Abortion and Women's Rights

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

Ehem. An embryo cannot retain memories until it is in about the 3rd trimester. No memorites = no memetic makeup = no unique memtic makeup = no "self" = not a person. Not a person = not murder.
Killing an unborn fetus is the same as shooting a corpse. Dont give me shit about "potential for life" - by that logic every time you have your period you are "killing" a "potential" life.

I always love the argument that the pre-trimester fetus is somehow just a lump of flesh, a benign cancer, or a "corpse"; it makes me laugh. Primarily because the human body (the mother) wouldn't sustain and feed the flesh if it were a corpse or cancer.

>>81 Wahey. Win.
>>82 Cancer cells get nourishment to, they just escalate their division. Fail.

>>80
YES, SO THEN LET THE WOMAN GET RID OF IT, AFTER ALL, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBLITY FOR THE KID.  YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE KID.  NO PRO-LIFER IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF ANY KID EXCEPT THEIR OWN, THEREFORE, IT IS ONLY THEIR OWN CHILDREN THEY SHOULD TRY TO EXERT CONTROL OVER AND NO ONE ELSES.  A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED JUST BECAUSE SHE WANTS SEX AND ACCIDENTALLY GETS PREGNANT.  A WOMAN'S LIBIDO SHOULD STAND OF EQUAL RIGHT TO A MAN'S AND NOT HAVE TO UNDERGO TORTURE OR DISRESPECT JUST BECAUSE SHE CAN GET PREGNANT.  

IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PAY FOR THE KID, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT'S LIFE.

>>81
So if you get amnesia or have less memories you are less sentient? Does that mean it is ok to enslave stupid people?

>>85

As long as profits turn up!

>>83

Wrong. They don't get nourishment. Cancer cells absorb other cells. The mother's body actually DELIVERS nutrients to the fetus.

I was pretty sure the thread ended with my post. What is wrong with letting the states decide?

In 1984, the socialist constituence let Big Brother decide everything.

I think we all know where that went.

>>89
? big brother isn't "the states"

"YES, SO THEN LET THE WOMAN GET RID OF IT"

What you are saying is "YES, SO THEN LET THE WOMAN KILL IT".

Killing developing human beings should be illegal unless it is necessary for the health of the mother to do so, or in special circumstances such as rape.  I see nothing wrong with this.  If she didn't want to have the baby, she should have used birth control, and in general, been a more responsible person. 

"AFTER ALL, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBLITY FOR THE KID."

Apparently you don't want her to have to, either.  I think she should, and I intend to vote as such. 

"YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE KID."

It is an affront to human dignity.  I'm going to oppose it.  I do care about the kids. 

"NO PRO-LIFER IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF ANY KID EXCEPT THEIR OWN"

This isn't true, or proven.  I myself know pro-lifers who adopt many kids. 

"THEREFORE, IT IS ONLY THEIR OWN CHILDREN THEY SHOULD TRY TO EXERT CONTROL OVER AND NO ONE ELSES."

The woman doesn't own the child.  The child is an individual, who owns his/her own body.  Should parents be charged for murder if they kill their own children? I think so...

"A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED JUST BECAUSE SHE WANTS SEX AND ACCIDENTALLY GETS PREGNANT."

Birth control is easy as fuck to use.  "Accidentally"? You can reduce the chances of getting pregnant to well under one percent by using multiple methods of birth control at once.  If people get pregnant, it is their own dumb fault, and they were being irresponsible.  They should be held accountable for their actions. 

"A WOMAN'S LIBIDO SHOULD STAND OF EQUAL RIGHT TO A MAN'S AND NOT HAVE TO UNDERGO TORTURE OR DISRESPECT JUST BECAUSE SHE CAN GET PREGNANT."

What the hell are you talking about? If she doesn't want to become pregnant, she should use birth control.  That's it. 

"IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PAY FOR THE KID, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT'S LIFE."

That's like saying if I'm not going to care for homeless people, I shouldn't pass laws preventing you from murdering them. 

>>90

My point was that the US could eventually evolve (or "de-evolve" as the case may be) into an Orwellian paradise.

Every fucking person discussing the abortion debate is completely ignoring the distinction between a non-sentient fetus and a sentient fetus.

I'm as confused as fuck. If it is sentient, you can't kill it, even if it helps overpopulation problems or if it doesn't affect the fabric of society. Anyone disagree?

>>93

I think one of the greatest confusions of the debate ANYWHERE is that no one is 100% sure that either explanation is the truth.

This is exactly why abortion should be illegal: It is because we know we'd be putting kids' lives at RISK that we shouldn't take the chance in the first place.

>>93
"Every fucking person discussing the abortion debate is completely ignoring the distinction between a non-sentient fetus and a sentient fetus.

I'm as confused as fuck. If it is sentient, you can't kill it, even if it helps overpopulation problems or if it doesn't affect the fabric of society. Anyone disagree?"

I absolutely agree. 

Whats with this accountable for actions shit?
If you crash your car into a house,your responsible for it.
But a kid isn't property,its a real thing, that if is raised into a mother that never wanted it, a "accident",it will become a druggy,a felon, and ruin part of soceity. Abortion has decreased crime rates

>>96
Yes, that's right.  And if you engage in the actions necessary to produce a child without taking the actions necessary to prevent producing a child, you should be held accountable.  That means women should have to give birth if they didn't take their birth control pills, and/or use any of the other various easy-to-use methods of contraception. 

>>97 No, because this would disrupt society and is a concesseion to the people who'd like to make women pay for what society has already done to them. Change fertilizer, don't cut the leaves, doye.

>>98
Society isn't doing anything to women.

Making abortion illegal with the exception of a few circumstances wouldn't disrupt society.

Assuming we are talking about a non-sentient fetus.

Since it's not sentient the woman can abort if she wants, but has to include it in her health insurance or pay for it herself since it is unfair to charge people for your own unresponsibility. If the woman was raped of course, the government will pay for it. If in a court of law the woman was found to be lying about the rape she will owe the government for the abortion. If the rapist is caught the rapist will be forced into labour to pay for what he owes society. If the rapist is not caught, other criminals will have to work a little harder to pay for however much criminals owe victims in total.

This is the most logical course of action.

>>98

If you're talking about rape victims, that's fair enough...For now. However, the system shouldn't abide the murder of children for ALL women who've 'made mistakes' simply because there's a ratio who've had the decision forced on them.

>>100

Perhaps you should outline what your standards for "sentience" are. Because aside from arguing that pre-trimester babies are unable to think or act for themselves, there hasn't been any proof displayed here that shows their existence as being anything less than "sentient."

>>101 I'm talking about the psychological and mental differences that have been imposed on men and women by scoiety, and that is something else. If it is murder (it is not) I sanction it because of utilitarian principles, not moral ones.
>>99 See above.

I am not afraid of tiny corpses, I am not afraid of the implications of the procedure I condone. You can't change my mind with the "it's murder" angle, because a potentiality is not an actuality, and I will never base any of my decisions or expressions on morality if I can help it. I don't want to live in a world were slavery is illegal one day and not so the next, but abortion is not a philosophical issue per se, it has to do with facts. Plus, most politicians who oppose abortion want to throw in the death penalty and anti-gay sentiments into the mix, so my hands would be tied even on a philosophical level.

Continue making smoothies out of them. My gut will not twitch.

All of this is still irrelevant. Outlawing abortion would be nationalizing women's bodies like the Sex laws in Communist China.  You can't do that in a capitalist democracy. The best you can hope for is that we let the states decide. The whole country isn't going to just go along with you because you're shouting "Save da Kids" the loudest. Get a fucking grip already.

>>102
Who cares about psychological and mental differences? The facts are they could have used birth control, and they didn't. 

It's not rocket science.

>>104 It's not "See Dick run" either, yet some of us are still tugging our mother's skirts asking why it's harder to breathe when you're on a mountain or why the Israelis and the Palestinians can't share.

>>105
If you are trying to suggest it's not simple, I have to say I disagree.  It's very simple:  use the birth control to avoid the pregnancy. 

Birth control and the various methods of contraception are not generally prohibitively expensive, and certainly not comparable in expense to having an abortion. 

So why don't women just use birth control instead of having abortions?

Good question.

>>106 Abortions are kind of simple too. Shclourp scoop deposit and that is it.

>>106
It's because they are bitches.  We have to ban it.

>>102

You haven't even proven abortion to be a "utility." Just as Pol Pot would never be able to prove that torturing and executing 7 million Cambodians was useful for his cause. There's a very specific relation between him and mothers who have abortions: They don't want to deal with something, so they eliminate and pay no mind to the possibility that it might be counter-productive or even wrong (I'm sure that word scares you) in the process.

What you frequently disregard in your crusade against morals is ethics. The very thing that allows our society to survive. There's a reason we don't allow other people to murder; it would cause society to break down. The tolerance and legalization of abortion is the first step en route to a reality where society would sanction the execution of people who "aren't useful" as opposed to just people who pose a danger to its well being (see also: Charles Manson, see also: Jeffery Dalhmer).

You have not proven that a fetus doesn't live and yet you would choose to abort one anyway. Your faith alone that the fetus isn't alive doesn't abstain you from being a murderer. Even if you did turn out to be right, that doesn't excuse the fact that you'd tolerate the risk.

"You can't change my mind with the "it's murder" angle, because a potentiality is not an actuality"

The hell it isn't.

When the situation is referring to an unconfirmed possibility, you have to treat it as if it IS actuality because, in the end, you don't know for sure that it isn't. Better safe than sorry.

It doesn't matter if it is alive or not. Humans don't belong to other humans just because they are alive. Morality is subjective, convienant and too easily thrown away when it suits us. You cared about life, (War, Poverty) you would care about it in it's totality. And not only when it came to the possible death of an unborn child.

>>107
Yeah yeah yeah, you hate christians and fetuses, we get it. Now explain to us what you think justifies murder. Explain why you think a woman should be able to kill a fetus that can survive outside the womb for instance.

>>110

Again, you focus on your hang ups with morality and avoid previous points about law and ethics. And what exactly is this "humans don't belong to other humans" diatribe? This isn't about slavery, it's about ceasing the tolerance of murder and making people take responsibility for their actions.

>>110
"Morality is subjective, convienant and too easily thrown away when it suits us. You cared about life, (War, Poverty) you would care about it in it's totality."
Since when did anyone here support war and poverty? It seems you care war and poverty, but throw away morality when it comes to abortion, maybe morality is a convenient method for me to issue justice, but for you it is an incovenience it seems. As a muslim I give 3% of my income to charity even though I probably pay that much in tax through corrupt welfare schemes anyway, how much have you done to help people sufferring in war and poverty exactly?

There's no such thing as the 'right' to murder.  Or... there shouldn't be. 

>>109 Torture of dissenters is not universalizable. Abortion of unwanted foetuses is. I tolerate the risk of being a murderer by proxy - the baby is either too small or too hidden from my view by the woman's tummy to pose any estethical problems, which is the only real reason most people oppose abortion anyway. I'm can see myself becoming a proffesional abortionist when I grow up. Or at least I'll guard the clinics.
>>110 I care more about quality of life than actual life. Therefore I find poverty (a cause of unwanted pregnancies) to be worse than abortions.
>>111 Most abortions occur when the baby can not survive, and the woman has all the philosophy on her side anyway. Why? Because society, and all it's inhabitants, are collectively responsible for what everybody else does.
>>112 All this jive about responsibility. I think people should worry about why people commit "sins" rather than the fact that they do. I've said this before; sort out the causes of unwanted pregnancies first, then you can talk about limiting them legally. I stand firm.
>>114 This is getting laughable, people. I find no argumentation that I respect or consider complex. All liberties that do not harm others should be allowed, and if that was followed we would not have the abortions anyway, so there.

Stab scoop - in the mixer - paper bag and then find a sleeping pro-lifer you can feed it to while it sleeps. N P for me. Abortion may not lack a victim, but if you ask me it lacks a singular perpetrator.

>>115
"I care more about quality of life than actual life. Therefore I find poverty (a cause of unwanted pregnancies) to be worse than abortions."

Poverty is something controllable by the people in question.  If they didn't want to be poor, they should have acted differently. 

"Most abortions occur when the baby can not survive, and the woman has all the philosophy on her side anyway. Why? Because society, and all it's inhabitants, are collectively responsible for what everybody else does."

So if a murderer who isn't me kills someone, I'm responsible? Good thing you sound so fucking unbelievable, nobody will listen to this shit. 

"All this jive about responsibility. I think people should worry about why people commit "sins" rather than the fact that they do."

They made a choice to commit them.  By tightening up the penalties on making certain choices, people will have to act in a more responsible way, or suffer the consequences.  We have laws for reasons. 

"I've said this before; sort out the causes of unwanted pregnancies first, then you can talk about limiting them legally. I stand firm."

The cause of unwanted pregnancies is irresponsible people.  Birth control has widespread availibility.  There is absolutely no reason why your average person can't use it, and thus there's no reason to allow abortion.  It's an affront to human life in general, and should be banned except in certain specific circumstances. 

"This is getting laughable, people. I find no argumentation that I respect or consider complex. All liberties that do not harm others should be allowed, and if that was followed we would not have the abortions anyway, so there."

How, if this was followed, would we not have the abortions anyway?

All I've been hearing from you, is that you are trying to blame ME for someone else's irresponsibility. 


"Stab scoop - in the mixer - paper bag and then find a sleeping pro-lifer you can feed it to while it sleeps. N P for me."

No comment should be necessary on this sick shit. 

"Abortion may not lack a victim, but if you ask me it lacks a singular perpetrator."

I guess that's a valid statement.  It's partly the woman's fault for paying for and asking for one, and it's parly the doctor's fault for committing the actual act. 

Xel has gone bat shit fucking loco.

"I guess that's a valid statement.  It's partly the woman's fault for paying for and asking for one, and it's parly the doctor's fault for committing the actual act." All citizens in a society have varying degrees of responsibility for the state of their society. Acting on society acts on the people, acting on other people as deterrance doesn't work (capital punishment springs to mind)
"he cause of unwanted pregnancies is irresponsible people.  Birth control has widespread availibility.  There is absolutely no reason why your average person can't use it, and thus there's no reason to allow abortion.  It's an affront to human life in general, and should be banned except in certain specific circumstances." What is the cause of irresponsible people?
"They made a choice to commit them.  By tightening up the penalties on making certain choices, people will have to act in a more responsible way, or suffer the consequences.  We have laws for reasons. " Well, capital punishment is a wonderful detterant isn't it? Okay, I can't possibly equate DP with having to give birth, but the very reason America's prison situation is so bad is because people tried to deter criminals.
"So if a murderer who isn't me kills someone, I'm responsible? Good thing you sound so fucking unbelievable, nobody will listen to this shit." Neither you nor I wanted that murder to occur, so we are free of hostile intent towards the victim. If we tried to remove the perpetrator or the means of the perpetration we would have to harm principles of freedom in order to wipe our hands of bad conscience and then we are not innocent anymore.
"Poverty is something controllable by the people in question.  If they didn't want to be poor, they should have acted differently." That is a very common view in the land of the free* (*potsmokers, alleged terrorists and 233 others classified as 'unamerican' not applicale). What an odd coincidence that America is less meritocratic than my good old *Sweden* (one of the worst examples of statism available).

>>112
>>113

What I'm saying is- you can't just keep repeating that it's murder and that it's wrong over, over and over when it's already been proven that it isn't murder up until a certain point (3rd trimester).

You can't insist that a child is any one person's responsibilty when that "person" hasn't even exited the womb, yet. If this was truly about ethics and morals, you would be able to examine the reasons for unwanted pregnanices (poverty, uneducation, certain culture's views on sex, the psychology of sex) and seek to utterly eliminate those reasons. If you actually cared about life or the potentiality of life, you would be able to examine and express a will to eliminate anything that infringes on that right to life- whether that person is a newborn or a 32-year old arab that crashed a plane in a building (or thousands of dead palestinians, or millions of dead ANYONE).

Your attitude toward women is entirely fucked up. Referring to her as "An irrsponsible bitch" is very telling of the kind of sexually repressed world you live in. And this repression is directly related to superfluous reproduction (SEE: CATHOLICS) and is also related to the psychological drive behind RAPE.

Also, your comment in regards to abortion being "the easy way out" shows an ignorance and a common misconception that abortion is easy. No one who I know that has had an abortion has termed it as "easy", or acted as if it was this "fix it, quick" procedure that you seem to think it is. And if that is your experience, then the woman was probably just trying to piss you off because she knows that you become such an asshole when it comes to abortion. You're desperately trying to make abortion itself seem irresponsible, when abortion itself IS, in fact, part of "taking responsiblity". Even so, you act as if women can just have babies by themselves. You make no mention of the fact that men have every same bit of birth control as women. You also make no mention of the fact that many time women get abortions at the goading of MEN. But, hey, whatever right? Those're just details to you.

Finally, you keep arguing this in the direction of "I'm more right then you are". When all I'm saying is that humans have a choice between right and wrong. I think the reason you don't want the states to decide is because you secretly know that your zealous attitude doesn't really fly here in America anymore. It doesn't matter if you're religious or not or whatever. You will never be able to ignore the implications of an anti-abortion law. It is immediately giving jurisdiction of the unborn, and of women's sex lives over to the state. That just not what we do in a democracy unless there's an actual crime involved.

CUE: It is a crime! It's murder!

Yeah, we hear you.

We just don't believe you, anymore, and furthering that we find your zealotry to be disingenuious of your position.

lol nigger nigger nigger

P.S. Vote democrat folks!