The Abortion Thread

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24077
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by JasonL » 21 May 2019, 15:13

Ellie wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:02
By the way, I don't think all pro-life people are trying to control women's bodies, but I do think a portion of pro-life women buy into that subconsciously. That it's about making the "right" choices and having consequences if you don't. Like, look, I was a good woman and behaved myself so I didn't need an abortion. Why should other women get to choose an easier path than me? And I think those women would change their minds if they found themselves needing an abortion -- or they would rationalize it as a special circumstance, but all those other women still need to behave. Similar to how there are doubtless pro-life politicians out there who would still get their wife or mistress an abortion if needed.
I have seen this view. I think it's different/not all that related to the controlling bodies thing. I think it's a conservative instinct about chains of consequences from predictable risks. It goes like - killing stuff is bad, you took actions that created the conditions for the life you are ending - it was entirely predictable in the great majority of instances of elective abortion from elective pregnancy. So you want to just snap your fingers and make it go away but we don't get to do that with other instances where our actions cause predictable deaths. The weight of it in my experience is in the moral chain resulting in death of an innocent not in the regulation of bodies per se.

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7633
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Shem » 21 May 2019, 15:16

Aresen wrote:
20 May 2019, 20:12
lunchstealer wrote:
20 May 2019, 19:25
Real talk because this has been a legitimate question in my mind -

Do any and all here think that slavery is worse than or less awful than murder? I'm guessing the default is murder because it's irreversible, but I sometimes think that murder causes less suffering than slavery, so maybe slavery is the worse thing.
I've never been able to give a clear answer on that question. On the one hand, enslavement is theoretically reversible. (I say 'theoretically' because the vast majority of slaves never got their freedom and the vast majority of slave-owners never doubted their 'right' to own another person - assuming they even thought of their slaves as 'people'.) Murder is not reversible in any sense.

On the other hand, I think there is something inherently depraved about slavery. First, because it denies the fundamental humanity of the enslaved and, second, because a slaver's desire to own another person is perverse. One can commit murder for logical reasons, however base or noble those reasons, without denying the humanity of one's victim.

I am inclined to view slavery as worse, but I don't know what I would choose if I was told my choice was either die or live as a slave.
Not that I'm a fan of slavery or interested in defending it, but you're conflating American chattel slavery with the practice of slavery more generally in a way that's historically inapt. There were a lot of forms of slavery that didn't entail "owning" a person in the way you're talking about. Under most slave systems, the slave in question actually had at least a few rights (sometimes even being more akin to what we might consider a serf), and often, their slavery was not a heritable condition. In more than a few cultures, it wasn't even about economic benefit so much as it was to provide hostages, replenish populations, and create connections to make future wars less likely. The total dehumanization (in a literal sense) of the slave was what made Anglo-American slavery so uniquely horrible from a historical perspective.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 21 May 2019, 15:17

JasonL wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:13
Ellie wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:02
By the way, I don't think all pro-life people are trying to control women's bodies, but I do think a portion of pro-life women buy into that subconsciously. That it's about making the "right" choices and having consequences if you don't. Like, look, I was a good woman and behaved myself so I didn't need an abortion. Why should other women get to choose an easier path than me? And I think those women would change their minds if they found themselves needing an abortion -- or they would rationalize it as a special circumstance, but all those other women still need to behave. Similar to how there are doubtless pro-life politicians out there who would still get their wife or mistress an abortion if needed.
I have seen this view. I think it's different/not all that related to the controlling bodies thing. I think it's a conservative instinct about chains of consequences from predictable risks. It goes like - killing stuff is bad, you took actions that created the conditions for the life you are ending - it was entirely predictable in the great majority of instances of elective abortion from elective pregnancy.
Specifically, you took sexual actions which resulted in that egg getting fertilized. (Notice, for example, that Alabama's "a fertilized egg is human" only refers to fertilized eggs inside the bodies of women and girls -- NOT IVF embryos. Even though with IVF, unlike any given sexual act, you can absolutely say "The ONLY reason you did this was in hope of making a baby.")

Which is another question I'd like to ask a forced-birth "libertarian": if all fertilized eggs deserve state protection, why are you ignoring the IVF labs and focusing your ire on preteen rape victims instead?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13541
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 21 May 2019, 15:18

Ellie wrote:
21 May 2019, 14:58
But suppose I meet you on your side of the field and say, okay, let's agree that a zygote IS a human being. We already have established by law and practice that you cannot force someone to use their body to keep another person alive. You cannot arrest someone and cut out their kidney to save someone who needs a transplant. Even though that might well mean a human being would die. We have already established that a right to bodily autonomy supercedes a right to life. Unless you're willing to campaign to change ALL the laws -- unless you're willing to put yourself in the living organ donor database and accept any call that comes in for your body parts -- you need to explain why abortion gets a special loophole or double standard.
That argument runs into the distinction between forcing an action (organ donation) vs preventing an action (inducing an abortion) and positive vs negative rights. I have the right to not spend money to feed a starving kid in Africa, but I don't have the right to pay to fly over and shoot that child.

Conflating the two mainly only works on leftists, who aren't anti-choice.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7633
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Shem » 21 May 2019, 15:23

JasonL wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:13
Ellie wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:02
By the way, I don't think all pro-life people are trying to control women's bodies, but I do think a portion of pro-life women buy into that subconsciously. That it's about making the "right" choices and having consequences if you don't. Like, look, I was a good woman and behaved myself so I didn't need an abortion. Why should other women get to choose an easier path than me? And I think those women would change their minds if they found themselves needing an abortion -- or they would rationalize it as a special circumstance, but all those other women still need to behave. Similar to how there are doubtless pro-life politicians out there who would still get their wife or mistress an abortion if needed.
I have seen this view. I think it's different/not all that related to the controlling bodies thing. I think it's a conservative instinct about chains of consequences from predictable risks. It goes like - killing stuff is bad, you took actions that created the conditions for the life you are ending - it was entirely predictable in the great majority of instances of elective abortion from elective pregnancy. So you want to just snap your fingers and make it go away but we don't get to do that with other instances where our actions cause predictable deaths. The weight of it in my experience is in the moral chain resulting in death of an innocent not in the regulation of bodies per se.
I get this, but when you try to raise the idea of taking action to attenuate or eliminate the consequences of the action (making birth control easier to access, for example) you often run into pushback from people who don't want the link broken. I had more than a few people tell me pregnancy should be the consequence of sex because otherwise... well, they were never good at fully explaining, but the thrust was that the women involved shouldn't be able to get away with that behavior. It's definitely sex-negative, and the fact that they're not demanding condoms require a prescription does make the connection to female sexually in particular rather stark.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7633
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Shem » 21 May 2019, 15:24

Eric the .5b wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:18
Ellie wrote:
21 May 2019, 14:58
But suppose I meet you on your side of the field and say, okay, let's agree that a zygote IS a human being. We already have established by law and practice that you cannot force someone to use their body to keep another person alive. You cannot arrest someone and cut out their kidney to save someone who needs a transplant. Even though that might well mean a human being would die. We have already established that a right to bodily autonomy supercedes a right to life. Unless you're willing to campaign to change ALL the laws -- unless you're willing to put yourself in the living organ donor database and accept any call that comes in for your body parts -- you need to explain why abortion gets a special loophole or double standard.
That argument runs into the distinction between forcing an action (organ donation) vs preventing an action (inducing an abortion) and positive vs negative rights. I have the right to not spend money to feed a starving kid in Africa, but I don't have the right to pay to fly over and shoot that child.

Conflating the two mainly only works on leftists, who aren't anti-choice.
It also works in the case of rape. But agreed, it's limited beyond that.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 21 May 2019, 15:26

Eric the .5b wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:18
Ellie wrote:
21 May 2019, 14:58
But suppose I meet you on your side of the field and say, okay, let's agree that a zygote IS a human being. We already have established by law and practice that you cannot force someone to use their body to keep another person alive. You cannot arrest someone and cut out their kidney to save someone who needs a transplant. Even though that might well mean a human being would die. We have already established that a right to bodily autonomy supercedes a right to life. Unless you're willing to campaign to change ALL the laws -- unless you're willing to put yourself in the living organ donor database and accept any call that comes in for your body parts -- you need to explain why abortion gets a special loophole or double standard.
That argument runs into the distinction between forcing an action (organ donation) vs preventing an action (inducing an abortion) and positive vs negative rights. I have the right to not spend money to feed a starving kid in Africa, but I don't have the right to pay to fly over and shoot that child.

Conflating the two mainly only works on leftists, who aren't anti-choice.
The "positive vs. negative rights" thing applies to abortion as well, though: I have the "right to live" without you coming along and killing me; I do NOT have the right to demand your own biological systems be commandeered to keep me alive. If I cannot force you (or my own biological mother, for that matter) to donate liver or bone marrow to me, how can I force you to let me use your entire body for nine months?

And, specifically, for the self-identified libertarians, there is STILL the matter of "How do you propose enforcing these laws without massive civil rights violations?" Suppose that Georgia law were in effect -- the one even forbidding Georgia women from going out of state to have safe abortions elsewhere -- well, Jeff and I are planning an out-of-state trip in a few days. And I am still of childbearing age. Is the state justified in mandating a medical exam before I leave, just in case I'm smuggling an unwanted fetus? The Supreme Court has already ruled (among other things) that mass checkpoints of all drivers are acceptable, just in case one of them is driving drunk; what might they allow in the name of protecting innocent babies from murdering mamas? If I visit my doctor complaining of a painful, extra-heavy period, is she now a "mandated reporter" obligated to inspect (and bill) me just in case I actually aborted an early pregnancy?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13541
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 21 May 2019, 15:30

Shem wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:24
Eric the .5b wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:18
Ellie wrote:
21 May 2019, 14:58
But suppose I meet you on your side of the field and say, okay, let's agree that a zygote IS a human being. We already have established by law and practice that you cannot force someone to use their body to keep another person alive. You cannot arrest someone and cut out their kidney to save someone who needs a transplant. Even though that might well mean a human being would die. We have already established that a right to bodily autonomy supercedes a right to life. Unless you're willing to campaign to change ALL the laws -- unless you're willing to put yourself in the living organ donor database and accept any call that comes in for your body parts -- you need to explain why abortion gets a special loophole or double standard.
That argument runs into the distinction between forcing an action (organ donation) vs preventing an action (inducing an abortion) and positive vs negative rights. I have the right to not spend money to feed a starving kid in Africa, but I don't have the right to pay to fly over and shoot that child.

Conflating the two mainly only works on leftists, who aren't anti-choice.
It also works in the case of rape. But agreed, it's limited beyond that.
I just refuse to give them that one Big Lie, because they will use every inch of it. An embryo is not a person.
Last edited by Eric the .5b on 21 May 2019, 15:32, edited 1 time in total.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13541
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 21 May 2019, 15:31

I'm really tired of Grylliade suddenly deciding I'm not logged in and losing my posts on mobile.
Last edited by Eric the .5b on 21 May 2019, 15:42, edited 1 time in total.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 21 May 2019, 15:31

Texas bill would allow death penalty for women who get abortions
State Rep. Tony Tinderholt, a Republican, first introduced the bill in 2017, and again this year. The bill has many legislative hurdles to clear before becoming law, but this week's hearing marked the most progress yet by Tinderholt's proposal. ... Tinderholt told the Texas Observer the bill is meant to "force" women to be "more personally responsible with sex." ... The bill makes no exceptions for individual cases involving rape or incest.
Rape and incest victims clearly need to be more responsible with sex. Shouldn't have looked all sexy-like where your rapist could see you, slutpuppy.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13541
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 21 May 2019, 15:40

Jennifer wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:26
Eric the .5b wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:18
Ellie wrote:
21 May 2019, 14:58
But suppose I meet you on your side of the field and say, okay, let's agree that a zygote IS a human being. We already have established by law and practice that you cannot force someone to use their body to keep another person alive. You cannot arrest someone and cut out their kidney to save someone who needs a transplant. Even though that might well mean a human being would die. We have already established that a right to bodily autonomy supercedes a right to life. Unless you're willing to campaign to change ALL the laws -- unless you're willing to put yourself in the living organ donor database and accept any call that comes in for your body parts -- you need to explain why abortion gets a special loophole or double standard.
That argument runs into the distinction between forcing an action (organ donation) vs preventing an action (inducing an abortion) and positive vs negative rights. I have the right to not spend money to feed a starving kid in Africa, but I don't have the right to pay to fly over and shoot that child.

Conflating the two mainly only works on leftists, who aren't anti-choice.
The "positive vs. negative rights" thing applies to abortion as well, though: I have the "right to live" without you coming along and killing me; I do NOT have the right to demand your own biological systems be commandeered to keep me alive. If I cannot force you (or my own biological mother, for that matter) to donate liver or bone marrow to me, how can I force you to let me use your entire body for nine months?
Yeah, "pregnancy is an assault by hostile unborn" isn't a concept that going to fly with many, left or right. The embryo takes no action and makes no choice - it was created in situ by the "victim" of the pregnancy in your framing. If it is a being deserving consideration of rights, then it is at no fault for its creation by another and shouldn't be subject to destruction by its creator.

This is why you don't pretend a glob of cells is a person.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 21 May 2019, 15:46

Eric the .5b wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:40
If it is a being deserving consideration of rights, then it is at no fault for it's creation by another and shouldn't be subject to destruction by its creator.
Which applies equally well to my hypothetical of forcing my mother to donate liver or bone marrow tissue - though I know of no forced-birthers who would go THAT far as to force a woman to allow her body to keep an already-born person alive (nor any who care about eggs fertilized via IVF rather than filthy, slutty sex acts).

And again, I'm limited my questions here to the so-called "libertarians" who want to use state power to force women to incubate eggs. The neo-fascists for all their loathsomeness don't pay lip service to "individual rights" and "limited government" and such -- indeed, the likes of Andrew Anglin outright endorse Hitler's comments a la "A woman's body is property of the state." There is no hypocrisy in denying human rights to women when you already say women aren't fully human anyway; it's the liberty-lovin' libertarians who keep twisting their minds into Mobius pretzel-shapes to justify "I totally believe in freedom and individual rights -- except for women and girls who are, or might be, pregnant."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13541
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 21 May 2019, 15:57

Jennifer wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:46
Eric the .5b wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:40
If it is a being deserving consideration of rights, then it is at no fault for it's creation by another and shouldn't be subject to destruction by its creator.
Which applies equally well to my hypothetical of forcing my mother to donate liver or bone marrow tissue
No, it damn well doesn't. One case is forcing something a procedure on someone, the other's forbidding them from having a procedure.

If we go with your logic, we should get to hunt and kill welfare recipients for surviving on our tax money.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24547
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Mo » 21 May 2019, 16:12

Ellie wrote:
Mo wrote:
21 May 2019, 09:54
Jennifer wrote:
20 May 2019, 22:08
Just tell me, pro-life "libertarians": is this rash of state laws what you want this country to be? Is forcing that 11-year-old to bear her rapist's offspring a proper use of state power, in your view?
And they would say, would you allow that same woman to kill her rapist's offspring if the child were 5 years old instead?
This is one of the reasons I think analogies to organ donation make a stronger place to argue from. If you think a zygote is a human being and therefore entitled to the same rights as a one-year-old baby, there's not much I can say to change your mind. You don't care if I think a zygote is not a human being. And I'm unlikely to convince you that killing a one-year-old baby is fine and dandy.

But suppose I meet you on your side of the field and say, okay, let's agree that a zygote IS a human being. We already have established by law and practice that you cannot force someone to use their body to keep another person alive. You cannot arrest someone and cut out their kidney to save someone who needs a transplant. Even though that might well mean a human being would die. We have already established that a right to bodily autonomy supercedes a right to life. Unless you're willing to campaign to change ALL the laws -- unless you're willing to put yourself in the living organ donor database and accept any call that comes in for your body parts -- you need to explain why abortion gets a special loophole or double standard.
This is the violinist thought experiment in a nutshell. The primary critique is that it only applies to rape victims as in other cases the mother took action that led to the organ donation being required.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9698
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by nicole » 21 May 2019, 16:15

This thread (longer than two tweets) pretty much covers my take on the "is it about controlling women" question:

"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 21 May 2019, 16:20

Eric the .5b wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:57
Jennifer wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:46
Eric the .5b wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:40
If it is a being deserving consideration of rights, then it is at no fault for it's creation by another and shouldn't be subject to destruction by its creator.
Which applies equally well to my hypothetical of forcing my mother to donate liver or bone marrow tissue
No, it damn well doesn't. One case is forcing something a procedure on someone, the other's forbidding them from having a procedure.
Could be a semantic argument: are you "forbidding" the procedure of abortion, or "requiring" the procedure of nine months of pregnancy followed by birth (or, regarding those who'd go so far as to ban abortion even if necessary to save the mother's life, requiring one to literally drop dead)?
If we go with your logic, we should get to hunt and kill welfare recipients for surviving on our tax money.
Only if you believe "paying taxes is exactly identical to losing your bodily autonomy."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24077
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by JasonL » 21 May 2019, 16:27

nicole wrote:
21 May 2019, 16:15
This thread (longer than two tweets) pretty much covers my take on the "is it about controlling women" question:

I don't generally buy that type of argument - the thing where you may not be actively seeking to control women but you would not have the views you have if people 2 generations back didn't have those concerns. I'll buy that there are well worn paths from the past but they are nothing like "the thing that determines your views". It gives too much power to the past and too little respect for current choices. It's a kind of original sin argument you can use to argue against anything that policy wise looks like any past efforts that came from a worse place. The thing being claimed is the thing we should be discussing for the most part. I hate false consciousness arguments for a similar reason.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9698
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by nicole » 21 May 2019, 16:35

JasonL wrote:
21 May 2019, 16:27
nicole wrote:
21 May 2019, 16:15
This thread (longer than two tweets) pretty much covers my take on the "is it about controlling women" question:

I don't generally buy that type of argument - the thing where you may not be actively seeking to control women but you would not have the views you have if people 2 generations back didn't have those concerns. I'll buy that there are well worn paths from the past but they are nothing like "the thing that determines your views". It gives too much power to the past and too little respect for current choices. It's a kind of original sin argument you can use to argue against anything that policy wise looks like any past efforts that came from a worse place. The thing being claimed is the thing we should be discussing for the most part. I hate false consciousness arguments for a similar reason.
It's not an argument against the policy, it's just my answer to the question of "is this because of controlling women's bodies?"
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7633
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Shem » 21 May 2019, 16:36

JasonL wrote:
21 May 2019, 16:27
I don't generally buy that type of argument - the thing where you may not be actively seeking to control women but you would not have the views you have if people 2 generations back didn't have those concerns. I'll buy that there are well worn paths from the past but they are nothing like "the thing that determines your views".
Especially in this case, where 50 years ago, abortion was "that thing Catholics are obsessed with" for most Protestants.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 3074
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Number 6 » 21 May 2019, 17:08

Eric the .5b wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:31
I'm really tired of Grylliade suddenly deciding I'm not logged in and losing my posts on mobile.
It's fine. The posts weren't yet viable outside the womb.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28154
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by thoreau » 21 May 2019, 17:26

Let me know when you guys get to grammar.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 21 May 2019, 17:30

Number 6 wrote:
21 May 2019, 17:08
Eric the .5b wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:31
I'm really tired of Grylliade suddenly deciding I'm not logged in and losing my posts on mobile.
It's fine. The posts weren't yet viable outside the womb.
Can we really be sure, though? I think the police should investigate this incident, just in case Eric murdered a post he willfully chose to conceive only to later change his mind (doubtless for immoral or amoral reasons). I am NOT saying Eric cannot be trusted to make his own decisions in such matters; I'm just saying there's bigger issues at stake here. (And since I never make posts on mobile anyway, I personally have nothing to worry about if cops start viewing such matters as their business.)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 3074
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Number 6 » 21 May 2019, 17:31

thoreau wrote:
21 May 2019, 17:26
Let me know when you guys get to grammar.
Abortions are mandated for those who use text speak and optional for those who confuse who/whom. Retroactive abortions are encouraged for those who use corporate speak or engage in SJW-style abuse of clear language.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17315
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by lunchstealer » 21 May 2019, 17:55

Mo wrote:
21 May 2019, 09:54
Jennifer wrote:
20 May 2019, 22:08
Just tell me, pro-life "libertarians": is this rash of state laws what you want this country to be? Is forcing that 11-year-old to bear her rapist's offspring a proper use of state power, in your view?
And they would say, would you allow that same woman to kill her rapist's offspring if the child were 5 years old instead?
And obviously a response is that the 5-year-old can be adopted or otherwise cared for and doesn't have to put her life or health at potential risk or literally be inside her. There is a fundamental difference between a child that can be adopted and a child that is inside you causing physical changes to your body that cannot be passed to someone else.

For a five-year-old the rape victim has an escape route and the victim has an escape route from the presence of the child of her rapist. For a won't-breathe-for-five-more-months fetus, she's not just stuck but literally at its mercy if it causes certain problems.

Simply put there are no remedies for the pregnant victim if we accept the ITS MURDER END OF STORY argument, and using the 5-year-old as an analogy doesn't work because there are remedies in that case which makes rape parenthood different in kind from the rape pregnancy.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24547
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Mo » 21 May 2019, 18:00

So one of the serious pro lifers at NR posted a link to the Florida abortion stats to show that pro-choicers lie and that most abortions are for “frivolous” (her words) reasons. Except that it shows that all (both) late term abortions were for either life threatening reasons or severe genetic abnormalities.

http://ahca.myflorida.com/MCHQ/Central_ ... n_2018.pdf
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests