Abortion and Women's Rights

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights.  Murder is not a right. 

"I don't hate women, I just hate irresponsible murderers." Hate the sin, not the sinner.
"If they don't have the ability to get to an abortion clinic, maybe they should have taken that into consideration before having sex without using adequate contraceptives." You keep on focusing on personal flaws rather than surrounding circumstances. Very authoritarian.
"They have no right to destroy feeling/conscious human life due to their own irresponsibility or stupidity." Well there's a slew of factors to take into consideration now. Life begins very late.
"They caused their own problems via their own decisions." We're obviously not getting through to this one.
"They are screwing themselves over with their own dumb decisions, and they knew it at the time." See above, sheriff.
>>557 "Kumori's 'argument' on health problems is *not* valid.  You apparently misunderstood it.  Kumori was saying that women who become pregnant while full of diseases that could jeopardize the health and life of her future children anyways so that she can fullfill her selfish desire to have children were 'brave' and acting in 'good conscience.'" Well, they are. Acting in good conscience.
"These women are gambling with the lives and health of their future children to satisfy *their* selfish desires to have their own children, when there are perfectly fine children availible for adoption with no health problems, that could be adopted resulting in *no* risk to the woman's future children's lives and well being.  They are irresponsible and uncompassionate." Personal flaws, no environmental backdrop. This is the link between libertarians and authoritarians, and the latter knows how to exploit it, apparently.
>>558 "Once it has certain properties such as consciousness/senses, it deserves legal protection." So does the one who built it, carried it and will be forced to take care of it.
"When the fetus is conscious/has senses, it deserves legal protection." We don't know when it feels pain.
"One of them.  Thus, we can conclude that fetuses that have attained some degree of consciousness should not be aborted.  This is wrong." Once the child has been proven to have developed a unique personality inside the womb, abortion is wrong. But the burden of proof is on you since we still have the utilitarian upper hand (crime rates fall as abortion is available, right to body and that).
"Yeah, people's minds don't develop until quite a while after birth, this doesn't give you the freedom to kill them." Are you a doctor?
"Abortion should no longer be allowed once the fetus has attained consciousness/senses." A unique sequence of events experienced and transmitted to a brain that has reached adequate development. That is the kicker.
>>559 "This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that said conscious fetuses have the right to live." Sadly it does.
>>560 "Consciousness does not imply right to live.  As long as there is capital punishment, the decision of whether all human life is sacred is an arbitrary one, and not decided on absolutes such as definition of life, etc." Well then we can argue how the perpetrator has used his life to kill another. Also, considering how lots of states argue that abortions are too easy to carry out, I guess pro-lifers still don't have any common sense. They do not want things such as a scientifically set limit or better information to young women. They want to make abortions a hassle and that is going to make poor people poorer.

>>560
Whether or not abortion is wrong or not does not depend upon whether or not capital punishment is wrong or not.  They are separate issues.  The fact that one or the other may exist does not justify making a wrong decision in implimenting a policy on the other.

>>561
"Hate the sin, not the sinner."

Why? There's nothing wrong with hating people who commit wrong.

"You keep on focusing on personal flaws rather than surrounding circumstances. Very authoritarian."

My position is very libertarian.  Are you saying that capitalists who then say that poor people are poor due to personal decisions are 'authoritarian'? Don't make me laugh.  Abortion is the same sort of thing.  The woman is in the position she is in due to her own irresponsibility, and I have no sympathy for her.  She made a decision knowing there was some risk involved, and the risk ended up biting her in the ass.  Too bad for her it was her choice that put her there.
"Well there's a slew of factors to take into consideration now. Life begins very late."

Outside of medical exceptions as aforementioned, I don't see what else needs to be considered.  Ban late-term abortions asap.  Throw those who commit them in jail just like you would a murderer.

"We're obviously not getting through to this one."

Because you fail to explain to me that the problems they face are due to anything but their choices.  They had a choice, they made it, and if they fucked themselves up with that choice, that's too bad.

"See above, sheriff."

I don't see what you are talking about.  If you have a refutation, I think I'll need to hear it said now.

"Well, they are. Acting in good conscience."

Gambling with your children's health, lives, and general well-being for the sake of satisfying personal desires is not 'acting in good conscience' in my opinion.

"Personal flaws, no environmental backdrop. This is the link between libertarians and authoritarians, and the latter knows how to exploit it, apparently."

I don't see what you are saying, or how what I would be saying is in any way 'authoritarian'.  I disaprove of said women and their decisions, but I am not going to try to ban sex among diseased women. 

"So does the one who built it, carried it and will be forced to take care of it."

This is not an issue.  I'd like to offer the same sort of legal protections to the mother as I would the conscious/feeling/living human fetus.  Why bother to say this? I have never advocated denying women the same legal protection as men. 

"We don't know when it feels pain."

Sure.  This doesn't alter the validity of my statement.  Once we know when it can feel pain, or has senses, no more abortions after that point, with the aforementioned exceptions.

"Once the child has been proven to have developed a unique personality inside the womb, abortion is wrong. But the burden of proof is on you since we still have the utilitarian upper hand (crime rates fall as abortion is available, right to body and that)."

No, not a 'unique personality', once it has consciousness and or feeling, no more abortion, with the aforementioned exceptions. 

I'd also like to ask, just for clarification, just what do you mean by a 'unique personality'?

"Are you a doctor?"

That is not relevant to the fact that you should not be allowed to commit infanticide, regardless of the fact that the babies' mind does not mature until a while after birth.

"A unique sequence of events experienced and transmitted to a brain that has reached adequate development. That is the kicker."

So are you trying to say that abortion should be generally allowed even when the fetus has attained consciousness and or senses?

"Sadly it does."

No, it doesn't.  The fetus has an individual right to live.  This right is not collective, and has nothing to do with everyone else.  The decisions made on the outside world were the ones that resulted in the conscious/feeling fetus being there, and thus those on the outside world should have to bear the consequences of decisions made there, not the innocent late-term human fetus. 

Thread over, stop posting.

"Why? There's nothing wrong with hating people who commit wrong." It's unneccesary. If I find it justified to harm or destroy someone I might as well do so in a relaxed manner.
"My position is very libertarian." Per se, yes. But the motivations of that position are authoritarian.
"Are you saying that capitalists who then say that poor people are poor due to personal decisions are 'authoritarian'?" Nope, I am saying they are taking a shortcut. "Don't make me laugh." Why? Will your teeth fly out?
"The woman is in the position she is in due to her own irresponsibility, and I have no sympathy for her." I don't have any sympathy either. I have understanding and a desire to dissect rather than comment.
"She made a decision knowing there was some risk involved, and the risk ended up biting her in the ass." Well, both before and after conception many obstacles and factors apply.
"Too bad for her it was her choice that put her there." And the choice of the man.
"Throw those who commit them in jail just like you would a murderer." Yipee. More laws with no positive effect that will cost moolah to put into practice.
"Gambling with your children's health, lives, and general well-being for the sake of satisfying personal desires is not 'acting in good conscience' in my opinion." They are creating life and should be honored for it. The status of that life is apparently not an issue to you so why are you sobbing now?
"I disaprove of said women and their decisions, but I am not going to try to ban sex among diseased women." And I want to earn my disapproval by looking at causation and the situations that apply to my subjects.
"This is not an issue.  I'd like to offer the same sort of legal protections to the mother as I would the conscious/feeling/living human fetus.  Why bother to say this? I have never advocated denying women the same legal protection as men." Well, there's legal protection and then there's culture. Guess what, they're not reflective of each other.
"Sure.  This doesn't alter the validity of my statement.  Once we know when it can feel pain, or has senses, no more abortions after that point, with the aforementioned exceptions." Pain is not the issue, the proven status of the fetus as a lump with a unique personality concocted by human cerebral faculties is the issue.
"No, not a 'unique personality', once it has consciousness and or feeling, no more abortion, with the aforementioned exceptions." Animals have consciousness and feeling as well. Humanity lies in the brain.
"That is not relevant to the fact that you should not be allowed to commit infanticide, regardless of the fact that the babies' mind does not mature until a while after birth." I don't care whether the kid has a mature mind or not. I just wonder when that kid is a unique iteration of humanity.
"So are you trying to say that abortion should be generally allowed even when the fetus has attained consciousness and or senses?" If there is no brain to accumulate and compile these electric transmissions then yes.
"No, it doesn't.  The fetus has an individual right to live.  This right is not collective, and has nothing to do with everyone else.  The decisions made on the outside world were the ones that resulted in the conscious/feeling fetus being there, and thus those on the outside world should have to bear the consequences of decisions made there, not the innocent late-term human fetus." So, create a better culture and prove when the fetus can develop a unique personality. Being such a rational being I'm sure you can find a solution like snap.

>>563
"No, not a 'unique personality', once it has consciousness and or feeling, no more abortion, with the aforementioned exceptions."

Even if does develop some fragment of a conscious, it'd be no more conscious than a sea slug.

"That is not relevant to the fact that you should not be allowed to commit infanticide, regardless of the fact that the babies' mind does not mature until a while after birth."

A fetus isn't an infant fyi. You keep confusing fetuses with babies.

>>563 This Anonymous keeps belittling women. Saying EVERYTHING is done from her actions and her actions alone. He also preaches about responsibility of women, but never of the men, like men are angels. Only children like Anonymous would want to be absolved from so much responsibility. Anonymous is an idiot whom has his pride shoved his asshole. Talking to him here is like shouting at a deaf man. He's probably been preaching to himself for so long that it's become an automatic reflex for him to just shut down the majority of receiving information and to just shit out on everything against his views.

>>565
"It's unneccesary. If I find it justified to harm or destroy someone I might as well do so in a relaxed manner."

Lots of things are unnecessary.  Drug use is unnecessary, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.  It is a personal decision, just like mine.

"Per se, yes. But the motivations of that position are authoritarian."

I fail to see how. 

"Nope, I am saying they are taking a shortcut."

Explain.

"Well, both before and after conception many obstacles and factors apply."

Those are already factored into her decision she made at the time, and she made it anyway. 

"And the choice of the man."

I'm not denying the man is partly responsible for the kid, but she can't possibly blame *him* for the fact that *she* is pregnant, when it was *her* decisions that resulted in *her* pregnancy.  Having the kid is without a doubt something that should effect the man.  Becoming pregnant is the woman's problem to deal with, and her decisions brought it upon her.  Don't say it is the man's decision, because it isn't, unless we are talking about rape, which we aren't.

"Yipee. More laws with no positive effect that will cost moolah to put into practice."

This is redundant, the government has a duty to defend the right to life.  This would entail banning late-term abortions with the aforementioned exceptions.

"They are creating life and should be honored for it. The status of that life is apparently not an issue to you so why are you sobbing now?"

What? People should not be honored for gambling with their children's lives, futures, health, and overall well being.  No, this is not acting in good conscience.  Sorry, Kumori fails.

I have no issue with honoring people who create life in a responsible, compassionate manner.  Gambling with children's lives, futures, health, and well being, is not responsible or compassionate.

"And I want to earn my disapproval by looking at causation and the situations that apply to my subjects."

I fail to see how this would make me or my position authoritarian, or how it would refute my quoted comment you cited.

"Well, there's legal protection and then there's culture. Guess what, they're not reflective of each other."

In case you didn't know it, women have equal protection under the law in the United States.  I don't see what you are saying, or how there is a problem.

"Pain is not the issue, the proven status of the fetus as a lump with a unique personality concocted by human cerebral faculties is the issue."

No, it is an issue.  Senses are a part of what makes a human being a human being.  Here are some of the aspects of life that should be considered in this debate, according to wikipedia:

"   1. consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain
   2. reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)
   3. self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)
   4. the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics
   5. the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both"

Senses, and the ability to sense things, as it states above (pain), is a factor to be considered.

"Animals have consciousness and feeling as well."

But are not human.  It is the proper function of good government to defend human life.

"If there is no brain to accumulate and compile these electric transmissions then yes."

Consciousness and senses would require something akin to a brain.

"So, create a better culture and prove when the fetus can develop a unique personality. Being such a rational being I'm sure you can find a solution like snap."

The notion that 'culture' or 'society' needs to bend and conform to your wishes, and act how you please, is very authoritarian.  It is not our place to judge our culture, or to use the government to manipulate it, or create a new one.  The government exists to defend life, liberty, and property, and that's it.

>>568 "What? People should not be honored for gambling with their children's lives, futures, health, and overall well being.  No, this is not acting in good conscience.  Sorry, Kumori fails."

It's still done in good conscience, it's not like the parents actually intended to infect their offspring with something they can't control. Kumori wins, you just like to beat on him.

"I have no issue with honoring people who create life in a responsible, compassionate manner.  Gambling with children's lives, futures, health, and well being, is not responsible or compassionate."

Are you saying that we should now dictate whom may and may not reproduce now? Very facist. Those people with health problems do produce offspring in a responsible, compassionate manner. That's why they go the extra length for better care and taking all the necessary precautions.

They are doing this out of good conscience with no bad intentions. >>545 Proves it.

>>567 You are absolutely right. Just let the failure create his own defeat. No-one with a shred of common sense would follow the majority of his sayings.

"I fail to see how. " Rather than appreciating the interaction between government, culture and individual you center on the individual in order to create a simple passage of blame and causation. I'm not saying environment can be used to defend deep character flaws or criminal activity, but I am suggesting that the best solutions to a problem lie in anthropology and that dumping a philosophical, virtue-ridden narrative on the issue is a shortcut.
"Those are already factored into her decision she made at the time, and she made it anyway." Well, why make women (and the men, assuming they are part of the equation which they always try to avoid) run through an absurd sieve of problems and factors before and after conception. Having abortions in this day and age is a brave statement, and if it occurs too late, too bad.
"but she can't possibly blame *him* for the fact that *she* is pregnant, when it was *her* decisions that resulted in *her* pregnancy. He can't possibly blame her for the fact that she is pregnant, when it was their decision that resulted in the pregnancy.
"Becoming pregnant is the woman's problem to deal with, and her decisions brought it upon her." Becoming pregnant is their "problem". (In a non-surreal society having kids wouldn't be a burden. How long is the paid-for parental leave period in the US?
"Don't say it is the man's decision, because it isn't, unless we are talking about rape, which we aren't." Well, it is their decision, really.
"This is redundant, the government has a duty to defend the right to life.  This would entail banning late-term abortions with the aforementioned exceptions." Yet, secular, well-off countries with a degree of common sense consider it a non-issue. There is no link between many abortions and society's downfall (my link shows the opposite is true). And before you pipe up, America is currently not a secular country and it is not a secular culture.
"I have no issue with honoring people who create life in a responsible, compassionate manner." How's about creating life despite the twists of fate and making the best out of the genes you've got? That is a human right and you are appearing more and more authorative with each post.
"I fail to see how this would make me or my position authoritarian, or how it would refute my quoted comment you cited." Because it doesn't address the complexity of human culture.
"In case you didn't know it, women have equal protection under the law in the United States.  I don't see what you are saying, or how there is a problem." Once again. The official equal status of women is not reflected in American society. Feminism is thus largely a culturally focusing movement with worrying tendencies to look to government for help. I dislike that politically but understand it pragmatically.
"No, it is an issue.  Senses are a part of what makes a human being a human being.  Here are some of the aspects of life that should be considered in this debate, according to wikipedia" Well, once again, some animals fulfill those criterias to a slight degree. Since the human brain is the most developed on earth, why not ban abortions once the fetus has developed a complexity that outranks that of the runner-up in cerebral complexity?
"But are not human.  It is the proper function of good government to defend human life." Well, you can't dictate when human life starts without a 250-page document argumenting on what makes a human.
"Consciousness and senses would require something akin to a brain." Okay. Then I redefine by stating that said brain must be more complex than the second most cerebrally advanced animal on earth.
"The notion that 'culture' or 'society' needs to bend and conform to your wishes, and act how you please, is very authoritarian." No, the idea that people should behave in a certain dictated manner is authoritarian. The belief that culture can be altered via cumulating movements or arbitrary action is anthropology. The question of how much a culture should be sovereign to government influence is a political one.
"It is not our place to judge our culture, or to use the government to manipulate it, or create a new one." So if an American state decides that non-blacks are to be systematically discriminated in a non-illegal manner, are we to not judge or get some fresh air in there? How's about in the current western world, where women are treated as 85-95 % human in a non-illegal manner?
"The government exists to defend life, liberty, and property, and that's it." As a moderate libertarian, I say that is snafu.

" Kumori wins, you just like to beat on him." Her. She's a she. "Although since she's a feminist she likely has chesthair huhrrrhurhurhuhuhurur women have equal rights so they shouldn't complain."

>>569

"It's still done in good conscience, it's not like the parents actually intended to infect their offspring with something they can't control. Kumori wins, you just like to beat on him."

*laughs*  Ok, I guess I'm missing something, or apparently people here think that gambling with children's lives, health, and well being, is 'good conscience'.  Well sorry, I don't agree, and anyone with a decent code of ethics would find such a person repulsive.

"I have no issue with honoring people who create life in a responsible, compassionate manner.  Gambling with children's lives, futures, health, and well being, is not responsible or compassionate."

"Are you saying that we should now dictate whom may and may not reproduce now? Very facist."

Wow, I hate how people continue to whine about things I never said.  I never advocated putting laws down about who can and cannot have sex. 

My comment was targetting something Kumori said calling women who gamble with children's lives 'acting in good conscience' or some such garbage.  I think such activities are irresponsible, but I wouldn't think of banning them.  In the future, how about you try *not* putting words in my mouth?

"Those people with health problems do produce offspring in a responsible, compassionate manner."

If the health problems pose a significant risk for their children, they are *not* acting responsibly.

"They are doing this out of good conscience with no bad intentions. >>545 Proves it."

>>545 doesn't prove shit.  Supposing women try to have children while sick, if there is no way (within reason) that it would effect the child, then yes, the woman is acting responsibly.  If this poses a significant risk to her, yes, she is being brave. 

If, however, the woman has a disease, and knowingly trys to have children regardless of a significant risk that might beset her future child, she is *not* acting compassionately or responsibly.  The compassionate and responsible solution in this case for women who would like to raise a family is to adopt.

">>567 You are absolutely right. Just let the failure create his own defeat. No-one with a shred of common sense would follow the majority of his sayings."

I think it is you that lacks common sense.  If you have it, refute my arguments instead of whining, ok?

>>567
">>563 This Anonymous keeps belittling women."

I don't belittle 'women', I belittle 'irresponsible women'.  There is a huge difference, unless of course, *you* think *all* women are irresponsible.  Just to let you know, that is a very sexist notion.  So unless you are sexist, you must realize that my comments are not directed at women generally, but at a select few among the larger group of responsible and compassionate women.  I never said all women are irresponsible, or that women generally were or are.  You fail.

"Saying EVERYTHING is done from her actions and her actions alone."

Not everything is done from her actions alone.  Men are partly responsible for children.  However, since children are partly their responsibility, they get rights to said children as well.  This means no abortion without mutual consent, since again, the being is both of theirs, not just the woman's.  It also means good men need to stop being so frequently jipped out of getting their kids in custody battles.

"He also preaches about responsibility of women, but never of the men, like men are angels."

Wrong.  I think men are responsible for the child as well.  However, see comment right above your quote here.

"Only children like Anonymous would want to be absolved from so much responsibility."

Baseless personal attack, and nothing more.

"Anonymous is an idiot whom has his pride shoved his asshole."

More baseless personal attacks.

"Talking to him here is like shouting at a deaf man."

Talking to you here is like shouting at a deaf man.

"He's probably been preaching to himself for so long that it's become an automatic reflex for him to just shut down the majority of receiving information and to just shit out on everything against his views."

Funny how it sounds exactly like you, yet you direct this at me.

>>571
"Her. She's a she. "Although since she's a feminist she likely has chesthair huhrrrhurhurhuhuhurur women have equal rights so they shouldn't complain."

Was this in any way directed at me? I have never made such comments about feminists.  This is completely baseless.

>>572 "*laughs*  Ok, I guess I'm missing something, or apparently people here think that gambling with children's lives, health, and well being, is 'good conscience'.  Well sorry, I don't agree, and anyone with a decent code of ethics would find such a person repulsive."

Anyone with common sense would find the gamble is far harsher with the health of the woman, instead of the child.

"Wow, I hate how people continue to whine about things I never said.  I never advocated putting laws down about who can and cannot have sex. 

My comment was targetting something Kumori said calling women who gamble with children's lives 'acting in good conscience' or some such garbage.  I think such activities are irresponsible, but I wouldn't think of banning them.  In the future, how about you try *not* putting words in my mouth?"

He didn't put words in your mouth, he was asking you a question, and then commented about the thought. You are the one being quite whiney here, for flipping out on such a thing.

"If the health problems pose a significant risk for their children, they are *not* acting responsibly."

Oh yeah sure parents actually WANT to make their children be born with diseases. lolololhurhurhurhurhur  *coughs*

"I think it is you that lacks common sense.  If you have it, refute my arguments instead of whining, ok?"

Awww he wants a fight. =p

"If, however, the woman has a disease, and knowingly trys to have children regardless of a significant risk that might beset her future child, she is *not* acting compassionately or responsibly."

Take this scenario. The woman is clean and has no health disorders. The man loves drinking, and he has health/genetic problems. The couple wants to raise a family, and the man knowingly has diseases and despite that he wants a child. The man here would be held accountable. Then again, I don't believe in such garbage. As Xel mentions, "How's about creating life despite the twists of fate and making the best out of the genes you've got? That is a human right and you are appearing more and more authorative with each post."

"I don't belittle 'women', I belittle 'irresponsible women'.  There is a huge difference, unless of course, *you* think *all* women are irresponsible.  Just to let you know, that is a very sexist notion.  So unless you are sexist, you must realize that my comments are not directed at women generally, but at a select few among the larger group of responsible and compassionate women.  I never said all women are irresponsible, or that women generally were or are.  You fail."

He is so funny.

""He's probably been preaching to himself for so long that it's become an automatic reflex for him to just shut down the majority of receiving information and to just shit out on everything against his views."

Funny how it sounds exactly like you, yet you direct this at me."

I believe the aformentioned is correct on Anon as well.

>>570
"Rather than appreciating the interaction between government, culture and individual you center on the individual in order to create a simple passage of blame and causation."

It isn't because I just want to toss the blame on something, so I happen to choose the individual - its that the individual is obviously the one responsible for his actions, so if they screw themselves up, its obviously their fault.

"I'm not saying environment can be used to defend deep character flaws or criminal activity, but I am suggesting that the best solutions to a problem lie in anthropology and that dumping a philosophical, virtue-ridden narrative on the issue is a shortcut."

Allright, and I'm saying that late-term abortion, outside of the said exceptions should be regarded as criminal activity, so what you are saying doesn't apply here, and really shouldn't have been brought up to begin with.  (not saying I agree with you, but anyway, yes.)

"Well, why make women (and the men, assuming they are part of the equation which they always try to avoid) run through an absurd sieve of problems and factors before and after conception."

That isn't the issue.  Whether or not abortion should be permitted or not really has nothing whatever to do with other  essentially arbitrary laws. 

"Having abortions in this day and age is a brave statement, and if it occurs too late, too bad."

Too bad? I think not.  Thankfully we have reasonable people in government to ban late term abortions.  (note:  they aren't democrats)

"He can't possibly blame her for the fact that she is pregnant, when it was their decision that resulted in the pregnancy."

Yes he can.  The woman is accepting an action that will have a consequence to her body, and she knows it.  She has the choice to not accept said action, or to use contraceptives that will prevent the results of said action from affecting her body.  Since it is affecting her body, and not his, it if it is she who doesn't wish to become pregnant, it is then she who must take the actions necessary to prevent this.  Now, while the result of pregnancy might be half the man's responsibility and his problem to deal with, if the woman doesn't want to get pregnant, that's her problem to deal with.  Her body, her problem. 

"Becoming pregnant is their "problem"."

If the man doesn't mind helping raise the kids, it isn't a 'problem'.  If, at the same time, the woman wants to *avoid* a pregnancy, whose responsibility is it to use contraceptives? The man doesn't care, he wouldn't mind the kids.  But if the woman doesn't want a baby growing in her, she has to prevent it from happening to her, just like if I don't want tooth decay growing in my mouth, I have to brush my teeth.

"Well, it is their decision, really."

No, it is the woman's.  See example above.

"Yet, secular, well-off countries with a degree of common sense consider it a non-issue. There is no link between many abortions and society's downfall (my link shows the opposite is true). And before you pipe up, America is currently not a secular country and it is not a secular culture."

Who the fuck cares? I'm not a utilitarian, and I'm not arguing society will get fucked up if women are allowed to abort late term babies, I'm arguing they shouldn't be allowed to abort late term babies because it is a violation of the baby's rights.

"How's about creating life despite the twists of fate and making the best out of the genes you've got? That is a human right and you are appearing more and more authorative with each post."

No, to be an authoritarian, I would have to want to force people to not have children who had diseases, which I never advocated.  Your accusations are totally baseless and full of fail. 

What you fail to grasp, evidently, is that the gambling being done with fate is of great risk to the child.  Gambling with other people is not being brave or acting in good conscience.  If the mother was assuming all the risk of the endeavor, I wouldn't have a problem with honoring it.  Unfortunately, that isn't the case.  In Kumori's example, the kids are at risk as well as the mother, and the mother is gambling with their lives, health, and well being.  This is uncompassionate and selfish.

"Because it doesn't address the complexity of human culture."

The fact that I 'don't address the complexity of human culture' makes me 'authoritarian'? I think you need to look up authoritarian.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=authoritarian
As you can see, the position I have taken, according to the definiation, is actually a very pro-liberty position.  Sorry, but you fail.

And by the way, to note:  my position on the issue is that I would not force diseased women to not become pregnant if they wanted to become pregnant.  My position is 100% pro-liberty.  I fail to see how you find this 'authoritarian', or how what you said makes me authoritarian.

"Once again. The official equal status of women is not reflected in American society."

Which is absolutely redundant.  What is morally right is that women have equal *rights*, not that they *are* equal. 

"Feminism is thus largely a culturally focusing movement with worrying tendencies to look to government for help. I dislike that politically but understand it pragmatically."

Now we have some authoritarians being discussed.  People disagree with them, so they decide to look to the govt to help ram their agenda down people's throats.  (directed only at the feminazi branch of feminism, not the individualists who are against use of govt)

"Well, once again, some animals fulfill those criterias to a slight degree."

Yet are not genetically human.  Therein lies the difference.

"Since the human brain is the most developed on earth, why not ban abortions once the fetus has developed a complexity that outranks that of the runner-up in cerebral complexity?"

Because human rights have nothing to do with brain complexity. 

"Well, you can't dictate when human life starts without a 250-page document argumenting on what makes a human."

I don't know for sure, but I think its pretty safe to say abortion shouldn't be allowed when the fetus is conscious and or can feel.

"Okay. Then I redefine by stating that said brain must be more complex than the second most cerebrally advanced animal on earth."

See above.

"No, the idea that people should behave in a certain dictated manner is authoritarian."

No, what is authoritarian is forcing that manner upon them.  In fact, this is fascist.  Clearly, I am not either, since I don't advocate the use of force to achieve my ideals or enforce social regimentation as per the definition of fascism.

"The question of how much a culture should be sovereign to government influence is a political one."

And provided that culture doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone, no true libertarian would say the government should intervene.

"So if an American state decides that non-blacks are to be systematically discriminated in a non-illegal manner, are we to not judge or get some fresh air in there? How's about in the current western world, where women are treated as 85-95 % human in a non-illegal manner?"

We aren't talking about government deciding anything.  The way things are, things are more or less left up to private individuals, which is how you don't want things to be.  Apparently, the distinction between government action and private action means nothing to you.  To a true libertarian, this is critical.

You wish to institute social regimentation to achieve feminist goals, a very fascist notion, and is obviously *not* a libertarian one.
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=fascism

"As a moderate libertarian, I say that is snafu."

Maybe these guys are more your type. 
http://www.democrats.org/
They too like to ignore consistency and the laws of liberty to achieve their goals.

>>575

"Anyone with common sense would find the gamble is far harsher with the health of the woman, instead of the child."

Whom it is harsher to is irrelevant.  It is not responsible to gamble with other people's rights, their health, their life, or their well being.  If you want to gamble with your own, I could care less.

"If the health problems pose a significant risk for their children, they are *not* acting responsibly."

"Oh yeah sure parents actually WANT to make their children be born with diseases. lolololhurhurhurhurhur  *coughs*"

It isn't about whether they want their children to be born with dieseases or not.  They are irresponsible because they are gambling not only with their health (nothing wrong with this much) but are gambling with their kids' health (there *is* something wrong with this). 

"Take this scenario. The woman is clean and has no health disorders. The man loves drinking, and he has health/genetic problems. The couple wants to raise a family, and the man knowingly has diseases and despite that he wants a child. The man here would be held accountable."

I wouldn't be for any laws over the scenario.  This is yet another baseless assumption.  Anyhow, I would view the man as being just as irresponsible as the woman in the other scenario, yes.  He's an irresponsible uncompassionate piece of shit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-valenti/why-do-conservatives-hate_b_28711.html

Guys don't you think it's hypocritical for the women to support pro-choice but not support animal testing?! I mean c'mon. Let us experiment a little!

>>579
Truth told. If a fetus is not sentient, animals can't be fucking sentient.

P.S. Don't forget to sage this thread because it is extremely boring.

>>576 "its that the individual is obviously the one responsible for his actions, so if they screw themselves up, its obviously their fault." That is what I have said you are doing.
"o what you are saying doesn't apply here, and really shouldn't have been brought up to begin with." Because I've already stated that the situation isn't as fair as you think it is.
"That isn't the issue.  Whether or not abortion should be permitted or not really has nothing whatever to do with other  essentially arbitrary laws." They apply to the situation to a degree. The responsibility lies with the parents to that degree.
"Thankfully we have reasonable people in government to ban late term abortions." What are they doing to stem the flow of unwanted pregnancies? I am not that impressed.
"The woman is accepting an action that will have a consequence to her body, and she knows it." The man is accepting an action that will have a consequence to her body.
"Since it is affecting her body, and not his, it if it is she who doesn't wish to become pregnant, it is then she who must take the actions necessary to prevent this." In this case, she can do whatever she wants with said consequence, and if he wants a say he signs up for child support in case he tries to mosey.
"if the woman doesn't want a baby growing in her, she has to prevent it from happening to her" If the man doesn't want a baby growing in her, he has to prevent it from happening to her.
"I'm not a utilitarian, and I'm not arguing society will get fucked up if women are allowed to abort late term babies" I remember some pipsqueak talking about how society will disintegrate society in about 200 years. I don't know which anonymous that was.
"No, to be an authoritarian, I would have to want to force people to not have children who had diseases, which I never advocated." You are just saying it is wrong of them to have kids. Maybe it's no authoritative, but it is judgemental and superfluous.
"What you fail to grasp, evidently, is that the gambling being done with fate is of great risk to the child." They are creating a sliver of humanity in an imperfect vessel. That is not a gamble, it is an attempt to become happy with worse odds than usual.
"If the mother was assuming all the risk of the endeavor, I wouldn't have a problem with honoring it." She kinda does already.
"he kids are at risk as well as the mother, and the mother is gambling with their lives, health, and well being." They are the ones whose bodies are building said life.
"And by the way, to note:  my position on the issue is that I would not force diseased women to not become pregnant if they wanted to become pregnant.  My position is 100% pro-liberty.  I fail to see how you find this 'authoritarian', or how what you said makes me authoritarian." You are saying that these women are at ethical fault for wanting to have a kid. Perhaps it isn't authoritative, but there should be an adjective for sentiments like that.
"Which is absolutely redundant.  What is morally right is that women have equal *rights*, not that they *are* equal." Once again the potentiality is equitable to actuality. When different factors apply on certain people perhaps it is fair to assess their situation and try to make them humans instead of letting an imperfect culture treat them like nine tenths of a human.
"People disagree with them, so they decide to look to the govt to help ram their agenda down people's throats." They feel that it is the last port of call. I'd like to convince them that that is not the case, but I respect their goals more than their means.
"Yet are not genetically human." My skin cells also have a unique genetic code. Once again, sensations and genotype does not constitute human *existence*.
"Because human rights have nothing to do with brain complexity." Then what is it about, the make-up of the genes or biological prerequisites? If a brain that can be described as human has developed and absorbed some info, it is to be protected at the expense of the mother.
"I don't know for sure, but I think its pretty safe to say abortion shouldn't be allowed when the fetus is conscious and or can feel." Hello cat! Meow! Are you conscious? Meow. Do you like scritchies behind ears? Purr. That's kind of impressive. Do you have enough cerebral faculties and stunning complexity to be considered a baby? Mrrrf? Apparently not.
"And provided that culture doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone" Which is why the civil rights movement and feminism still exists. No love from the culture due to segregation and stagnant gender roles. That is a doozy and it should be dealt with. If they turn to government I disapprove but understand.
"Apparently, the distinction between government action and private action means nothing to you." Of course it does. That doesn't mean I believe that government should be skeletal or that a culture can look any which way. If people want to be free they should get up to the task. Neither the left nor the right can start such a movement towards self-reliance, and the libertarians are often stuck in virtue-reliant thinking.
"You wish to institute social regimentation to achieve feminist goals" No, but I can understand the notion and support it if it is checked and balanced to a sufficient degree. If it can work and is cleverly limited, I won't object.
Regarding your last attempt at precocious cleverness, I can simply yawn.

I'm actually starting to hate this thread. Can't anti-chan or Kumori get here so I can rest for a sec?

>>581
"Because human rights have nothing to do with brain complexity." Then what is it about, the make-up of the genes or biological prerequisites? If a brain that can be described as human has developed and absorbed some info, it is to be protected at the expense of the mother.

Protected at the expense of the mother? I find that harsh since the mother is more important than the fetus. To protect the fetus at the expense of the mother would be dehumanizing women in favor of something that isn't a human being, more less an animal. Even if the fetus develops some sort of conscious, it's consciousness won't be exactly like a normal human being's. It would be no more conscious than a sea slug.

>>582 I guess I'll try getting here whenever I have the free time. I just got back from vacation with my hubby and we have work to do around the house. I took a quick skim of what happened and I'm impressed with your work, Xel. Where to begin.. Meh, there's nothing I have qualms with, really, I'll just go on whenever Anonymous shows up and if I have the time. And yeah, I'm starting to hate this thread too, I was expecting it to be long dead when I got back.

Craziest Anti-Feminist Comments

Here are a few of my favorites:

"Having been raised by increasingly leftist parents myself, I associate feminism with abandonment. In contrast, when I spent time at my girlfriend's homes, I experienced mothers who spent time with their kids, simply chatting warmly over tea...If a conservative woman wonders how she can change the world, I suggest that this is it: Be a great homemaker."

Fuck political participation and the fulfillment of a career. A little tea and cookies will change the world.

"Feminism is losing ground. On campus we still have the lunatic ethnic studies, womens studies, homosexual/bisexual/transgender studies idiots. Faculty jobs in academia is probably all they can do. They are too crazy to make itin the real world."

You know--the real world where there are no women, people of color or queers.

"I am not defending radical feminism, which I consider to be a minor mental illness..."

Cuckoo!

"In times when our nation is truly threatened, feminism will be forgotten and it will be our men who will lay their lives on the line in defense of our way of life, our country, our women and our children. Yes, there will be *some* exceptional fighting women too, but human nature (not the evil patriarchy) dictates that these will be rare and few. This (the open blood debt in life and limb to be called in at any time) is the reason men and only men are due the right to participate directly in our national government (i.e., vote and stand for national office)."

Yeah, "we're" the crazy ones.

"These far left feminists really have no clue as to what is really important in life - people, and especially one's own families. Too bad most of them will never know what's it's like to have a family, and true love."

Take that, spinsters!

Source: www.feministing.com  Great site.

>>583 Kumori, I was talking about a unique personality based on a brain that is more advanced than any non-human brain on the planet.
>>584 "Fuck political participation and the fulfillment of a career. A little tea and cookies will change the world." Civilization begins in the family, I think. But the idea that one particular gender needs to take care of something in order for things to work is ridiculous. Homemaking is a mutual, gender-less effort.

>>581
"That is what I have said you are doing."

I don't see what you mean by this, or, for that matter, how it disproves or refutes my statements.

"Because I've already stated that the situation isn't as fair as you think it is."

Yes it is.  All factors are and were already on the table when said parties made their decisions.  That said, it is totally fair.  They made the decisions.

"They apply to the situation to a degree. The responsibility lies with the parents to that degree."

No, they don't.  People make their decisions with the laws already in place.  The laws are already factored in, and they made their decisions even *with* that factored in. 

"What are they doing to stem the flow of unwanted pregnancies? I am not that impressed."

It isn't their responsibility to stem the flow of unwanted pregnancies.  The prevention of unwanted pregnancies is a responsibility that obviously lies with the individual, not the state.

"The man is accepting an action that will have a consequence to her body."

I guess you didn't read my example.  If the man doesn't mind supporting the kids, and the woman doesn't want to become pregnant, it is her responsibility to prevent a pregnancy, not the man's.  The man doesn't care, and he will support the kids.  The only person not wanting a pregnancy is the woman.  The person whose body will be effected is the woman.  She is the only person who wants to prevent the pregnancy.  She must handle it if she doesn't want it.

"In this case, she can do whatever she wants with said consequence, and if he wants a say he signs up for child support in case he tries to mosey."

Child support is already on the books, there's no such thing as signing up for it. 

"If the man doesn't want a baby growing in her, he has to prevent it from happening to her."

In my example, the man doesn't not want a baby growing in her though.  The responsibility is obviously hers then to prevent the pregnancy if she doesn't want it.

"I remember some pipsqueak talking about how society will disintegrate society in about 200 years. I don't know which anonymous that was."

It wasn't me. 

"You are just saying it is wrong of them to have kids. Maybe it's no authoritative, but it is judgemental and superfluous."

I don't care if you think it was necessary or not, its my statement, and I can say it if I want.  And it was also not authoritarian, as you had said.  You were wrong, and what you had said was totally baseless.

"They are creating a sliver of humanity in an imperfect vessel. That is not a gamble, it is an attempt to become happy with worse odds than usual."

Yes, and putting someone else at risk to attain this happiness.  This is not compassionate or responsible.

"She kinda does already."

Not in Kumori's example, which was the one I critisized.

"You are saying that these women are at ethical fault for wanting to have a kid."

No, I am saying they are at ethical fault for *gambling* with their kids' health, life, and general well being.  There's quite a difference there.

"Perhaps it isn't authoritative, but there should be an adjective for sentiments like that."

It was not authoritative, and your accusation/attack on me was entirely baseless.
"Once again the potentiality is equitable to actuality. When different factors apply on certain people perhaps it is fair to assess their situation and try to make them humans instead of letting an imperfect culture treat them like nine tenths of a human."

What you are talking about is stepping in using the government for the sake of social regimentation in terms of equality, which is certainly a very fascist, or at the least, an authoritarian and pro-government notion. 
"They feel that it is the last port of call. I'd like to convince them that that is not the case, but I respect their goals more than their means." 

But you *do* respect their means?

"My skin cells also have a unique genetic code. Once again, sensations and genotype does not constitute human *existence*."

Your skin cells are not unborn human babies.

"Then what is it about, the make-up of the genes or biological prerequisites? If a brain that can be described as human has developed and absorbed some info, it is to be protected at the expense of the mother."

Once again, I don't think simply having a brain is all there is to being a human, or a live human, or a human with rights.

"Hello cat! Meow! Are you conscious? Meow. Do you like scritchies behind ears? Purr. That's kind of impressive. Do you have enough cerebral faculties and stunning complexity to be considered a baby? Mrrrf? Apparently not."

Right, because 'cerebral faculties' are all that makes a human being a human being, lol!

"Which is why the civil rights movement and feminism still exists."

Why, to ram their agenda down our throats through government? I have no problem with granting equal rights.  Feminism, or something based around the advancement of a given sex, or color, is reverse sexism, in the case of feminism for example. 

"Of course it does."

One wouldn't draw that conclusion based on your statement.

"That doesn't mean I believe that government should be skeletal or that a culture can look any which way. If people want to be free they should get up to the task. Neither the left nor the right can start such a movement towards self-reliance, and the libertarians are often stuck in virtue-reliant thinking."

Individuals have the right to do with their property as they wish, and hiring should be entirely voluntary.  No government intervention into this, unless it is necessary to preserve our freedom, is acceptable. 

"No, but I can understand the notion and support it if it is checked and balanced to a sufficient degree. If it can work and is cleverly limited, I won't object."

So you support social regimentation to meet your ends? This *is* a very fascist notion.  No wonder people came up with the term feminazi.

>>583
"Then what is it about, the make-up of the genes or biological prerequisites?"

At least partly it is the makeup of the genes.  This is not the only thing though.  It is the makeup of the genes, when combined with other specific factors, one of which being individual consciousness and or feeling.

"Yes it is.  All factors are and were already on the table when said parties made their decisions.  That said, it is totally fair.  They made the decisions." Well, the factors are bullshit. I am attacking the hipocrisy of blaming irresponsibility when certain absurd factors have an unneccesary, obvious causation.
"The laws are already factored in, and they made their decisions even *with* that factored in." And these laws should be broken.
"It isn't their responsibility to stem the flow of unwanted pregnancies." It is not their responsibility to cause the flow and blame it on the individual either.
"I guess you didn't read my example.  If the man doesn't mind supporting the kids, and the woman doesn't want to become pregnant, it is her responsibility to prevent a pregnancy, not the man's.  The man doesn't care, and he will support the kids.  The only person not wanting a pregnancy is the woman.  The person whose body will be effected is the woman.  She is the only person who wants to prevent the pregnancy.  She must handle it if she doesn't want it." Fair enough. If he is ready to be a parent or be forced to pay C S if he gets cold feet he needs to be ensured he can say something about his genetic property. So the parts sign a pre-nookie contract. Good luck making that a common practice.
"The responsibility is obviously hers then to prevent the pregnancy if she doesn't want it." Okay, but he needs to sign a contract first.
"Yes, and putting someone else at risk to attain this happiness." They are creating life. That might die. Eep.
"What you are talking about is stepping in using the government for the sake of social regimentation in terms of equality, which is certainly a very fascist, or at the least, an authoritarian and pro-government notion." If this arbitrary imposition is handled well and has innate checks and balances I will support it.
"But you *do* respect their means?" Depends on the accuracy and effects of said means.
"Your skin cells are not unborn human babies." They have a unique genetic code, use aerobic respiration and whatnot. Since any animal can feel and have consciousness, and since physical likeness has no objective value, we look to the chalice of humanity, the brain.
"Once again, I don't think simply having a brain is all there is to being a human, or a live human, or a human with rights." Yeah, what can my brain do that I can't do myself.
"Right, because 'cerebral faculties' are all that makes a human being a human being, lol!" Flesh is flesh, DNA is DNA.
"Why, to ram their agenda down our throats through government?" They believe it is their only choice. I can't assess that claim yet.
"I have no problem with granting equal rights." Granting and realizing are two different verbs. For a reason.
"Feminism, or something based around the advancement of a given sex, or color, is reverse sexism, in the case of feminism for example." So when half of humanity is below the other, raising it will automatically place it above the other?
"No government intervention into this, unless it is necessary to preserve our freedom, is acceptable." Well, I'm just not pleased with the world.
"So you support social regimentation to meet your ends?" Unfortunately, yes.
"This *is* a very fascist notion." So is a ban of abortions in order to favor 15500 maybe-humans.
"No wonder people came up with the term feminazi." Incompatible term. If one feels attacked by feminism it is a counter-attack.

*yawn*

Come on guys, use your efforts more productively, seriously..

>>585 Whoops.

>>588 I wonder if they would've called the feminists in the women's suffrage movement, feminazis. Feminazi is just a word used to distract feminists/activists/anyone associated with equality of the sexes and yadda yadda. The right side/Conservatives' only 'tactic' is to distract the left. So far it seems their lame tactic is doing a good job.

>>589
"Well, the factors are bullshit. I am attacking the hipocrisy of blaming irresponsibility when certain absurd factors have an unneccesary, obvious causation."

And I am saying that the fact that those laws are there (though the laws don't help any) do not absolve the parties involved of their irresponsible, stupid decisions. 

"And these laws should be broken."

I don't disagree.  However, the said parties are still responsible for their actions made in the interim.

"It is not their responsibility to cause the flow and blame it on the individual either."

They aren't causing the flow, the individual is.  The individual makes the decision already with the laws factored in, and the result is an unwanted pregnancy.  Their fault, and their problem.

"Fair enough. If he is ready to be a parent or be forced to pay C S if he gets cold feet he needs to be ensured he can say something about his genetic property. So the parts sign a pre-nookie contract. Good luck making that a common practice."

Well good, we agree then.  It is the woman's responsibility then, in said situation.

"Okay, but he needs to sign a contract first."

Sign a contract for what? Child support laws are already on the books, and as long as they are, no abortions should be allowed without mutual consent, since the kid is half his.

"They are creating life. That might die. Eep."

Yes, to satisfy their own selfish desires, they are attempting to create a baby who will then possibly have to put up with having the same diseases and problems as the parents.  They are risking perpetuating the very disease that causes their unhappiness in order to make themselves happy in a particularly selfish, uncompassionate, and irresponsible manner.

"If this arbitrary imposition is handled well and has innate checks and balances I will support it."

Fascist.
"Depends on the accuracy and effects of said means."

And their means are fascist and authoritarian. 

"They have a unique genetic code, use aerobic respiration and whatnot."

And are not conscious, cannot feel, etc.

"Since any animal can feel and have consciousness, and since physical likeness has no objective value, we look to the chalice of humanity, the brain."

No.  Genetically human + consciousness and or feeling = human life. 

"Yeah, what can my brain do that I can't do myself."

It has nothing to do with what you or your brain can do.  It has to do with what can be considered human life.  Obviously something that is genetically human, and exhibits some of the characteristics of life, such as consciousness and senses, is to be considered a 'human life', and thus protected by government, since the proper function of government is to defend human life.

"Flesh is flesh, DNA is DNA."

And conscious and or feeling flesh that is genetically human should not be aborted.

" They believe it is their only choice. I can't assess that claim yet."

Nobody should have the right to violate the rights of others for the sake of promoting their agenda.  Fascism is bad mmk?

"Granting and realizing are two different verbs. For a reason."

I realize equal rights, and defend equal rights, etc.

"So when half of humanity is below the other, raising it will automatically place it above the other?"

Activity to advance the lives of women and women only is essentially reverse sexism.

"Well, I'm just not pleased with the world."

Well, neither am I.  But I don't resort to fascism to support my personal agenda.

"Unfortunately, yes."

Well that makes you fascistic.

"So is a ban of abortions in order to favor 15500 maybe-humans."

15,500 'maybe' humans? No, those are late term abortions, sorry.  Even you agreed at this point they are to be considered 'humans', not 'maybe-humans'.  Furthermore, I don't consider murder laws to be fascist, but whatever.

>>589
""Incompatible term. If one feels attacked by feminism it is a counter-attack."

I don't see how it is compatible.  The views of a good chunk of feminists are very fascist in nature.  Feminist + fascist = feminazi.  I like that word.  Man I hate feminazis.

>>590
"I wonder if they would've called the feminists in the women's suffrage movement, feminazis."

Depends on what they advocated.  I'd support them as far as recognizing, supporting, and fighting for the fact that women should have equal rights under the law as men.

"Feminazi is just a word used to distract feminists/activists/anyone associated with equality of the sexes and yadda yadda. The right side/Conservatives' only 'tactic' is to distract the left. So far it seems their lame tactic is doing a good job."

I'm for equal rights regardless of sex.  You are for violating other people's rights to promote your personal agenda, and call it feminism. 

GTFO fascist feminazis.  Face it, your agenda isn't pro-liberty or pro-life.  As for anyone reasonable, vote libertarian.

>>594 Says the one ignorant to feminism and it's meaning.

>>595
I'm not ignorant to feminism and its meaning. 

>>584
None of the anti-feminists here have been saying that, so I'm going to disregard this post as a baseless smear attempt.

lol @ people who think you shouldn't be punished for killing an innocent conscious human fetus

>>591 "And I am saying that the fact that those laws are there (though the laws don't help any) do not absolve the parties involved of their irresponsible, stupid decisions." But these factors impair individuals to a degree that their abortions spill over a critical limit that you can't set down. Laws are one thing, logistical problems are another.
"They aren't causing the flow, the individual is." No, their policies are causing the individuals to cause the flow.
"It is the woman's responsibility then, in said situation." Mmhm, in said situation.
"Yes, to satisfy their own selfish desires, they are attempting to create a baby who will then possibly have to put up with having the same diseases and problems as the parents." They've put up with the disease so far. They are not gambling with the child's life, since they are providing it in the first place.
"Fascist." I guess I deserve that moniker, semantically. Actually, I know many women who treat discrimination the way they treat some gum stuck on their soles. So maybe I should reconsider the value of *direct* government regulation. Maybe some kind of super-strong consumer group that tells discriminating companies to change or die. Microsoft had to realize it messed with the wrong people, but consumers don't seem to be ready to make companies accountable, and that has very worrying implications.
"And their means are fascist and authoritarian." Don't try to smother this with pregnant words.
"And are not conscious, cannot feel, etc." Hello again, kitty!
"No.  Genetically human + consciousness and or feeling = human life." Human existence, human self > human life.
"It has nothing to do with what you or your brain can do.  It has to do with what can be considered human life.  Obviously something that is genetically human, and exhibits some of the characteristics of life, such as consciousness and senses, is to be considered a 'human life', and thus protected by government, since the proper function of government is to defend human life." Well, there is no individuality. Nothing to really distance it from a cancer.
"And conscious and or feeling flesh that is genetically human should not be aborted." So a lump of human cells communicating with a hind brain is human life.
"Nobody should have the right to violate the rights of others for the sake of promoting their agenda.  Fascism is bad mmk?" Well, in this case culture are free to do whatever.
"I realize equal rights, and defend equal rights, etc." Realize, as in making real. The causes of women and racial minorities are our causes.
"Activity to advance the lives of women and women only is essentially reverse sexism." Not if it is checked and balanced.
" Even you agreed at this point they are to be considered 'humans', not 'maybe-humans'.  Furthermore, I don't consider murder laws to be fascist, but whatever." Well, I will only consider something life once a unique, human persona is cast-iron proven. Let's not forget that all the building material has been provided by the *woman*, yet the child automatically makes it *own* mind.
>>592 Simplistic, quite simplistic.
>>597 "None of the anti-feminists here have been saying that, so I'm going to disregard this post as a baseless smear attempt." I find it good to know what real insanity sounds like.
>>596 O rly?

>>599
"But these factors impair individuals to a degree that their abortions spill over a critical limit that you can't set down. Laws are one thing, logistical problems are another."

Lets not dodge the point here.  You were saying that banning late-term abortions is not justified due to the fact that there are laws on the books that *might* limmit the availibility of contraceptives, and that this *somehow* absolves the guilty parties of their crimes (killing unborn conscious human life). 

I totally disagree.  They made the decision with those laws on the books, and they made it anyway.  They made a choice, they knew the consequences, and we *do* have sexual education now, so I fail to see how you could POSSIBLY not blame them.  The fault is all theirs.

"No, their policies are causing the individuals to cause the flow."

But individuals make individual decisions which then result in unwanted pregnancies.  The individuals made their decisions with the laws already on the books.. we HAVE sexual education now, and the individuals made their decisions even in this light, and obviously knew better, and knew what they were doing at the time.  The unwanted pregnancy is 100% their fault.

"They've put up with the disease so far. They are not gambling with the child's life, since they are providing it in the first place."

HA! So they aren't bitches for screwing up their child's life, since they provided it? Following this logic, are they then allowed to *take* their child's life, since they, according to you, 'provided it'? No, sorry, the fact that they 'provided it' does not mean they are not-bitches for screwing it up.

"I guess I deserve that moniker, semantically."

I would be disgusted and embarassed with myself, if I was you.

"Actually, I know many women who treat discrimination the way they treat some gum stuck on their soles. So maybe I should reconsider the value of *direct* government regulation. Maybe some kind of super-strong consumer group that tells discriminating companies to change or die. Microsoft had to realize it messed with the wrong people, but consumers don't seem to be ready to make companies accountable, and that has very worrying implications."

There you go.  I'd support that.  Boycotting is the proper way to deal with companies or groups you don't like.  Organized boycotting is even stronger, provided you have a large group.

"Don't try to smother this with pregnant words."

Don't try to evade the fact that said group of people use very fascist, or at the least, authoritarian methods of getting their agenda implanted in reality.

"Human existence, human self > human life."

If you are genetically human, and exhibit the characteristics of 'life', would you not then be considered 'human life'?

"Well, there is no individuality. Nothing to really distance it from a cancer."

Yeah, aside from consciousness, senses, and feeling, *nothing* to distance it from a cancer, lol!

Also, cancers are formed of their own accord, more or less.  Fetuses are brought on by their bearer.

"So a lump of human cells communicating with a hind brain is human life."

Genetically human + consciousness = no more abortions, with the given few exceptions.
"Well, in this case culture are free to do whatever."

So what? You are just as fascist, just as authoritarian, and imo, just as bad as all the religious fascists who want to ram *their* personal agendas down people's throats.  You want to do the same things to enforce your will, just a different agenda/will to enforce.  Its still fascism.

"Realize, as in making real. The causes of women and racial minorities are our causes."

What are you talking about? Speak more clearly.  I support equal rights, and that's it.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

"Not if it is checked and balanced."

Yes, even if it is checked and balanced.  Activity to promote the lives of women only, rather than all people regardless of sex, is essentially sexist to me.

"Well, I will only consider something life once a unique, human persona is cast-iron proven. Let's not forget that all the building material has been provided by the *woman*, yet the child automatically makes it *own* mind."

Nope, some comes from the man too.

"Simplistic, quite simplistic."

Simple, but true.

>>597 "None of the anti-feminists here have been saying that, so I'm going to disregard this post as a baseless smear attempt." I find it good to know what real insanity sounds like."

They haven't.  None of the serious ones anyway.  I don't know where you'd get that idea.