costs.

    If the money is ever in your hands, you have a conflict of interest. Conflicts are not inherently bad, they are risks. They can be mitigated. But in this case they can be completely eliminated.

    @FrostCat said:

    this is just a bit of tissue

    Another huge strawman here.

    If I just change the words to tissue instead of baby parts, it sounds better.
    It's just a kidney bean.

    A 12 week infant has a beating heart, nervous system, and kidneys. It's not just one homogenous glob of tissue as they'd have you believe.

    Planned Parenthood is Not Selling Baby Parts, You Fucking Idiots – 04:10
    — Rebecca Watson

    @Polygeekery said:

    kill the one organization where women of any economic circumstance can go to get gynecological visits and birth control

    It's not the one organization.

    It's the one organization where you can get those things and also get abortions and is federally funded.

    Meanwhile the local women's shelter offers those things, and gets no funding. I know, because I donated a piece of self-made art for an auction for one of them in SW LA.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    So the crime is making bad jokes?

    It's distasteful. Nothing to shut the organization down for.

    But if you were running a dog-pound, and jokingly said, "I like to watch them burn." Someone should look into that.

    @asdf said:

    not being bothered by abortions and not wanting to deny women the right to have one?

    True.

    But can we take a middle ground and not force the average tax-payer to fund abortions.

    If the pro-choice movement really cared, then certainly they'd be fine with defunding PP and providing the funds from their own account. PP isn't mission critical for a national government that should be offering defense and interstate commerce protection as it's major reasons for existing.

    @svieira said:

    So $60 to $100 for each intact organ or system that can be re-sold at $400-$24,000 (no that's not a typo) for no work by the clinic.

    I wonder if they get back donations from the companies that resell the baby parts.

    gasp

    loophole.

    Again, just make auditing a regular occurrence for organizations that receive federal grants. You owe the taxpayers that much.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    heavy bias

    In a world where "It's just tissue", implying homogenous glob is not a heavy-bias.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Or have the women use a dirty coat-hanger in some smoke-filled basement.

    ``#1 killer of teenagers is suicide. We should be helping them by pushing them off a cliff.

    @svieira said:

    Know someone whose boyfriend will kill her if he finds out she is pregnant? Help her get out of that relationship before he kills her for some other reason.

    This video kinda works in their favor, because the editor built the strawman for them.

    Returning a woman to an abuser after an abortion seems to happen often enough to stick into long term memory. And no one is talking about that shit.

    @FrostCat said:

    who casually talk about crushing babies

    That's what offends me, more than numbers or money.

    Casually talk about blending babies, no one cares. Part of the plan.
    Casually talk about shooting a lion in Africa, and everyone loses their mind.

    Now you have people getting death threats for legal kills in Africa. Great job guys.

    @Polygeekery said:

    you would have realized

    No, that's not obvious at all.

    Sorry, your hand was in the cookie jar on that one.

    It was @FrostCat very very majority level of fail.



  • @abarker said:

    In such a situation, you say,

    "Here's the number for the organization that we've contracted to handle storage and delivery. Contact them for costs. They continually handle storage and delivery, FIFO."

    @abarker said:

    telling people to deal with the consequences of their choices

    Doesn't have the best utility value. It's better to provide social nets that have no repercussions and hope they change behavior. The numbers show it. Less pregnancies this way.

    OTOH, we're in this situation to begin with because we demonized child pregnancy, and threw children into the streets for ending up pregnant.

    @boomzilla said:

    Yes! Kind of like honor killings.

    Feminists have that covered. They can cleverly ignore women's rights issues in the Middle-East, creating safe spaces for intersectionality with Muslim women, by coining the term moral-relativity.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    it's so obvious they're eeeevil.

    They'd benefit from associate training to boost their average level of professionalism.

    @boomzilla said:

    they are evil

    Everyone is evil, to their own degree. 3% dogshit makes a bad cake. That's why we hold each other accountable.

    The moment someone gets offended for being held accountable. Red flags.

    @boomzilla said:

    Some people see abortion as murder.

    It's more like, any defense of abortion could be used against a toddler.

    @Polygeekery said:

    can become desensitized

    Then rotate crops.

    @Polygeekery said:

    I put it at the point that the fetus can reliably live outside of the mother's body.

    Fair assessment, but you do realize that's a spectrum right.

    If you say it's justified by the likelyhood of survival, then it's 50% justified at 25 weeks, and 90% justified at 14 weeks.

    I feel uncomfortable saying that.

    @Polygeekery said:

    I also allow for the fact that there is some research that cannot be done without the procurement of fetal tissue.

    I doubt that.

    I allow that there is some AMOUNT of research that cannot be economically justified without low cost donations. But that brings up the question whether this amount is actually beneficial past what can already be done by other means. (adult specimens, adult stem cells).

    Parkinson's has had more success with adult stem cells, yet pro-choice often parrot that fetus tissue is needed for the cure. That's dishonest at best.

    @Polygeekery said:

    I am generally opposed to the idea of animal testing also

    As long as it's animal fetuses, we should have no problem, right?

    Hell, we can crop grow that shit.

    @Polygeekery said:

    But pro-life nutcases want to throw those out also.

    False dilemma.

    I'm ok with miscarriage donations.

    @boomzilla said:

    I can understand that obviously this wasn't something that was the choice of the woman

    It's a fetus if you want to kill it.
    A baby if you want to keep it.

    That's the current moral code.

    @boomzilla said:

    Which I guess means that we should be able to treat these people after they're born as less than human, too.

    That's been the natural course of history.

    Google, define bastard.

    @boomzilla said:

    Murdering and raping boys was also (probably) a very small portion of John Wayne Gacy's typical day.

    The thought that a teacher could rape a student, then go bat-shit insane if she was denied the abortion...

    I mean, Obama said women shouldn't be punished with a baby.

    Those fucking evil babies.

    @Polygeekery said:

    What about the mother, who may have went on to make something of herself, but ended up pregnant too young and instead ends up in poverty?

    false dilemma again.

    We could focus our efforts on offsetting the setback.

    @Polygeekery said:

    I have never had to be involved in the decision on an abortion, but I can see the pros in many cases.

    You wouldn't have had a choice, because you would be denying the woman her autonomy.

    @antiquarian said:

    so cite your shit.

    I would like to know.

    It would be something to find out that the Bible said that elective killing of unborn is ok.

    Because it also says, "I knew you before you were in the womb" paraphrased.

    @riking said:

    purpose of the criminal justice system to reform the convict so they can become a functioning member of society?

    Maybe when prisons were self-sufficient and prisoners had to work for a living. That was good preparation for being released to society as a productive member.

    Now we just give them cable to offset the prison brutality (from guards and other prisoners alike) and teach them that they can only get ahead by being paranoid.

    @cdosrun1 said:

    then cutting off all aid and letting them get a job or starve

    Problem is that people don't starve.

    They end up with what they need, even if it used to belong to someone else.

    @cdosrun1 said:

    If it's not a life, none of the rest matters.

    They'll claim the potential for life when they use the load-bearing emotional argument of, "but think of what their life will be."

    Then ignore the potential for life otherwise.

    @asdf said:

    where teenagers want to and will riot and need room to destroy

    Logical fallacy.

    Just stick to calling it "Utilitarianism". Defending utility leads to logical fallacies.

    @Rhywden said:

    At the time of abortion, their brain is neither developed nor do they have actual brain activity yet. At that point it's a growing lump of matter with the potential of becoming something more.

    I may not have a grasp on a hard line, but I know that partial-birth abortion cannot be defended without becoming an evil narcissistic bastard.

    @boomzilla said:

    in Europe. In the US

    Also a barrier to discussions about healthcare. "It works in the UK" is ignorant of the affordable care act's actual laws.

    @cdosrun1 said:

    Would you elaborate?

    The key difference is in saying someone else "murders babies" implying that other person agrees it's a baby and still chooses to abort. That's what is disingenuous.

    @Polygeekery said:

    You know what is fucking nuts about not teaching abstinence only birth control?

    Lying about the level of protection you get from diseases through the various methods of birth control, including condoms. Giving statistics from high quality condoms, and then handing out low quality condoms.

    @abarker said:

    The brain begins developing at the 5th week of pregnancy.

    Again, any valid excuse for abortion can be used against a toddler.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    What about high-school kids getting disowned by their parents due to pregnancy?

    That's bad. Let's not do that.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    What about women losing their jobs because they can't afford nine months off?

    Wife only got 6 weeks off. I got no weeks off.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    What about those women that get killed by their lovers because of the pregnancy?

    So, abort and then return them to the safety of their homicidal partner. PP has done this.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    What about a million ways in which a pregnancy can be a health risk factor?

    Only 1 of which is arguably mitigated by abortion, and even that is debated.
    And in every single case, the side effects of the abortion posed similar risks.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    What about fetuses which have no chance to live after birth

    The female body is amazing at handling that scenario, in most cases.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    or those for which life is going to be a living hell until they inevitably die at a young age?

    Yeah, they don't deserve autonomy.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    But yeah. Just wave your fucking abortion wand and all will be good in the world.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Then there are people who put a lump of cells higher than a living, breathing animal.

    Then we should be able to farm animal fetuses in the cases where they are acceptable alternatives.

    @cdosrun1 said:

    Are we saying it's ethical to end a pregnancy because they probably will have a low quality of life?

    It's a great alternative to active racism.
    And it shrinks the rich-poor gap.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    freegans

    Not sure if I want to look that up. Brain may implode.

    @boomzilla said:

    So much for Black Lives Matter, eh?

    A black fetus isn't a black life until it's breathing.
    A white fetus is a white life as soon as it has a heartbeat.

    But no, abortion has never been used as a tool for racism.



  • Thanks, you've given me things to think about. Several of them, in fact..



  • @cdosrun1 said:

    To massively over-simplify, in China, 3rd trimester abortions are acceptable, if less so than a decade ago. In the US, 2nd trimester. In Europe, 1st. And each one of those examples are of very large political units which are made up of smaller ones, which have their own laws and regulations. Who has the right number- and how can we prove it to everyone else?
    To be honest... I don't know who has the right number. I kind of don't think there is a right number, and I think that, for example, the variance between Europe and US and China is not a bad thing. (Well, at least between US and Europe.) Like I said, I'm actually even pretty sympathetic to the pro-life argument even if I consider myself pretty squarely in the pro-choice camp.



  • No, it's not.



  • @xaade said:

    It's more like, any defense of abortion could be used against a toddler.
    Bull-fucking-shit.

    Toddlers can be given up for adoption immediately and without a significant imposition on the mother. Fetuses can't. I'm not saying you have to agree that this makes a difference in the end equation of what's moral, but if you don't see that there's an extremely significant difference between the two situations I think you're blind.

    @xaade said:

    Maybe when prisons were self-sufficient and prisoners had to work for a living. That was good preparation for being released to society as a productive member.

    Now we just give them cable to offset the prison brutality (from guards and other prisoners alike) and teach them that they can only get ahead by being paranoid.

    Don't forget locking up productive members of society because they liked the wrong plant.



  • @EvanED said:

    Toddlers can be given up for adoption immediately and without a significant imposition on the mother.

    That's an even worse defense of abortion.

    The real difference between a fetus and a toddler is convenience? Not whether it's a life or not?

    "Look, I know that you can say an infant is dependent, and they're not self-aware / self-actualized, and so on just like a fetus, but we're trying to equalize the convenience of giving up an infant for adoption, and murdering the fetus is the path of least resistance. Don't you get it? It's all about convenience to the woman carrying the child. Even if we can't define a fetus as not alive compared to a toddler, we don't care. We're really just saying a fetus isn't a life to justify killing it."

    Every step to defend abortion leads us further away from sanity.

    Disclaimer: I'm producing moral arguments against acts of abortion. Not legal arguments against the legality of abortion.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @EvanED said:

    Toddlers can be given up for adoption immediately and without a significant imposition on the mother.

    I think you ought to keep that opinion to yourself when near a group of average mothers.


Log in to reply