I don’t know whether it’s the content or the ghastly color design of this page. Seriously — here’s a sample of what they think looks good on the screen:
Jebus, that color combination hurts my eyes.
Oh, wait, no…it’s the content. It’s like a collection of the most ignorant arguments against abortion anyone could find — and they triumphantly present each bit of glib inanity, and follow it up with Checkmate, Pro-Choicers!
I’m not going to even try to dig into all of their idiotic cliches, but here’s a couple that represent a major pet peeve of mine — the conflation of “life” with “deserving all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of an adult woman.”
If we found something on Mars with a heartbeat, we would call it “alive.”
Checkmate, Pro-Choicers
Oh, sure, and then we’d let it vote, marry it, and let it own an ice cream shop in Philadelphia. This has never been an argument about what is alive or not; a fetus is alive. But merely being alive has never been sufficient criteria for giving something human rights. We don’t even need to go to Mars to find things with heartbeats that we willingly turn into Happy Meals, poison if we find them in our kitchens, or turn into pets. We are selective in the assignment of human status, and having a pulse or breathing are the very least of them, and are definitely not sufficient.
A zygote meets all of the scientific qualifications of HUMAN life at the moment of conception.
Checkmate, Pro-Choicers
How interesting. I’m always amused when I see these bozos insist indignantly that they’ve got science behind them. And what are these “scientific qualifications”? List them, please.
The problem here is that there are scientific markers we could use to define whether something is of human descent, but they tend to be fairly reductionist and don’t provide a good indication of the kinds of sociological distinctions we want to make with the word “human”: it’s not just the zygote at the moment of conception that is human, but so is the sperm and the oocyte, as are cancers and HeLa cells. And when you look at cells as being of human origin, that still doesn’t help you in the slightest in determining whether a cell has rights.
Waving a flippant hand in the direction of undefined “scientific qualifications” is useless. Tell me what the specifics are, and I promise you, I can shoot them down one by one. How do I know that? Because the people who put these lists together are ignoramuses, every time.
(via Pandagon)
And as Prometheus shows, vs vg jnf va n jbzna’f oryyl, jr jbhyq phg vg bhg dhvpx!
(For a spoilers-included version, use rot13. Heh.)
They are even more absurd when you consider that their stated basis for saying that abortion is sinful is religious — purportedly abortion is proscribed by Christian doctrine. But of course there is not one word about abortion anywhere in the Bible, New Testament or Old. Lacking any scriptural basis for claiming that human life begins at conception, they have to cast about for scientific justification — which is a category error, since the claim is not about any scientifically verifiable fact, but rather a normative claim in the first place.
But baldly asserting that a single microscopic cell has the moral status of a human infant seems preposterous if you don’t sanction it with some sort of mystical authority. Yet there isn’t any, so they find themselves spinning around in these circles until they are so dizzy they can’t stand up.
Pathetic.
From the site’s About Me page:
Oh my. Words…inadequate…*so much rage now*
As long as we can still shame them and blame them, all is still good, right?
Pink & blue…baby colors. Superimposed. Ouch! An abomination of design, unreadable as much for its physical effect on our eyes as its content. It reminds me of that TBN video last night. Tackiness is next to godliness.
Well, you’d first have to determine if we can recognize its sex. Wouldn’t want to allow someone to marry an alien life form and later realize we allowed (persons?) life forms of same sex to get married, now would we?
After reading what Ye Old Blacksmith quoted from the “About Me” page, I had to ignore the warning about the headache-inducing color design and check the site to see if it was perhaps satire. Such mistakes have happened, I thought — even to people as wary and experienced as PZ.
I should have had more faith in PZ.
And now I have a headache.
Only until we sent good, Christian soldiers to Mars to spread ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’.
One of the gems:
Suuure.
I am guessing that her blog is mainly pink because, since she’s a GURRRLL, she’s “supposed” to like pink, and therefore it’s got to cover everything.
Needless to say, pissing on everything girly is misogynist. That’s not what I’m doing. She pings me as one of those “militantly girly girls,” and I bet she polices other women for being “insufficiently feminine.”
There are aesthetically pleasing uses of pink, needless to say. That blog isn’t one of them.
There’s a guy on YouTube named EdwardCurrant who does Poe-style posts often giving out some crazy logic ending with “Checkmate Atheists”. I wonder if this guy is the same way. (Yes EdwardCurrant is intentionally using crazy logic. He’s on our side.)
Psalm 137 would seem to support it, or at least infanticide: “8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”
So, it’s all good.
I’m not convinced this isn’t satire.
In re: the Mars bar…
If you can’t kill anything that ever had a heart beat, I guess you must be a vegan!
Check. Mate.
They should talk to my mom.
Which is more than an anti-choicer would do, who are at this moment busy disenfranchising black and hispanic voters in Florida and stripping gays of their right to marry.
It seems there is no end to the depravity of this forced birther:
A zygote doesn’t meet the biblical qualifications to even be considered alive, much less human since Leviticus 17:11 quite clearly states “the life of the creature is in the blood.”
King me, anti-choicers.
@ Beatrice –
It’s comments like that which make me think this site is satire. By including such outdated expressions, which most women and girls cannot relate to, I think it might be making a larger point.
I.E., the writer might be a provocateur who is trusting the intelligence of the women and girls who visit these sites, even if they are anti-choice.
Bwhahah! “Mothers don’t regret motherhood.”
Yeah, right. Lots of them actually regret having kids *when* they did, or how many, or to not have known beforehand that their kid would be born with heavy disabilities. I’ve known good Catholic women to rue their compliance with the Vatican’s edicts the first time they get pregnant “even though we used the temperatures method”! And start, next time, to use contraception. Win-win.
I recently saw a copy of the Iowa Republican Party Platform (horrifying) and one of the planks was that science had affirmed that life begins at conception because this is when an individual gets their genetic code.
Um… Do they mean a complete genetic code? Is a zygote a person before it attaches? Because that would be problematic since most zygotes do not make it to term.
More importantly, I assume they’re going for some uniqueness of genetic code point. So what does that mean for identical twins?
No wonder these people use homeopathy–they can’t take a chance of actually killing any disease they have because to them it would be killing a human.
Leviticus 17:11 quite clearly states “the life of the creature is in the blood.
But which part of its blood? Platelets, leukocytes, erythrocytes, plasma? And is it really “blood” before the adult beta globin takes over from fetal gamma globin? Does that mean that beta-thal major victims aren’t really alive? Does hydroxyurea make a person less alive? So many questions…
Kalliope,
Honestly, I doubt it’s satire. She strikes me as perfectly serious. And I believe that someone raised in a very strict religious household might use expressions that seem outdated to us.
If humans were made from mud, why isn’t mud human?
And WHY IS THERE STILL MUD? HUH? HUH? Not to mention DWARVES + PYGMIES!!!
So… no popplers?
OM NOM NOM
Beatrice:
Besides the incredible amount of victim blaming and the view of women as delicate property that can’t be allowed any freedom whatsoever*, what happens when your chaperone is also a rapist?
*I shouldn’t even have to point that out, but lord knows we’re gonna get some Fetus Champion trolls soon enough.
*dies laughing*
If we found a hair on Mars we would declare “LIFE! Life has been found on Mars!”. Therefore if you wax or pluck, you are a murderer!
Also:
I fucking ♥ you, feralboy.
I occasionally challenge “pro-lifers” to come up with a rational definition of “human life” that meets the following criteria:
1. Includes all human concepti
2. Excludes brain dead people (or gives an alternate definition of “death” that is consistent)
3. Defines monozygotic twins as two people
4. Defines chimeras as one person
5. Excludes cancer cells, including molar pregnancies/teratomas
6. Defines (artificial) clones (if they turn out to be possible) as people
7. Excludes non-fertilized gametes
8. Excludes somatic cells
9. Isn’t based entirely on prejudice and irrational attempts to make a single cell that is the product of a sperm and egg more important than one that is the product of mitosis.
No one’s managed to even come close so far. The smarter “pro-lifers” ignore the question, recognizing it as unanswerable.
@ feralboy12:
Oh, so a zygote is kosher? Interesting.
Many women regret their abortions. Mothers don’t regret motherhood.
Ironically, my mother only regrets her abortion BECAUSE she regrets having me. It’s the only socially acceptable way of expressing those feelings.
It’s generally articulated as, “You were trying to be born when I had my first abortion. I’m so sorry I aborted you; that’s why you’re always so angry with me. You were supposed to be older by now.”
Since “murder” is the illegal taking of a human life, and abortion is legal in the US, abortion is not “murder” in the US. QED!
Use of hyperbole does not encourage me to take the argument more seriously.
Dianne,
I’m kind of surprised that no one has answered your questions by telling you that god doesn’t put a soul into cancer cells (or whatever). ‘Cos, really, that’s the crux of their stupid argument.
Yikes, yessenia. That’s some fucked up right there. Talk about delegitimising your issues and making it all about her in one fell swoop.
For fuck’s sake, Christians: stop trying to convince me I’m evil without God and give me your fucking wallet before I shank you!
Audley,
She’d need a woman chaperone (someone who is assumed would never be an accomplice to rape or wouldn’t be abused too)? I don’t know how these people think. Even trying makes my brain hurt.
I’m kind of surprised that no one has answered your questions by telling you that god doesn’t put a soul into cancer cells (or whatever).
Yes, but it’s hard to make that argument when you’re claiming to be all rational and atheistic and also “pro-life”. Also how do they know? Isn’t it sacrilege to put a limit on what god can do? So the faithful should believe that he can put a soul in a cancer cell. That argument never goes over well with the lifers either.
From the comments at Panadagon: I Regret Having Kids
Yeah, no mothers EVER regret motherhood. Except, you all, the ones that do.
(and seriously, after reading that link, I’m even more committed to never breeding.)
the people who put these lists together are ignoramuses, every time.
Yes, and they’re incoherent also because they’re suffering from the cognitive dissonance of trying to justify abrogating women’s right to self-determination with sciency assertions and false dichotomies pertaining to issues they don’t understand and actually couldn’t care less about. They hate and fear female sexuality and bodily autonomy generally, but their rhetoric must always hew to the supposed defense of life.
I was reading this article in the NYT last night about objections to the morning-after pill, and just getting infuriated at how far the terms of the debate are shifted in favor of this kind of weaselly, ultimately irrelevant rhetoric. Why the fuck are we dithering with forced-birth activists about product labelling and fertilization and implantation, when they don’t give two shits about any of it? It’s so clear in the article that perception completely trumps reality for them. They want the product labeled a certain way, only because it allows them to sustain this fiction that their concern is for what goes on inside a uterus, when what they care about is actually everyfucking thing else about a woman’s behavior.
/rant
Beatrice,
Hmmmmm, maybe.
I thought that generally “chaperone” meant “older male relative”, but it’s hard to make any sort of assumption about a woman who is so ignorant that she thinks pregnancy is awesome ‘cos you don’t get your period of nine months. *facepalm!*
Sorry for being kind of a pedant, but it’s a pet peeve of mine. The genetic code is actually (almost) universal. Across all life.
By now I’m thoroughly convinced these people have never played chess.
Dianne,
Trying to think about what god can/will and can’t/won’t do with souls is making my brain hurt. :(
Of the “rational” pro-life atheists, I generally don’t hear arguments about the fetus, but that a woman needs to “take responsibility for her actions”. *spits!* I don’t even know how I’d respond to any other argument from an atheist.
I take it that this person never met any women.
(Yes, I am aware of the gender of the person who is posting this. All I can say is that she is wearing a mental burqa.)
“Being pregnant means no periods for nine months!
How can you say no to that?
Checkmate, Pro-choicers”
Sure, trade 9 months of no periods for 9 months of several assorted physical disagreements, plus a few harrowing hours (or days) at the hospital during delivery, and 20+ years of work child-raising. That kind of chess skills are just the stuff we humans need to beat computers again.
Oh, wait…
No periods for nine months. *Snerk*. Yeah, okay. Except for when you do have spotting, which freaks you the hell out because it might be the sign of a miscarriage. And then of course there’s what happens after you give birth, but since the author of this Tumblr appears to be about 11 years old, I won’t go into it (she should definitely not Google “lochia.”) Bless her heart.
Lol that is excellent. so stealing this.
Being pregnant means no periods for nine months!
How can you say no to that?
Checkmatelock, Pro-choicers
Someone needs to tell the little twerp about lochia.
And someone needs to tell me about da blockquotez… :(
Even if it was fully human, the fundamental principle of Stand Your Ground laws means the woman is entitled to an abortion from the first fetal kick at the latest, no questions asked.
I bet that you did not regret one second of that.
Incidentally, it isn’t checkmate if you have to say it more than once. What we have here is Perpetual Check, which makes the game a draw.
Gnuman, take a look at the tags just above where you type your messages.
For just blockquoting, you do not need to use “cite”.
You know, I recently made the mistake of Googling “lochia” while eating lunch. NOT A GOOD IDEA.
Millicent:
Or when you suffer from abdomial cramps because of your expanding uterus.
Nope, nothing like having your period at all.
Being pregnant means no periods for nine months!
How can you say no to that?
If it’s no periods you want, just go get a hysterectomy. No more periods ever. And as a bonus, no more pap smears. How can you say no to that?
Feeling evil.
lollochia?
Does anyone want to touch that?
Or the tender breasts, or the back pain, or the bloating…
Being pregnant is still nothing like having your period, guyz! Geez!
FTFY
I could be wrong, but I think this is either run by the user ‘Conservative’ at Conservapedia, or someone taking the piss out of him. The reason I say that is that the various things said here is about the same level as his various howlingly funny imbecilic screeds on Conservapedia, and those screeds quite often contain ‘checkmate, atheists/liberals/Darwinists/evolutionists/whatever’, in exactly the way that ‘checkmate, pro-choicers’ is repeated here. The only thing that makes me think it might not be him is that I would expect him to make it ‘checkmate, anti-lifers’, or something of that nature.
If nobody ever regrets being a mother and pregnancy is a period-free breeze, then it looks like we’ve got a successful case for premarital sex! I sunk your battleship, pro-lifers!
My favorite pregnancy symptom was nausea. Nine months of feeling like your chemotherapy dose is just a little too high. And being forbidden to take any effective remedies. Happy for the people that ginger, bracelets, crackers, etc work for, but I wasn’t one of them.
@truthspeaker:
How about putative or purported instead of “alleged” gender… ?
It’s over!
It’s all over!
Sastra just won.
I dunno, Janine, all I can come up with is Livin’ La Vida Lochia, and that just sounds really gross.
The twerp with the Tumblr needs to grow up. Someone at Pandagon noted that she’s one of these “Stay-At-Home Daughter” types, which means that even if she’s physically as old as she says she is, she’s been put into a state of patriarchally-suspended adolescence, so mentally, she’s not older than the average Justin Bieber fan. What I want to know is given that, why her owner hasn’t found her a substitute owner yet, and why she thinks it’s Godly to be political at all. I mean, shouldn’t she be devoting her energies to learning how to please men rather than shaming women?
What the hell is a soul and where does it fit into a human body?
“We don’t even need to go to Mars to find things with heartbeats that we willingly turn into Happy Meals”
I think she comes from Mars. The hypocracy of ‘pro-life’ arguments always reminds me of the line from Gaps in the Mind:
“Tie the label Homo sapiens even to a tiny piece of insensible, embryonic tissue, and its life suddenly leaps to infinite, uncomputable value.”
I mean, shouldn’t she be devoting her energies to learning how to please men rather than shaming women?
Conservative men are often pleased by shaming women. Especially when it’s done by other women. Makes them feel so much better about themselves.
Livin’ La Vida Lochia?
I likes it, interrobang.
Also fits into the idea that women cannot get along because they are competing for the menz.
Interrobang:
Isn’t part of pleasing men demonstrating how you’re so much better than those abortion havin’ Slutty McSlutterpants?
Sastra:
*fans self*
Oh myyyyyyy…
Err, yeah, this whole “Checkmate” thing is your clue that the intent is satirical. Come on folks, try to keep up with the memes.
Balstrome:
Mine was stuck to my appendix. Whoops.
Jackrawlinson, before you insist that this is a Poe, please check out some anti-choice sites. They are just as silly as that site.
Clicked on the link to the site. Don’t ask me why. Masochism perhaps. But I notice that today’s argument is “If everyone had abortions there’d be more people” (I may not have the quote quite right…not going back to make sure.)
This argument seems to me to indicate that the writer thinks that abortion is more attractive than completing pregnancy. After all, few people use the argument “If no one had sex there’d be no more people” to argue against someone who wishes to be celibate for a time or for life. The assumption is that for most people most of the time sex is more attractive than no sex and so a few people choosing otherwise is no threat. One only makes the argument “If everyone did X then bad thing Y would happen” if one thinks that most people would rather do X than not and must be convinced to not do X.
Kind of negates all her previous arguments about how wonderful pregnancy and motherhood are.
Janine:
As long as Jackrawlinson can feel superior to regulars here, nothing else, including reality, matters.
Audley:
Especially if you were eating, say, pasta with a lot of red sauce. Particularly the homemade kind, with lots of chunky bits.
I am aware of that, Ogvorbis. It is just that I am pissed off that while women in the US are actually be deprived of their rights, chuckleheads like jackrawlinson dismisses a cheerleader as a joke.
Janine:
Hence Poe’s Law.
She’s so damned earnest about everything, plus very “mild mannered” as opposed to a Betty Bowers type. I gotta say, it’s just impossible to tell eight way.
Sorry. That was meant as a snarky comment on Jackrawlinson’s failure to grok what is happening, not yours.
Damn it! “Either way”!
Daisy:
D:
(I was eating blood orange yogurt, whih was bad enough.)
TPYPOS! Here are my offerings!
*dumps misspelled words into thread*
Audley, blame your typos on the darkfetus.
Just like “Your God, Charles Darwin.”
Janine:
Rawlinson has proved repeatedly that the topic of women’s well-being is little more to him than a chance to score rhetorical points.
The same mindset that insists that Richard Dawkins is The Atheist Pope.
If the issue is a simple one of life versus not alive then I would expect all Christians to be, at the very least, vegan. They might have to follow the precepts of another religion and avoid wearing shoes and boiling water as both hurt living things.
Of course the issue isn’t a matter of life and not alive. Otherwise the ‘meat is murder’ argument would cut. And clearly any heartbeat on Mars, barring the heart of an astronaut abandoned after NASA budget cuts, would not be human.
dianne:
And I occasionally challenge “pro-choicers” to come up with a rational definition of human life that distinguishes between the following:
1. Viable fetus 100% inside the woman.
2. Viable fetus 75% inside the woman.
3. Viable fetus 50% inside the woman.
4. Viable fetus 25% inside the woman.
5. Viable fetus 1% inside the woman.
6. Viable fetus 0% inside the woman, but still attached to the woman through the umbilical chord.
I wondered when the “pro-lifers” would find this thread. Joey, how many elective abortions take place after labor starts?
Viable fetus 0% inside the woman, but still attached to the woman through the umbilical chord.
This is an interesting statement. Do you know what the umbilical cord actually attaches to? Do you know what happens in the third stage of labor?
Yes, joey, because a woman will wait until the fetus has crowned before deciding; “Fuck it, I want an abortion!”
Is your brain outside of you body but still attached to the spinal cord?
I don’t know why these anti-choicers waste so much energy arguing about whether or not the fetus is alive or whether or not it’s a “human life”, because even if you could convince me that it is a full-fledged person, 100% entitled to all the rights of every other person, I would STILL say abortion is morally justified. Because there is no case where any person is entitled, just by the fact of their existence, to any part of the body of another person.
If I need a kidney transplant to stay alive, that doesn’t entitle me to insist that someone give me their kidney. If I need a bone marrow transplant, I’m not entitled to insist that someone give me their bone marrow. Even something as simple as a blood transfusion, the fact that I need it to stay alive and that giving me blood would only inconvenience another person for 20 minutes or so is not sufficient argument for me to say I’m entitled to it. If the other person doesn’t want to donate it to me, then I have no right to it, regardless of any “right to life” I might have.
So even if we concede the “personhood” argument, why should that give the fetus the right to occupy a woman’s uterus for nine months?
More fuckwitted questions from a fuckwit. What is your opinion, and why? Or shut the fuck up.
I religious woman a knew used to bewail an abortion that she had while in college. “He would have been this old” etc… I pointed out that she would have never met her husband if she had left college to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, and not given birth to her(current)three children. First came the look of astonishment and then “I can’t talk to you when you say that kind of stuff”.
Janine, I think you’re giving the troll too much credit by assuming it has a brain at all.
By that… err… ‘logic’ we all commit genocide every day simply by shedding skin cells.
Checkmate, morons.
@90: Even if you needed blood/a kidney/bone marrow to live and only one person could donate that blood/etc to you, that would not make it right for you to force that person to donate whatever body part you’re talking about.
In case you’re wondering, yes, there are situations where a person has so many antibodies that literally only one person in the donor pool can safely donate to them. It’s a fortunately rare situation but when it occurs it can be…bad. Because even blood donation isn’t always simply a 20 minute inconvenience. A person who donates too often can become quite ill from it.
I religious woman a knew used to bewail an abortion that she had while in college. “He would have been this old” etc…
There was a time in my life when I regretted not having a baby with my college boyfriend. I thought about how old the baby would have been, what my life might have been like, etc. That doesn’t make our unconceived “baby” a real person.
And then along comes Joey just to provide evidence that one of the dumbest anti-choice arguments of all time was missed. Just when we thought it couldn’t get any dumber.
Joey, can you provide documentation for even one case in which a woman opted for an abortion after labour had begun for a viable foetus? If not, shut the fuck up and try listening to other people. Specifically, the people who are affected when idiots like you decide that women are not capable of using their bodily integrity to your standards.
Hey, joey! Are you just a hit and run troll?
@95, that was kind of my point. That just the fact that something/someone is a “person” with the “right to life” doesn’t entitle it to any part of another person’s body without that person’s consent. So, even if the fetus is a “person” it’s not entitled to occupy its mother’s uterus against her wishes.
Hi joey. I need a new lung or I will die. Give me one of yours. AFterall, as you just implied, abortion is no different than murder. Therefore, not giving me your lung would be murder. You’re not a misogynistic hypocrite, are you Joey?
@99: Just anticipating the usual anti-choice counterargument, which is that blood and tissue donation are different because anyone can do them. I only wish that particular argument were true.
joey @ #83
If “lifers” wanted to decrease abortions they would make sure as many men & women as possible would have access to birth control. Period. Full stop.
And to any disingenuous rejoinder you might have to the above statement of fact that you chose to sling at this blog, I call bullshit.
I just shitted on the chessboard and knocked all the pieces down when I took flight. Pigeon checkmate, Pro-Choicers!
Irenedelse, @ 1: Hahahahahaha. Timely!
*eye roll*
What do you mean by viable, joey? What if the mother’s life is in danger? What if the fetus has a terminal condition that will kill it soon after birth? Don’t overlook the exceptions and don’t smugly pretend that a woman with a choice will go through an entire pregnancy just to be able to abort a fetus.
joey @ 86;
As noted by Janine: History’s Greatest Monster @ 89, you have fallen into the trap of uncritically accepting the myth of ultra late term abortion. In reality, where the foetus is viable and quite capable of sustaining life outside the woman’s body but is unwanted, it will be delivered (perhaps by caesarian section) and put up for adoption. Thus your hypothetical is moot.
The issue occurs when the foetus is not yet viable – when it cannot survive outside the woman’s body. To all intents and purposes, the foetus in such a case is a parasite. The only way to argue that abortion should not be allowable in such cases is to claim that this non-conscious, non-viable foetus is to be afforded greater rights at law than any adult human possesses; a right in the flesh of another person.
That this is unethical can be demonstrated by the example of organ donation. No matter how much a person may need an organ donor, they can never demand that another person give them an organ, and the law does not recognise any contract as providing a right to claim another’s organ – it is simply beyond the realm of legitimate contract. It is not a right one can simply sign away. The principle of bodily autonomy is considered too important to be cast aside.
Outlawing abortion changes all this. It establishes the first positive right in law over someone else’s flesh since the abolition of slavery. Doing this is tantamount to declaring pregnant women to no longer be people, but instead to be merely living, ambulatory incubators.
It would be nothing less than the establishment of procreative slavery. Is it any wonder that people of conscience would oppose such a thing?
dianne @ 95
Good point.
Gregory Greenwood @ 106
Another good point.
Lochia. Wow.
How I got to the ripe (tho admittedly child-free) age of 52 without hearing about this, I have no idea. 4 – 6 WEEKS?? Even my best friend didn’t tell me, and she tells me everything.
I mean, I’d seen those special sanitary pads they give you at the hospital, so I figured some stuff comes out, but I never heard about that kind of duration! Yeesh!
That’s a pretty damn weak check-mate in my book!
Janine,
And is it viable?
Amphiox makes a good point about Stand Your Ground. For me, the biggest mindfuck is that these anti-choicers are usually in favour of war, the death penalty, and killing in self defence. If we accept for a moment that an unwanted fetus is a person, then it’s a person who is occupying a woman’s private property without her permission, stealing her resources, and putting her at risk of significant discomfort if not major health problems. Why shouldn’t she kill it in self defence? These are usually people who would insist that if they find some stranger in their home, carrying a big knife and stealing their stuff, they have every right to shoot that person dead.
@Janine #98
You mean “shit and run troll.” Because his post can be accurately described as brain poop.
Joey:
LOL, wut?
How about some real world examples, scumfucker? I want to know how often women go into labor and then say, “fuck this, kill it” and I want to know how many doctors comply with that request.
Abortion isn’t about our lust for destroying fetuses, idiot. It’s about ending a pregnancy. If the pregnancy is naturally ending on its own, why in the world would a woman demand that the resulting infant be killed?
Also, a “viable fetus 0% inside the woman” isn’t a fucking fetus anymore, it’s an infant.
Back in the pouch with you, joey. 100% all the way. You’re clearly not intellectually viable.
For me, the biggest mindfuck is that these anti-choicers are usually in favour of war, the death penalty, and killing in self defence.
It’s not a mindfuck at all, for me. It should be a mindfuck for forced-birthers, as it’s yet more clear evidence that “life” is not among their concerns.
Is this person even aware of the complications involved in pregnancy and childbirth? Are they aware that women have died during childbirth?
She pings me as one of those “militantly girly girls,” and I bet she polices other women for being “insufficiently feminine.”she’s a “stay-at-home daughter”, so yes.
again, she’s not just you standard forced-birther, she’s either Quiverful or something very similar to that. So probably she’s into “courtship” instead of dating etc. as well, and as I already noted, she’s a “stay-at-home daughter”, meaning she wants to go directly from being a servant to daddy to being a servant to hubby. and yeah, she probably totes believes that’ll protect her from sexual abuse :-/
QFT. to quote myself from pandagon:
O.o
I think I’ll never be able to eat Spaghetti Marinara ever again.
That one’s easy. The baby’s born, you placenta-for-brain! Time to cut the cord.
Now I’ve seen it all. The forced-pregnancy brigade should go take a course in basic sex ed. Oh, wait! Preferably not from a Bible college!
oops. failed the first blockquote
she’s a “stay-at-home daughter”, so yes.
To all intents and purposes, the foetus in such a case is a parasite.
Next up: tumor’s rights. Won’t someone think of the poor cancers that are being poisoned with chemo or blasted with radiation? They have rights, too!
oh joey, you ridiculous fuckweasel. at a point where the easiest way to end a pregnancy is to give birth, that’s what’s done, and once that’s done the newborn is obviously a separate person. abortion is what happens when the easiest way to end a pregnancy isn’t birth.
there really is no gray area here.
If there was a fire, and you had time to carry one thing out of the fire, would you carry out the crying baby, or a cryogenic tank with frozen embryos in it? In practice, a real live baby is worth more to all of us than any number of hypothetical potential people. No funerals for first trimester miscarriages.
And, as always: There’s good eating on a fetus.
anyway, these are my “favorite” “arguments”:
and
the first one could have an entire Masters Thesis written about just how wrong it is, in many many ways; the second one can be rebutted with one word: “exactly”.
This women-ain’t-shit shit supported by joey is real and happening in the USA:
peggin @90:
Yes. QFT. I recall hearing this argument before, but couldn’t remember where, or the exact details.
joey, the reason for an abortion is to stop the pregnancy. When a fetus is being expelled, the easiest way to stop the pregnancy is to get it the hell out.
(just to reiterate what Jadehawk just said)
No kidding. Mirena is the best invention the modern world has ever made, in my opinion.
here’s the deal:
what the christians are really saying is that the soul enters the egg at the same time as the sperm. without the soul there is no human life.
thus, they are saying, life(the human soul) begains at conception.
they can’t really bring the idea of “soul” into their bullshit because then they would have to put up with “where’s the evidence for a soul”
“or” please define “soul”.
soul is the name of their game and if they are confronted with “soul” then stultification will set in and they will wither on the you know what.
Don’t forget the germs. Germs have rights, too. Checkmate.
seconded
And the fetus is also armed. The placenta is a weapon more insidious than any knife. The thing literally secrets enzymes that digest the woman’s uterus wall, and sends tendrils of cells that literally invade the woman’s body in the same way that many cancers do (in fact many cancers use the same genes that a placenta uses to infiltrate and invade surrounding tissues).
If Joey is true to form, he will keep pestering us for an answer once or twice a day for eons. PZ, I would suggest TZT for Joey. Let him mentally wank where we are expected to rewd, lewd, and crewd, and we definitely will be until he decides to take his wanking elsewhere.
If by viable, joey, you mean the medical term, and not something you just made up to tailor-fit your lame argument, then viable means able to survive on its own outside the woman’s body. When a fetus is viable, pregnancy is terminated by INDUCED LIVE BIRTH, and NOT by abortion.
What few cases where abortion comes up as an option for a viable, undamaged fetus rather than induced live birth are so rare and so varied that honest people understand that they need to be considered separately, on a case by case basis, and are not part of the bigger abortion debate.
Absolutely NONE of your 6 scenarios are relevant to the abortion debate in any way.
They do make magnificently flammable strawmen, though.
And I hope you understand that, in scenario 6, if absolutely nothing is done at all but wait, most of the time the placenta will, naturally, involute, detach from the uterine lining, and be expelled, and the umbilical cord will naturally close itself off, degenerate, dry out, and fall off the child in due time. The cutting of the umbilical cord is merely a question of medical convenience and increased safety for mother and child. It has no bearing whatsoever on the status of the child as fetus vs baby.
On, and since joey’s 2, 3, 4, and 5 will, (if the fetus is viable) always turn into 6 if one simply waits a relatively “short” while, for practical purposes you can consider them all to be 6. And 6 is irrelevant.
And if we encounter a situation of 2, 3, 4, and 5 which will NOT be turning into 6 in a relatively “short” while, then the fetus, stuck like that, is NOT viable! Then the medical issue becomes whether or not some form of intervention is available that can MAKE the fetus viable again, what that intervention means in terms of risk for the woman, and whether it is advisable to pursue that option. Abortion only pops up as an option in those cases where the medical options that make the fetus viable again either do not exist or cannot be done safely for the woman. And then the alternative is either abortion or wait for stillbirth (at increased risk of maternal mortality).
joey’s little “dilemma” is only relevant if you have a pregnant woman giving birth stuck in a broken time machine.
It’s fanfiction.
While this is tempting, several hormonal drugs and well as an intensive athletic program can maintain the same effect for an indefinite period of time with much less nasty side-effects, such as putting on a huge amount of weight, deconditionning, oedema of the lower limbs, vomiting, back pain, possible diabetes, dangerous infections, post-partum depression and having an unwanted baby to take care of.
Going back to the OP topic’s chess analogy fail, one cannot help but notice that most of these arguments are actually the same argument dressed up in different words.
And the rules of chess have a scenario for that. It is called three-fold repetition. And just like perpetual check, it makes the game a draw.
That post author needs to stop wasting time angsting about abortion and learn how to play chess. I can assure him or her, from personal experience, that it would be a rewarding experience.
Also they’re usually against government welfare. Once the kid is born, then xe and the mother are on their own. The anti-abortionists couldn’t care less if both of them starve in the gutter.
All of these are human life.
So is the tip of my nose, 100% attached to the front of my head.
What’s your point?
joey may be smart enough to understand it now, but I’m sure he has never encountered that information before.
Most people never have. This stuff isn’t taught in school.
I love that.
Except for being constantly laughed out of matches for shouting “King Me!”
As I keep saying: Republicans stop caring about you as soon as you’re born.
I’ve encountered a new one, from someone playing Devil’s Advocate: that having an abortion is an ACTION, whereas refusing to donate organs/blood/whatever is an INACTION.
Do sets of moral precepts exist under which this would even be relevant? O.o
as far as I know, only the “It’s God’s Will” excuse.
Do sets of moral precepts exist under which this would even be relevant?
Probably, but there is a specific counter-precedent in medicine: The (active) act of withdrawing care from a terminally ill patient is considered the moral equivalent of the (passive) act or inaction of not starting care.
Yes. It’s called Catholicism.
1)both baby-eagles and baby-people are protected
2)the analog to a fetus is an egg, not an eaglet
2)humans are not an endangered species
3)humans don’t lay eggs; if they did, abortion wouldn’t be an issue, since “pregnancies” would be happening outside our bodies
so yeah. if humans were an endangered species that laid eggs, I’d be all for protecting human eggs, too.
and hen there’s this comment, from a privileged white dood:
1) no it isn’t
2)fuck you for the scarequotes; some lives really are bad
3)your existential wangsting is not a good enough reason to enslave women, you entitled douchebisquit
grrr
Do sets of moral precepts exist under which this would even be relevant?
Not logical ones, perhaps. But observation has shown pretty clearly that our default moral intuition seems to draw a sharp distinction between causing harm actively and passively allowing harm to occur. A well known example is the so-called “Fat Man” variant of the Trolley Problem.
Most people never bother to interrogate their ethical intuitions, which is probably partly why such dumb-ass arguments as these for the forced-birth position seem to have such traction.
Here’s a hint, which I advise that you consider carefully, to avoid being eaten alive here in the very near future.
It’s not about you.
Pick one
1) You’re pretty young
2) You’ve had a very, very sheltered life
3) You have a pathological lack of imagination
Believe me my friend, there is a level of “bad” that would make you wish you were never born.
Odd, I haven’t heard any complaints from anyone who was.
I am in the lucky position of being a male and so I am only allowed to give my personal opinion once per pregnancy that I am responsible for. So in that case I would have to consider exactly what I want to say and then tell the woman I made pregnant my point of view on the matter. Then it is up to her and the medical advice that her consulting doctor is giving her to make a decision on what to do.
Whatever her decision, is hers and I believe it my right and duty to support her in this decision, whatever it may be. And everyone else can just shut the hell up, your views are not wanted or needed here.
Did someone seriously bring up the “what if you were aborted” argument as if it carries any weight?
My mom was not the first person my dad intended to marry. His first fiancee was killed by a drunk driver shortly after their engagement. If it wasn’t for said drunk driver, I would not have been born.
I’m for drunk driving, because I know I’m enjoying not having my existence prevented.
She always does.
Sastra is the Grandmistress of Atheism.
Funny that.
Personally, I’m rather in favour of his having been aborted while there was still time.
Trust me they didn’t like my snarky response.
oh hey, that atheist pro-lifer douchecake has a tumblr. it’s called “No Gay Shit”, and is plastered with porn
Shocking, amirite?
{OT}
“wangsting”?
= expressing masculine angst?
daddy like
{/OT}
wangsting = wanking + angsting
Wangst (warning: link to TVTropes)
(the thread has been Tropewinned!)
My tumblr is plastered with pr0n as well.
I do like the gay shit, though.
If it’s life the anti-choicers love so much, why are they so pro-war and pro-death penalty? What are they doing to help children after they leave the womb? The anti-abortion movement is strictly about exercising power over women.
*headdesk!*
But… I… my brain is cracking under the pressure of trying to describe the utter wrongness…
*deep breath*
If you were aborted, there would be no being to miss being alive. That’s just such a… religious way of thinking about it.
Janine:
Good idea!
*shakes fist in general direction of belly!*
Pteryxx:
Speaking of, has anyone Godwinned the thread yet?
‘Cos you know who made abortion illegal, don’t you…?
But it does. Just not for the side that usually invokes it.
Consider two people: a pro-choicer and a pro-lifer. Each considers that the world would be a better place if the other did not exist. Each also has an equal likelihood of being terminated before birth. Simple game theory* reveals that:
A) If neither is aborted, then the situation is exactly as it is now. No gain, no loss.
B) If the pro-choicer is aborted and the pro-lifer is not, then there is one less pro-choicer to argue for abortion. The pro-lifer is happy. The pro-choicer is unaware of the life they missed. Gain for the pro-lifer.
C) If the pro-lifer is aborted and the pro-choicer is not, then there is one less pro-lifer to argue for abortion. The pro-choicer is happy. The pro-lifer is unaware of the life they missed. Gain for the pro-choicer.
D) If both are aborted, then the situation is exactly as it is now, less two people to argue about it. Neither is aware of the life they missed. No gain, no loss.
Abortion is clearly the most beneficial strategy.
*No need to re-check my claims. I assure you that the above argument is air-tight.
Ecce! Anti choice anti woman scum-gobbling pissants!*
I see Joey is back with his “WHAT ABOUT TEH 100% OUTSIDE BABBY WITH INSIDE PLACENTA HUH!?”. Joey, in sci-fi universes where said baby is leeching life from the woman by Mysterious Processes As Yet Unknown To Science and is acting as an anti-life vortex sucking in the very souls of the medics around it, then kill it. Until then, your straw man is noted, and ignored as the mindless distracting bullshit it is. Again.
Now do the world a favour anti choice fuck pigs and go and get yourselves post-natally aborted by ritually sacrificing yourselves with a papier mache weapon made from your own anti woman frothing dribble and leaflets comprising dead baby photos.**
And I see we have a “herp derp what if you’d been aborted?” dingleberry and a “a bad life is better than no life” fuckwit.
The only reason I exist is because my dad had a wank the week before and cleared out the load ahead of the one containing me. The day you start waving a flag with a photo of my dad’s cock on it at your anti-woman rallies is the day I actually take you zealots seriously for longer than one minute.
And a bad life is better than no life? Come here and give me five minutes with this set of mole grips, your genitals, and a bag of freshly amused weasels and tell me that. I assure you that will be 4 minutes and 50 seconds longer than you want to live.***
Louis
* The whole lot would have been in Latin if I could be bothered to translate “anti choice anti woman scum-gobbling pissants”. I can’t be bothered.
** The hyperbole should give you a clue: don’t really do this, I’m not actually serious. Mind you, if you are determined and have such a papier mache weapon, upload the attempt to YouTube. Watching you beat yourself about with a lump of gooey paper should be good for a laugh. It won’t actually harm you, but it will be a welcome distraction from dealing with your asinine “arguments”.
*** Again, comedy. Use your fucking imaginations people. Why would amused weasels be especially bad? I’m telegraphing this shit. If any of you pull an “Intersection” I will be mocking you even more. You have been warned.
Oh and P.S. Jack Rawlinson: do fuck directly off you pointless waste of good jism. The best part of you ran down the inside of your momma’s leg.
Audley,
Abortion? Illegal? Was it Stalin?
Louis
*successfully resists urge to click on What Measure Is a Non-Badass*
*pathetically fails at resisting urge to click on You Need to Get Laid*
“I mean sex.“
Brownian
after
the rest of your comment was in Rod Serling’s voice.
Oh, good. I didn’t know whether or not FtB supported the <twilightzone> tag.
Yes, Louis, I Godwinned the thread by bringing up Stalin.
:p
*having progressed all the way to Ethical Slut, goes back to Wangst and clicks on What Measure Is a Non-Badass*
I don’t know about Stalin, but Hitler definitely didn’t like it, and… there’s always Ceauşescu. *shudder*
Please tell me that I didn’t just fool Audley AND David M with a really obvious joke about Godwinning.
That’s nearly as bad as me missing the “but” joke of Lyn M the other day. I took a remedial comedy awareness class after that. ;-)
Louis
Do I need to retake that damned class?
Louis
@Brownian
You truly have a staggering intellect.
There’s quite a lot of ‘the creature’s blood in the placenta as well – so when do *they* get a vote?
Don’t be silly – it’s sliced bread. That is why every new! exciting! thing! is ‘better than sliced bread’.
I am not laughing out loud, but I am smiling broadly.
I wish sliced bread could be un-invented…
Louis:
Remember, Louis, we’ve established that my brains no wurk to gud anniemoar.
sliced bread
http://xkcd.com/
see the alt text
Why not, indeed? Turns out they are.
1: f3 e5
2: g4 Qh4 – checkmate. Thanks for the own goal, choice-deniers!
I’ve been bringing up the “castle doctrine” thing about abortion for quite a while. So far, the response has been predictable, and can be pretty much summed up as *crickets*. But I’m perfectly serious. Even without invoking lethal force, even if I invite you into my house, if you come into my house and crap on my Kashan rug, I’m going to throw you out on your ear. I mean, I personally don’t hold with the idea that summary execution is an okay response to B&E, but some people do.
So what on earth gives these idiots the idea that someone should be able to come into my body and not get turfed out on their ear if cause arises?
SAVE THE INVASIVE TROPHOBLASTS
I think I’ve mentioned before how annoyed I get when antichoicers try to co-opt environmental arguments to support further overpopulation. Particularly in a country with overconsumption issues.
Talk about your fuckwitted arguments. Eagles are protected from outside influences, like humans. The equivalent would be protecting pregnant women from outside influences, like anti-choice zeolots….DUH!
Pteryxx –
Tourist fist-bump! Placards! Teary TV funds appeal!
Jadehawk-
Inclined to agree. We don’t buy commercial bread though, so not a practical issue in this house. Bread machines FTW.
I’d rather not exist than be responsible for forcing my mother to give birth against her will.
peggin #99:
So why can’t you apply this same logic to a “person” who is occupying against your consent another form of your own property, such as your home? Would this person have a “right to life” in this case?
[meta]
joey the hoggler persists, I see.
Yes, Joey. Because people can sell their bodies just like any of their other property, and even do without if necessary. Heck, they can even upgrade to better ones, by dint of diligence!
Quite comparable.
Aratina Cage #105:
No, you don’t overlook the exceptions and pretend that’s an impossibility that a woman cannot change her mind about a pregnancy at any stage. After all, don’t you think she has the right to do so?
C’mon, joey.
Tell us some more of how it’s just like some person inhabiting one’s body (which is one’s property like any other) and to support pro-choice means one can evict someone from their own property.
‘Cos is such a good argument towards your position, no?
If humans were made from mud, why isn’t mud human?
Not mud!
Humans are dust bunnies!
It’s always more fun to ridicule them with their own moronic book when you get the quotes right.
Sheesh.
Paul Bernardo used to be a volunteer “safe escort” for women at Glendon College in Toronto. He was the Scarborough Rapist (in one of our suburbs), who went on to become a rapist and murderer.
There is no bottom to that kind of wilful stupidity.
Dianne @29, I like your list. You can also ask people to add a distinction that will define conjoined twins with two separate heads and personalities as two different people but those with extra limbs as one person. Then ask them where to put those that are joined at the brain.
Ah, anti choicers and their insane troll logic. A bottomless pit in which no brain escape unscathed.
There’s one thing that argues this is a deliberate satire: the use of “Pro-choicers” rather than “pro-aborts.”
John Morales:
Sounds similar. But my question is whether the person being evicted from your property has a “right to life”.
Yup.
Abortion on demand. No restrictions.
Like in Canada.
In the US, it’s illegal to get a 3rd trimester abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger, or the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest.
In Canada, a woman can get an abortion (if she can access it, but that’s different from legality) at any point in her pregnancy, for any reason.
Joey, you obviously care deeply about these things, so surely you’ll be able to share with the class what the difference in 3rd trimester abortion rates in Canada vs. the USA. Since women often decide to abort their babies at the last minute, unless constrained by the law, the difference will no doubt be striking.
Right, Joey? Go ahead, don’t be shy.
All I have to say is that if something wants to live in (and off of) my body, for any period of time, it needs to be paying rent.
Having an abortion is like making a person leave your house?
My advice: You wouldn’t fail at analogies if you stopped using them altogether. Try an actual argument sometime; you know, with logic and facts and shit.
@ Sally
{enter theophontes, demonstrates google-foo kata}
Indeed. And:
Percent of known pregnancies ending in legal abortions,…
USA 22.2 vs Canada 20.3 (2008) (map)
Canada is doing a better job at saving “unborn babies”. If the goddists were honest about their true objectives, I guess they would be more pragmatic.
SallyStrange:
Such statistics do not answer the question of whether abortion of a viable fetus is ethical or not. Is it?
I’ve actually made that analogy myself. What happens to the fetus once it’s outside a woman’s body isn’t her business. If the anti-choicers feel they have a compelling interest then I think they’d be better off researching and developing an artificial uterus.
If the “abortion of a viable fetus” is a non-event then your question is worthless. Let us first establish that this is a thing that happens in reality. Then we can debate whether it is ethical or not.
Joey you know the answers because we’ve had this discussion. Either state your point or GTFO, but do not goddamn put us through a back track of your last 300+ post comment diarrhea.
Here I’ll jump ahead for you Joey.
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH KILL VIABLE OFFSPRING MEANS WE SHOULD KILL BABIES BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH *drowns in a ever growing puddle of own piss*
Hey everyone, my name is joey! Let me painstakingly describe to all of you ever pair of socks I have ever owned through the Socratic method (cause I’m tots smart and the first ot figure that out). Don’t worry if you miss it, I’m just going to show up again in a few threads and start over as if nothing ever happened because I presume everyone is like me and has the attention span of a coked up chipmunk.
SallyStrange:
You’re being dishonest by saying it’s a “non-event”. Of course late term abortions occur. Maybe not nearly at the same rates as early term abortions, but they do happen.
Mothers dumping their newborn babies in the garbage is also “rare”, but they do happen. Just because such instances are rare doesn’t mean it’s ethical and there shouldn’t be laws outlawing such acts.
late-term abortions =! abortions of viable fetuses. viable means able to live outside of the woman’s body, which means aborting a pregnancy at that stage is synonymous with inducing labor.
Apologies if I was unclear. Although, it would seem that by mentioning that there are “rates” of 3rd trimester abortions, I am implicitly acknowledging that they do occur.
I thought we were talking about those cases that most people agree are unethical, i.e., the anti-choicer’s favorite myth, that of the woman who’s 8.5 months pregnant and suddenly decides that she doesn’t just want a c-section, she wants the fetus dead.
I think it makes things more confusing, not less. A fetus isn’t a person. A person isn’t a house. A fetus isn’t a mere inconvenience which is taking up space in some building which you yourself could decide to leave, because you are the building and the fetus is made of that building. You can’t just ask it to leave. You don’t call the police to perform an abortion, because it’s not a matter of property rights but a medical decision. The analogy makes it seem as though there are all sorts of valid options, but most don’t carry over to abortion, so you’d have to tweak the “unwanted person in my house” scenario a whole lot just to get it to work, and then what seemed so obvious with the simplified version of the analogy becomes obscured with all of the complexities of the storytelling.
No, you’re being dishonest. You should find out where your goalposts moved. How many of late term abortions are not performed to save the life or health of the mother?
The more we outlaw these rare events you’re so worried about, the more non-rare lives we put at risk. So are you more worried about saving lives or treating women like garbage?
Yeah. I didn’t say it was a great analogy. Really more of a joke. “It’s not an abortion, it’s an eviction!”
On account of me being callous and stuff. Cuz I hate babies.
Have you tried boiling them first, before you put them on the barbecue?
Specimen:
These. Are. The. Acts. Of. Desperate. People.
They. Would. Oh. Ever. So. Much. Not. Be. In. That. Desperate. Situation.
Such people need help, not punishment.
—
[Fuck, I’m channeling Walton!]
Fuck you, Joey.
You’re not interested in debating the reality of abortion at all. You’re interested in painting women as callous murderers who abandon their own offspring. That’s it, that’s all. I’m sick of this dishonest tactic.
Abortion is about bodily autonomy, not some sick desire to kill babies. And the pro-life crusade is about controlling women and women’s bodies, else pro-lifers like you would be all about the social welfare and the benefits for single mothers.
Have we made no progress overnight? I’m off back to murder babies. In the tradition of Bill Hicks I shall also be smoking while I scrape a uterus. That way I can piss off non-smokers too.*
Louis
* A group that includes me. I don’t smoke. Don’t worry, I’m not fanatical about it. I can cope if other people smoke. I don’t get that funny look on my face when I see a smoker, you know the one, like someone is sucking on a dog turd covered in lemon juice.
Audley, #179,
Ahhhh you has Baybee Bwain™. Don’t worry, it’s permanent. I’m still suffering from it 3 years after my wife gave birth. Hell, I had a bad case, I managed to suffer from it for the previous 30 or so years too! ;-)
One of the (highly educated and successful) cousins of the Beloved Mrs we were celebrating with this last weekend summed up her feelings on baby brain thusly:
“It’s bad enough I have to deal with male consultants who look through me but it really stinks when they’re almost right to do so because hormones made my brains drip out my ears.”
She’s something of a fierce women’s rights advocate in the workplace (male dominated top end of public medicine). 5’2” of very angry intelligent lady. I rather like her.
Louis
Sorry, TLC, you miscalled it. Joey’s not a “pro-lifer”.
He’s a a forced birther, which imeans he’s a pro-deather. Because forced birth is guaranteed to kill innocent adult women, his insistence that they can’t be allowed to abort – because they’re too immoral to be trusted to do it for the “right” reasons or at the “right” time – means that he chooses women dying over women living. That’s NOT pro-life.
Just like all the rest of the anti-abortion creeps.
Hotshoe: I stand corrected.
Of course it’s not about ‘life’. It’s about control.
Hey everyone, my name is joey! Let me painstakingly describe to all of you ever pair of socks I have ever owned through the Socratic method (cause I’m tots smart and the first ot figure that out). Don’t worry if you miss it, I’m just going to show up again in a few threads and start over as if nothing ever happened because I presume everyone is like me and has the attention span of a coked up chipmunk.
I’ll just make that my reply to Joey as well, if you don’t mind.
so tired of seeing forced-birthers repeated endless childish, unthought out arguments, full of red-herrings.
it’s not worth debating with them any more.
just step on them.
it’s what they want. then they can cry “victim!” like they really want to and we can get on with life.
If you ever libel coked up chipmunks like that again, I shall become vexed, Ing.
;-)
LOuis
PZ has here been drawn into repeating a canard of the pro-lifers that irks me particularly: he says “it’s not just the zygote at the moment of conception that is human, but so is the sperm and the oocyte”
To which, in conversation with pro-lifers, I always respond, what is this “moment of conception” of which you speak?
Is not conception a process, a continuum, with no single moment within it being any more special than any other? In conversations with pro-choicers, I find they’re wedded to the idea that there’s a moment, a single instant at which life begins, and presumably the fetus is ensouled or whatever… but when you ask them they can never be specific. I’ve even tried to be helpful and give them a list: this “moment” of conception, when is it?
– at ejaculation?
– when the sperm first reach the egg?
– when the sperm first penetrates the cell wall?
– when the sperm stimulates the egg cell to produce calcium ions to block the entry of further sperm cells?
– at formation of the male and female pronuclei?
– formation of the segmentation nucleus?
– first cell division of the zygote within the zona pellucida?
– formation of the blastocyst?
– attachment to the wall of the uterus?
– subsumation in the endometrial wall?
I’ve tried many times to get someone to tell me which of these instants is THE MOMENT of conception, but nobody seems to know.
sonofrojblake: Conception is another word for fertilisation, that is, the moment when the gametes fuse.
What makes you think there aren’t such laws? Some states created safe haven spots to prevent women being prosecuted. You appear to be factually stupid, want to remain factually stupid, hence you can’t make logical arguments based on facts, only your emotions. Which is why philosophy not based on reality, and only emotions, is worthless.
If there is a problem, show us that the problem exists and is wide-spread enough to require laws. You know, you do your homework before disturbing your betters with your blather…
@ sonofrojblake:
Conception is the moment when the daddy places the homunculus in his furrow.
(Non-English speaker here)
Some muslim countries define THE MOMENT as when the egg attaches to the (the English term for cavity where the fetus developes) and thus have no objections to condoms or the (name for spiral-like thingie stuffed up to prevent the egg from attaching).
So muslims at least seem to have a consitent notion of The Moment. Forced Birthers being less consistent than mullahs? Who would have guessed.
Damn! I know the English terms used by NASA but I suck at medical terms.
the words you’re looking for are “uterus” and “copper coil”
`
Oh and by the way pro-women killing-ers, if all life giving fluid is sacred, come here and let me put a massacre in your napkin.
Yahtzee Anti Women Scum!
Louis
@140. David Marjanović :
Ahem, Terri Schiavo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Schiavo
Republicans seem to prefer those with undeveloped or non functional brains, I wonder why?
Under the Coathanger Lobby as I prefer to call the anti-choice mob, aborton will still happen. It will just be done in back alleys and outside proper medical environments and the unfortunate women* caught having them will be victimised all over again. Bastards!
—–
* Read poor women – as opposed to the wealthy who will go overseas for them.
Bastards = the Coathanger Lobby NOT the unfortunate women to clear up any faintly present ambiguity.
The Coathanger lobby site by an apparent Aunty Thomasina, yeesh. So much FAIL and stoopid on there.
And wouldn’t happen nearly so often if abortions were easier to obtain.
About 1% of abortions are late-term, and every single one of them is due to severe fatal problems with the fetus.
But I’ll go ahead and address your ridiculous question.
Yes. Yes, it is. You know why? Because that’s what happens as a side effect of making it legal for everyone. Don’t be shocked; this is not something we don’t already do in a lot of other cases. Joey, I’ll make a bit of an assumption that you’re anti gun control, because being anti-choice correlates very highly with being pro-gun. The lack of decent gun control in this country kills about eight thousand people per year. Most all of those would not be dead with strict gun controls, but people think that it’s worth it to have those deaths in order to keep guns easily available. There were at most about 1000 late-term abortions per year in the US before 13 states outlawed it altogether, and that’s late term meaning after 24 weeks (not the baby in the middle of delivery you like to think about).
So late-term abortions are at absolute most 1000 per year, while gun deaths are 8000 per year. Every anti-gun control person thinks that 8000 is an acceptable side effect to keep their ability to have guns; why isn’t 8 times fewer deaths than that an acceptable side effect to keep bodily autonomy?
And we could do that on lots of other types of legislation. We accept upwards of 9000 deaths per year from food contamination, not from any lofty ideals of freedom, but just because we don’t want to pay more for our food or for government inspection, for example. Lives definitely have a trade-off value in this country, and you’ve accepted all of the ones that have a much higher death count than abortion. Why focus on the one that has the least collateral damage?
<sarcasm>Then I’d be curling in the foetal position and weeping for all eternity in hell.</sarcasm>
Seriously, was that the answer they were expecting?
And if you want to cry that I’m not making the proper comparisons, we can just stick solely with bodily autonomy, which means you decide what happens to your body.
About 6000 people per year in the US die waiting for organ transplants. Know what would eliminate that number? Making organ donation opt-out instead of opt-in. Making the default legal assumption that after you die, your organs can be used. But this country refuses to do that, even with keeping an opt-out so that it can be refused. We consider bodily autonomy of dead people important enough to allow 6000 people a year to die because we refuse to take the organs of dead people without their express permission.
So bodily autonomy of dead people is worth 6000 deaths per year.
But you don’t think the bodily autonomy of women is worth even 1/6 of that. Think about that for a moment. In this country, dead bodies are worth six times more than living women to about 40% of the population, including you.
Joey
No, they don’t; they’ve forfeited that right by coming into my house uninvited. If an unwanted intruder comes into my house, I believe I should have the right to take any steps necessary to remove them, up to and including killing them.
@carlie:
Your argument in comment #230 is brilliant. (But will likely go over the heads of pepole like Joey.)
Your argument in comment #232 is even better. (But will likely also go over the heads of people like Joey.)
Republicans like fetuses and the comatose because you can coopt them without worry of them speaking out. Like why Cartman fromSouthpark felt Clyde Frog was the ideal friend because he had no autonomy.
No, but something tells me that if you were honestly concerned about minimizing the occurrence of late-term abortions you’d want to know about such statistics. You’d want to know if outlawing it is effective, or if you should be looking for other solutions that don’t involve punishing women for being desperate. Because you wouldn’t want a law that on top of causing even more suffering to actual persons and violating their bodily autonomy… was also ineffective.
On the other hand, you totally wouldn’t want to know about such statistics if all you want is to punish women just for the sake of it. And you would, in fact, dismiss their importance because they “do not answer the question of whether abortion of a viable fetus is ethical or not”.
Am I right, joey?
Joey, do some real work now. Show us the number of third trimester abortions done solely for birth control, compared to those done to save the life of the woman, or for fetal deformity. Get it? Show that your scenario is anything other than mental masturbation on your part, that it has a true basis in reality.
Or are you really arguing the feus should be able to kill the woman, and that a woman must birth a deformed fetus?
While digging through that dreck last night, I came across the best anti-choice argument yet. Are you guys ready for it? Brace yourselves!
Steve Jobs invented computers.
Steve Jobs invented computers.
Steve Jobs invented computers.
Steve Jobs invented computers.
Nope, no matter how I write it, I just can’t seem to make it work.
And hey, since I’ve already Godwinned this thread: if Hitler’s mom had terminated her pregnancy, we wouldn’t have had the Holocaust. The “great man” argument works both ways. CRITICAL HIT, ANTI-CHOICERS!
Soo…those big things with blinking lights NASA used to calculate orbits when Steve Jobs was in shortpants were not computers?
Steve Jobs invented some things, stole some ideas for other things, was a brilliant entrepreneur an an asshole as a human being. But if he had been aborted someone else would have made analogous inventions eventually. For instance, the theory of evolution was discovered three times independently of each other.
Carlie, thank you for posting 230 and 232, and Nightjar for 236. You express so succinctly what the forced-breeder brigade are really about.
Oh, and joey? Show us your campaigns to make reliable contraception and fact-based sex-ed and healthcare freely available to all; show us the practical steps you’re taking to reduce the number of abortions you’re so worked up about by reducing the need for them in the first place. Except, you don’t actually care about that, do you. If you did, your priorities would be very very different.
I’m against abortion is because I know I’m enjoying not being aborted,
Oh for…I’m against abstinence because I’m enjoying being alive and I wouldn’t be if my parents hadn’t had sex. I’m in favor of the Holocaust because without it my step-mother-in-law would never have been born (her parents met in the resistance-seriously, they did) and I’m glad she was. When your argument can be used to justify the Holocaust it’s time to SERIOUSLY rethink it.
and I would no matter my quality of life. A “bad” life is better than no life at all.
Do NOT say things like this. It may be noted later. I’m serious and not trying to be mean or snarky here: If the writer were in a bad accident and had, for example, head and neck trauma that left him a quadraplegic and unable to communicate in any way and s/he left no other living will or indication of his/her wishes, the doctors involved in his/her care would be obliged to take this statement as definitive and continue aggressive care indefinitely. Including painful procedures, indefinite intubation, life in a bed unable to move when the folds in the bed irritate his/her body enough to cause sores…It’s not a pretty life and s/he may quickly decide that there is a quality of life s/he wouldn’t want to put up with. Never make this sort of judgement without considerable thought and always leave a loophole.
No, you don’t overlook the exceptions
Citation needed, Joey. All this babbling about how it’s POSSIBLE and I’ve yet to see you give one case example of a perfectly healthy woman aborting a perfectly healthy 8.5 month old fetus when she had access to abortion earlier in the pregnancy. I won’t call it impossible-people are strange and there are 7 billion of them out there-but I’ve never seen an example and certainly haven’t seen one from you.
Joey why did you lie before about being prochoice? And why did you try gotcha arguments while lying like that?
,blockquote>Oh for…I’m against abstinence because I’m enjoying being alive and I wouldn’t be if my parents hadn’t had sex.
Oh, that’s perfect! My mother got pregnant with me via premarital sex, so everyone must have premarital sex. :)
re: Carlie @ 230 & 232
I really wish I could give you flowers and homemade cookies right now. Well done.
What Joey really needs to discuss is how unethical it is of him to tell a grown woman what to do with her body. And how unethical it is for him to demote her status below that of a fetus….
My mother got pregnant with me via premarital sex, so everyone must have premarital sex. :)
I got pregnant through premarital* sex and was totally happy about being pregnant (apart from the physical side effects which I could have done without but was willing to put up with because I wanted to be pregnant) and am very happy to have a kid. Therefore, absolutely everyone should have to have premarital sex because it worked out well for me.
*Is it “premarital” if you’re not now married and never intend to me? Perhaps “nonmarital” would be a better term, but spellcheck says it’s not a word.
It takes a special kind of idiot (usually a male one) to assume that 9 months of pregnancy plus giving birth are an inaction.
The devil’s advocate needs to hand in his degree.
That’s probably because they couldn’t get an abortion around week 10 or so. I mean, never telling anybody you’re pregnant, hiding it from the world, going into labour all alone and hidden and completely helpless should anything go wrong is just something women (quite often young girls from religious families) do for the fun of it.
dianne
Think of it, my grandparents met when my great-grandparents visited their older daughter in French exile where my other great-grandparents and their children had fled, too.
I should be a Nazi!
SallyStrange:
Alright then. So are these 3rd trimester abortions ethical?
So, do you think such a scenario would be unethical?
Here’s what I think. I think aborting an 8.5 fetus is unethical. Therefore, I support laws that would criminalize such abortions. Just like I support laws that criminalizes dumping newborn infants in the dumpster. Doesn’t matter how rare these instances can be. I favor the laws to be there.
Your turn.
—————–
Coyote:
Isn’t a fetus that is outside the woman but still attached to the mother through the umbilical chord still technically part of the woman’s body?
——————
Nerd:
What makes you think I don’t think there are such laws? Of course there are laws criminalizing infanticide. Likewise, there are currently laws in the US that restrict late term abortions. So what’s your point?
——————
carlie:
You want to share a link that backs this statement up?
You’ve never heard of “intact dilation and extraction” procedures?
Your assumption is wrong. Oops.
——————–
Peggin:
But what if you allowed this “uninvited” guest to stay for a bit. You housed and even fed him for a certain length of time. But then you suddenly changed your mind about his welcomeness and want the person out. You have the right to change your mind, don’t you? You still think your unwanted guest doesn’t have a right to life?
———————
Nightjar:
Yes, I am interested in such statistics. But again, the statistics still don’t answer the question of whether it is ethical or not.
———————-
Nerd:
A woman can’t change her mind at any point during her pregnancy?
Joey: You obviously don’t care to participate in a discussion. So why do you care to type all this vapid bullshit in this comments section? And more importantly: Why should anybody else care?
By this argument, a woman gets maximum benefit by getting pregnant and then getting an abortion at the last minute.
Go fish, forced birthers!
@joey:
Is it unethical to kill aliens who decide to come into your home late one evening for some tea and cakes?
@scottjordan #231:
I don’t know. According to their own theology, my soul would either be sent right back to God, or I’d be placed in a new body. So what’s the big deal? Why be so concerned about sinful and corrupted meat?
*snorfle*
You’re talking to dianne?
*gets popcorn*
I did. It’s the same reference later on as to the number of abortions. You didn’t actually look at any of those links, did you?
Yes. Those are included in the numbers I gave. What’s the point? You know who is hurt by those procedures being banned? People like this woman, who would have died without it.
Ok, fine. Are you willing to spend as much time posting on NRA sites about how important gun control is? Do you vote for all anti-gun candidates? Do you spend time as an activist for food safety and standardized organ donation? Why pick this particular issue to obsess about?
You’ve never heard of “intact dilation and extraction” procedures?
Um…yes. They’re not what you think they are. Performing one on a woman in spontaneous labor would be…challenging. In fact, impossible unless she happened to be in labor with a breech, in which case she probably should have gotten a c-section by now. The one scenario where I can imagine it happening is if a woman labored unattended (or with incompetent attendants) with a footling breech and only presented to the hospital after the fetus was dead, sticking half way out of her vagina. Then it might be the safest procedure to perform. Other than that, a woman in spontaneous labor isn’t going to need a D and X. Just not even physically possible.
And still waiting for any evidence at all that this or any other procedure is being performed on healthy women with healthy fetuses at 8.5 months despite availability of earlier abortion options.
So according to this what-if logic, I should be anti-abortion.
Because if my great-grandmother had been able to get an abortion, then she wouldn’t have committed suicide in her 7th pregnancy. And then my grandmother wouldn’t have been forced to leave school at 14 to care for her 5 siblings, and she wouldn’t have met my grandfather at the same time (nor probably been so desperate to get married and away from her drunken father) and so my mother wouldn’t have been born, and thus neither would I. And it is ALL about me, so who cares about those other lives?
Other things that I should, by this logic, also be in favour of include:
* suicide
* alcoholism
* adultery
* child abuse
* pregnant women pulling coal-mine carts on their hands and knees for 12 hour days in the Victorian era.
And to get a bit more historically general and further away from my immediate family, I should also be in favour of the black plague, smallpox, and the massacres of the Australian Aborigines.
Because a woman who is eight and a half months pregnant might change her mind and seek an abortion, that would be unethical.
But, for someone who sees the world, and women, as Joey does, allowing women bodily autonomy is anathema because they might actually use that bodily autonomy in ways that make Joey uncomfortable and icky and Joey’s feelings outweigh the rights of every woman on earth because Joey has a penis.
Yes. Who are you to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body?
And your thoughts, your beliefs, are more important than those of a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy.
And how does one separate out the abortions performed because the woman may die without it and ones done for other reasons? Of course, that doesn’t matter because your feelings are more important than those of another adult human being because you have a penis.
So in your view, a woman terminating a pregnancy, for whatever reason, is fully comparable to a woman placing a live baby in a dumpster because, for whatever reason, she feels she has no choice? And you have, in the past, had the temerity to call yourself pro-choice.
You really have no fucking idea what you are talking about, do you? You just keep repeating these ridiculous just-so gothcha stories and have no idea what you are actually arguing.
This from the one who refuses back up anything.
Yes, or a woman no longer has bodily autonomy and is therefore denied her human rights.
Alethea, using that logic, I should be in favor of owning slaves. If the generations of slave owners were not tied to one plantation, my ancestors from two centuries ago would not have met and produced the linage that leads to me.
Joey the fuckwit:
Joey, what are the state laaws regarding third trimester abortions? That is your problem. You aren’t real. You are imaginary and delusional, hence pointless and irritating.
Nerd, if only joey were imaginary. It would not be necessary to invent him.
@joey
I’d like you to take another close look at Carlie’s nos 230 and 232, but this time try to answer the substance of them rather than quote mining.
BTW, do you own a car? Should car ownership be legal? How many innocent lives would be saved if we reduced your autonomy to just jump in and drive whenever you liked and maybe restricted everyone to essential journeys only… or perhaps a complete ban?
Giliell:
*steals a handful*
*leans back and munches happily, waiting for the fireworks to start*
Exactly, Janine. If it’s not insane troll logic then it’s narcissism gone wild. All of history must be ethically right – slavery, holocausts and all – because it led to PRECIOUS PRECIOUS MEEEEE!
Grumps, what if a woman decides not to reach her destination using a car and instead, rams it into a signpost?
Joey, show me it is ethical for you to tell another adult what they can or can’t do with their body. It is unethical for you to have any say. Show otherwise.
Janine,
I’m probably being really thick, but I don’t think I understand your question. If you could clarify I’d be happy to try and answer.
One word, Nerd!
Because a fertilized egg equals a fetus equals a viable fetus equals .
And babies have to be protected from a mother who just might be mislead by her lady parts and terminate the pregnancy.
Grumps, I was not asking you to explain anything. I was making fun of one of the things that joey said. I should have made that more clear. I am sorry I caused your confusion.
No problem Janine. Confusion is one of my default states… but that’s better than joey-like certainty, isn’t it?
Joey,
Once more and louder this time: A woman’s desire for an abortion is about ending her pregnany, not killing the fetus. If an infant had been delivered but was still attached by the umbilical cord, then the pregnancy is over.
Not a single one of us has promoted infaticide.
Joey
Well, to make your example even remotely analogous to an unwanted pregnancy, we’d need to add a few more details. So, we have to say this unwanted “guest” has somehow attached himself to my body, and in doing so he is altering my body; making me gain weight, pressing against my bladder, causing me to feel sick to my stomach, and other assorted “fun” side effects of pregnancy. Additionally, I have reason to know for a fact that he has no plans to remove himself for months on end. Also, I’m apparently living in a theoretical world with no government, which means I don’t have the option of calling the police and having the unwanted “guest” removed, so other than just letting him stay attached to my body until he’s ready to detach himself, killing him is the only way I can get rid of him… well then, YES, I do believe that killing him is a 100% justified way of getting rid of this particular unwanted guest.
But peggin, no periods. You forget that.
Wait a minute…
Joey, do you think that if no one was there to “cut the cord” when you were delivered that you’d still be attached to your mama?
Alethea, #257,
But I am in favour of suicide and alcoholism…
…well, technically I’m in favour of very, very gradual suicide by light to moderate pseudo-alcoholism, but let’s not split hairs. Or indeed hair splits.
;-)
Louis
Think of it, my grandparents met when my great-grandparents visited their older daughter in French exile where my other great-grandparents and their children had fled, too.
I should be a Nazi!
This game can really get out of hand…I should completely be for the Inquisition because if my many times ancestors hadn’t fled the Inquisition, they wouldn’t have met some other ancestors in the Americas and started the line that includes me. OTOH, I’m against genocide, because if they’d killed the locals rather than having sex with them, I wouldn’t exist. Whee! All things are moral if they led to ME!
Hum. That would mean that cutting the cord is a form of abortion. Which means that … which means …
*headexplode*
Yes! We definitely need another K-T event. Because the previous one led to ME!
Now, let’s start hauling those asteroids!
@279: Let me give you this internet you just won before the asteroids get here.
Screw that. It was the PT extinction that set the protomammals on the road to ME!
Janine,
Believe me, right now I’d be willing to trade being constantly kicked from the inside and the whoa! constant heartburn for cramps and crabbiness. At least with your period, you can take decent painkillers.
Janine
Oh, how could I have forgotten about that? Who cares about all the other fun symptoms of pregnancy if they can just not get my period! Because it’s not like I can just take a pill every day and avoid getting my period for the same nine months without all those other side effects.
</ sarcasm
I think that's gotta be the single stupidest anti-choice argument I've ever heard.
Preggin,
It’s like a contest to see if they can out-stupid the last post. I mean,
The ignorance is simply astounding, don’t you agree?
Or “peggin” if I was paying any bit of attention. *sigh* Sorry about that, I’ve got pregnancy on the brainz.
Joey, you’ve lost. Take your parting gifts and go home.
@81. Ogvorbis :
Don’t forget the Snowball Earth conditions that apparently led to the Cambrian explosion – provided certain current theories are right! (& being correctly remembered.)
Time to turn down the Sun, freeze most of the planet and revert to an environment inhabited mainly by trilobites everyone .. because that’ll lead to me and make everything alright. Won’t it?
joey @ 188;
This anology is flawed to say the least. Firstly, a bricks-and-mortar property that you own is in no way comparable to your own body – it is not as though you can sell off your vital organs and live to tell about it, or upgrade to a nice new body in the sun somewhere.
Equally, any person squatting in your house would still be a human being with all the attributes that are associated with a human capable of survival independent from the body of someone else. If they were evicted it would not kill them. Conversely, a non-viable foetus is not a person – it is not capable of survival outside the woman’s body and it is not conscious. Abortion is not comparable to eviction. It is better likened to the removal of an unwanted parasite. So once again, your analogy is fatally flawed.
If one uses the term ‘property’ in regard to one’s body, it is important to remember that it must be considered a special class of property, one which the law does not allow anyone else to claim ownership of. I covered this topic in my post @ 106;
The law does not recognise the definition of the body as just “another form of your own property” – it has very different legal status for a reason.
—————————————————————-
@ 190;
Your hypothetical of the abortion of a completely healthy, viable foetus in the ultra late term has has already been addressed repeatedly. Where the foetus is viable, it will be induced so late in the pregnancy (or otherwise delivered). If the foetus is not viable, then efforts will be mde to render it viable. The only circumstances where such ultra late term abortion (like the 8.5 month abortion mentioned elsewhere in the thread) would be performed would be where rendering the foetus viable is not possible or the foetus would either die in any case or be severely deformed, or if any attempt to deliver it would imperil the woman’s life.
Would you seriously argue for letting an adult woman die needlessly (most likley killing the foetus in the process in any case) or for forcing the woman to give birth to a dead, serverly deformed or non-viable foetus solely in the name of… what? Religion? A poor definition of ‘human life’ and its supposed ‘sanctity’? A toxic sexual pseudo-morality that seeks to punish women for having sex? Should not our first concern be the actual personhood of the actual woman, not the potential furture personhood of the foetus?
Again, I covered this in my post @ 106;
So, yes – I would argue that access to the means to terminate the pregnancy should be available to a woman at any point in that pregnancy, but in practice this would mean abortion in cases where the foetus is not viable or the mother’s health is in peril, and delivery by one means or another where the foetus is fully viable.
————————————————————–
@ 201;
Hypotheticals again? Do you have any actual examples of viable foetuses – that is foetuses that that are entirely capable of sustaining life outside the woman’s body – being aborted? I can’t think of any, so why fixate on something that either non-existant or incredibly rare? Other than as a means to construct a faux-moralistic excuse to try to restrict women’s access to abortion services far earlier in the pregnancy process, long before the foetus is viable? I mean, that is what all this is really about, isn’t it? Controlling women? Eliminating their bodily autonomy? Punishing them for violating archaic concepts of sexual morality? I can think of no other reason why the laughably entitled ‘pro-lifers’ would adopt the tack that they do. If they really cared about life, why not concern themselves with quality of life? Why not support proper sex education programmes and greater access to contraception? Why not fight for social healthcare policies? And yet all they focus on is abortion. It is almost as if they stop caring about the supposed ‘sanctity of life’ the moment the child is born and stops being a convenient way to control the bodies of women…
—————————————————————-
@ 206;
You are palying upon the ambiguity of the phrase ‘late term’ here. Anything post 24 weeks is called ‘late term’, but this is hardly the same as your preferred hypothetical of an abortion occurring just prior to birth. As has been noted before, late term abortions occur because the foetus is not viable or the woman’s life is in danger. You have yet to provide evidence of abortions of viable foetuses occuring in the late term as a means of birth control. Until you do so, your hypothetical questions bear little utility as anything other than idle thought experiments. They certainly form no basis upon which to deny women their bodily autonomy.
The dumping of newborns in such a fashion is a desperation measure brought about by society’s ridiculously judgemental attitude toward abortion. If abortion were more freely available, such incidences of abandonment would be sharply reduced, with a greater proportion of children being born actually being wanted.
Also, do not forget that the story does not start and end with the abandonment – what about the desperate women, having to go into hiding to give birth without proper medical care in case of complications, without pain-management and often without even a hygienic envornment in which to give birth? That, and the backstreet abortions that result in women dying needlessly in agony, is the face of the human cost of outlawing abortion outright or severely restricting access to it. You are so concerned about life? What about the lives of women? Don’t they count in your eyes?
—————————————————————-
@ 249;
Short answer – yes. As noted before, abortions at so late a stage are performed where the foetus is non-viable, the foetus is serverely deformed and the resulting child would have an intolerably low quality of life if it survived at all, or the woman’s health is imperiled.
To answer the question I think you want to ask – does a woman have the right to end her pregnancy in the third trimester? Again, the answer is yes. She can end her pregancny at any time, but as noted before where the foetus is viable it will be delivered and put up for adoption, where it is not viable then abortion is employed.
I can smell the strawmen burning from here…
The abortion of viable foetuses at 8.5 months is your hypothetical – you still haven’t demonstrated that it even happens at all, let alone that it is a basis for outlawing abortion ealier in the pregnancy.
No. legally speaking, once a child has been born it is considered to be an independent entity. The umbilicus is no longer sustaining life functions, and is usually cut as a matter of medical expediency.
This analogy still makes no sense. The ‘uninvited guest’ is still not dependent for hir continued existence on the house in question, unlike a foetus which is dependent on the woman’s body. Besides, as has already been established, your body is emphatically not ‘just another piece of property’ akin to a house.
Where exactly are you trying to go with this?
These statistics help demonstrate the real world impact of the policies in question, which helps us to assess their impact and thus to judge whether or not they are ethical in terms of consequentilist morality. If you are trying to invoke some other (perhaps theistic) measure of ethics, then you will find few sympathetic ears here.
The point Nerd was making is that you have not demonstrated that these late term abortions are being performed simply as a means of birth control, as opposed to being performed because the foetus was not viable, was severely deformed, or the woman’s health was in danger. Obviously, the woman can change her mind at any time, but as has been reiterated over and over again on this thread, where the foetus is viable it will be induced or otherwise delivered and then can be given up for adoption. Until you can demonstrate that viable foetuses are being aborted in the late term simply as a means of birth control, then your hypothetical bears no more relevance to the topic than introducing an argument about the relative morality of attempting to abort a xenomorph chestburster embryo…
Apologies for the lengthy post.
If that “guest” refused to leave when you asked, and assaulted you with biological and chemical weapons that does as much damage to your body as a placenta does to a woman’s body, then your right to self-protection gives you the right to use lethal force.
This “doesn’t have a right to life” thing is a pathetically transparent piece of dishonest misdirection.
Joey ignored my desperate need for his lung! He’s a murderer! A hypocritical, misogynistic murderer!
Audley
It really is astounding. Sometimes I want to ask these people how they don’t drown themselves in the shower.
No.
Not ethically, not legally, not conventionally, not even biologically.
The umbilical cord and placenta are genetically part of the fetus.
Is a child who has accidentally crazy-glued her hand to her mother’s leg technically part of her mother’s body, being attached to her mother through the hand?
Joey before you claimed to be prochoice and proinfanticide…why did you lie?
Better question: why are we actually taking serious someone who filled whole threads with blatent lies and cowardice?
Ogvorbis:
Alright then. I commend your consistency.
———-
Grumps:
I did. I’m not against gun control or opt-out organ donorship.
Audley:
But it’s still attached to the mother. Isn’t it biologically still part of the woman’s body?
————–
peggin:
Not true if you want your analogy to be apt.
—————
Audley:
Of course not. After a few minutes the placenta will be expelled. But before that event, the baby is still biologically attached to the woman. How can one argue that it’s still not part of the woman’s body?
Peggin,
I’ve heard (though I doubt that it’s true) that when it starts raining, turkeys will look up with their mouths agape and eventually down themselves. That’s the mental image I get from these clown shoes: “where is this water coming from? *gurgle*”.
Anyway, I’m willing to trade a month of incubating DarkFetus for a monthly menstrual cycle. Any takers?
Aborting a viable 8.5 month fetus is unethical. That’s why it is almost NEVER done, and induced birth is done instead. In fact, most 8.5 month normal, viable, but unwanted pregnancies are terminated by waiting a couple weeks and delivering normally, since it often takes that long to even arrange for an appointment to do an induced birth anyways.
Aborting a non-viable 8.5 month fetus IS completely ethical.
Third trimester abortions are any abortions done after 28 weeks. 8.5 months gestation is 36-38 weeks. Late abortions, depending on who is doing the classification, can be any abortion after 20-28 weeks.
Trying to conflate this three as being the same thing is monumentally dishonest.
Joey why do you lie?
joey
Really? Please explain to me this mythical way to end a pregnancy that doesn’t involve either waiting months on end for the fetus to “leave” or killing the fetus. (Please note, in my hypothetical, I was very specific that the unwanted “guest” wasn’t planning to leave for months, so we’re talking about an early-term, non-viable fetus here.)
Fucking amazing how the chess playing pigeon clings to the one part of his argument against abortion that does not occur in real life.
The hypothetical must be held in higher regard that the lives of women.
And simply because I love low comedy, I hope that joey brings back his argument that a woman would wait until she is in the process of birthing in order to have an abortion because she does not want sharp sticks in her.
It is not necessary to make laws that specifically cover things that happen so rarely that the law will almost never be applied.
It is a waste of limited time, effort, and resources, that can be better spent elsewhere.
For that tiny number of cases that do happen, an intelligent application of EXISTING LAWS (this is why we have JUDGES AND JURIES, not supercomputers with memory banks loaded with the laws, in our legal systems) as needed, is plenty sufficient.
No.
Anymore than you would be a part of my body if you superglued your index finger to me.
Oh god, I hate hair splitting.
In those few minutes when the infant has been delivered but is still attached, the pregnancy is over. Abortion is about ending the pregnancy and if you are dumb enough to argue that in this delivered-yet-still-attached case pregnancy is still occuring, then the pregnant woman could end the pregnancy by simply cutting the cord immediately. Abortion isn’t about destroying a fetus, why do you keep ignoring those of us who point this out?
Anyway, the infant is no longer dependent on its mother for nutrients/oxygen/whatever, even though the cord is present. So after delivery, it’s considered a seperate person. This isn’t rocket surgery, dumbass.
Biologically attached =/= still part of the body.
Anymore than you would be a part of my body if your index fingered were glued to me with a biological surgical glue.
NOPE. Only a presuppositional fuckwit who doesn’t understand the biology like yourself would think so. Once out, no longer part of the woman, and independent. End of story. You show otherwise….Or shut the fuck up about it….
Exactly. In fact, in this circumstance, if you insist that the baby is still part of the mother’s body, and the pregnancy is not over, and since abortion is a procedure that terminates a pregnancy, cutting the umbilical cord (and D and C’ing whatever portion of the placenta is still attached to the uterine wall) is a type of abortion.
The fact that the baby is unharmed by this hilights the reality that abortion is not about destroying a fetus.
Gregory Greenwood:
Focusing on these “non-existent or extremely rare” cases distinguishes whether the entire abortion debate is about personhood or bodily-autonomy. If it’s strictly the latter, then the most consistent position is that abortion (termination of the fetus) is not unethical at ANY point of the pregnancy, even the hypothetical 8.5 month viable and healthy fetus.
Anyways, I’d like to respond to the rest of your post but I have limited time throughout my day.
I don’t get it. How is this relevant to anything?
Are you trying to imply that in order to be consistent we should somehow be defending that mother’s right to kill the newborn because, uh, she has the right to end a pregnancy that for all purposes has already ended? Or the right to detach herself from the infant, which for some bizarre reason can’t be done by simply cutting the cord, but only by killing the baby?
You can’t possibly be this stupid.
@joey:
Since you’re here arguing hypotheticals that in no way compare to actual physical reality, tell me whether it’s ethical or not to murder an alien who comes into your bedroom late at night.
You only posted once between this post and carlie’s 230 and 232, and you didn’t even mention these posts in that post.
You’re lying.
And this is still not an answer to the SUBSTANCE of carlie’s two posts. You’re just making yet another deceptive, vague, mealy-mouthed and inaccurate reference to a bad analogy.
If your views on guns are consistent with your views on abortion, then you need to be much more than “not against gun control”. You need to be in support of making all guns illegal, everywhere, for everyone, all the time, and the manufacture of guns must also be illegal everywhere, for everyone, all the time.
If your views on organ donation are consistent with your views on abortion, the you need to be much more than “not against opt-out organ donorship”. You need to be in favor of mandatory organ donorship with NO opt-out option at all.
Which brings us back to the substance of carlie’s two posts and the two questions that you actually need to answer, which I will rephrase for your benefit, since you apparently have trouble with long chains of logic.
1) Is a woman’s right to bodily autonomy LESS THAN, EQUAL TO, or GREATER THAN, a corpse’s right to bodily autonomy?
2) Is a woman’s right to bodily autonomy LESS THAN, EQUAL TO, or GREATER THAN, a gun owner’s right to own a gun?
Wrong, chess playing pigeon. You fucking focus on this so you do not have to deal with blood and guts women.
You have limited time to deal with real women.
Then give me your lung. Or admit you’re a murderer, just like you pretend women who get abortions are murderers.
And yes, 3rd trimester abortions are ethical, as they are performed to remove non-viable fetuses to save the actual living, breathing humand beings. We call them ‘women’. You call them ‘incubators don’t deserve the autonomy I enjoy’.
Nightjar! I haven’t seen you around lately! *waves*
I really admire Joey’s cherry picking ability. Goes right up their with the lies and the misogyny. Nice trifecta.
*sigh*
Abortions of healthy fetuses are not performed because the woman wants the fetus dead, you moron, they are performed because the woman wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. If the fetus is viable and delivery is possible, that’s what’s done in order to terminate the pregnancy.
joey
Wrong. The right to bodily integrity doesn’t mean the woman has the right to terminate the fetus at any point in the pregnancy, it means she has the right to terminate the PREGNANCY at any point in the pregnancy. Now, in most cases, terminating the pregnancy has the unavoidable side effect of terminating the fetus as well, but that is not the primary objective of the abortion. So, in the case of your hypothetical healthy woman who is 8.5 months pregnant with a healthy, viable fetus who just decides, on a whim, to terminate the pregnancy, the most reasonable way to do that would be to induce labor and deliver a premature baby. There’s no need to terminate the fetus and, by having the option to end the pregnancy whenever she wants to, the woman’s right to bodily integrity remains intact.
Actually it is about both. A fetus isn’t a person, which doesn’t happen until it is outside and breathing on its own, and bodily autonomy of the woman is paramount and trumps that of the fetus at every step of the prgnancy. You haven’t shown otherwise, just muddied the waters with irrelevant fuckwittery.
Joey, please name any state in the US that allows abortions for birth control in the third trimester.
CHILDBIRTH. DOESN’T. WORK THAT WAY.
Fucking idiot.
No it doesn’t.
You’re being deliberately dishonest again.
The abortion debate is and always will be, ABOUT BOTH. Is is about weighing bodily autonomy against personhood and potential personhood when these two values are incompatible.
I will summarize the scenarios and the pro-choice position for you again, to help make it clearer (not so much for you, as I have little hope that you will honestly consider any of this, but for others observing)
1. Early term fetus/embryo. Fetus is NOT a person. Potential personhood of the fetus is relatively low. Woman’s right to bodily autonomy trumps low potential personhood of fetus. Abortion is ethical. (Note that the woman’s right to bodily autonomy DOES NOT extend to absolute control over HOW the abortion is performed – she is only allowed to choose from among the options that a doctor deems to be medically appropriate)
2. Late term non-viable fetus. Fetus is NOT a person. Potential personhood of fetus higher, but limited by non-viability. Woman’s bodily autonomy trumps potential personhood of fetus. Abortion is ethical.
3. Late term viable fetus. Potential personhood of fetus very high, approaching equality to woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Induced live birth satisfies BOTH. Therefore, if possible, induced live birth is the MOST ethical option. Again, the right to bodily autonomy extends to the right to end the pregnancy but NOT to the absolute right to choose exactly how the pregnancy is ended. If induced live birth/cesaerean is NOT possible (which is very rare), then abortion is ethical, because bodily autonomy still trumps potential personhood.
4. Baby still attached by umbilical cord. Baby is now a person. Personhood of baby EQUALS bodily autonomy of mother. But the two are no longer in conflict. Cutting the umbilical cord (or simply just waiting for the cord to detach on its own) satisfies BOTH.
No it isn’t.
You’re being deliberately dishonest yet again.
IF the fetus is viable, then “intact dilation and extraction” is induced live birth.
“Intact dilation and extraction” as an abortion procedure is ONLY indicated for NON-VIABLE late term fetus.
If it is used elsewhere, then this is an issue separate from the abortion debate – it becomes an issue of medical malpractice (as are all cases where a medical procedure is performed when it is not indicated).
In other words, you just want to hound us into saying ‘Killing babies is OK!’ so you can yell “CHECKMATE, PRO-CHOICERS!” and applaud yourself like a trained circus seal.
You don’t get to decide what distinguishes “Whether the entire abortion debate is about personhood or bodily autonomy”, you stupid, privileged, smug, misogynistic fuck.
*waves back at Audley*
Too many things happening in my life all at once, little time to catch up, so I stayed mostly at Sb where comment threads didn’t move so fast. Things have calmed down in real life now, though, so hopefully you’ll be seeing me around here more often.
Oh, and congratulations on the DarkFetus! I see I’ve missed a lot.
joey @ 307;
As has been pointed out by peggin @ 316 among many others, the purpose of an abortion is to end the pregnancy, not destroy the foetus. That a non-viable foetus is usually destroyed as an unavoidable consequence of terminating a pregnancy does not alter the fact that the right of the woman in control of her bodily autonomy in this context is the right to end the pregnancy, and the loss of the foetus is merely a side effect of that. Where the foetus is viable, it can and is delivered rather than aborted.
Also, bodily autonomy is a fundamental component of personhood. To deny a person their bodily autonomy – to tell them that their own flesh belongs to the church/state/society – is by definition a denial of their personhood. Thus outlawing abortion is an attack on the personhood of all women by effectively stating that the bodies of pregnant women ‘belong’ to society at large. Only chattels can be owned, and people are no longer considered to be chattel. The whole slavery thing sort of soured the idea of owning humans.
And again – a foetus that is incapable of survival outside the woman’s body and is not conscious cannot, by any rational measure, be called a ‘person’ any more than sperm and eggs are people, or skin cells are people, so talking about the ‘personhood’ or ‘bodily autonomy’ of a foetus makes no more sense than talking about the ‘personhood’ or ‘bodily autonomy’ of hair follicles.
And now to address the most disturbing aspect of your post – you admit that this is about using rare events or non-existent hypotheticals to try to deny women access to abortion entirely. You do realise how many preventable deaths of actual people with actual personhood, not foetuses with only potential personhood, that would cause? Real women would die, in horrendous agony in many cases, all in the name of preventing your pet hypothetical that you cannot even demonstrate happens in any case. Don’t you see how horrific that is? Don’t you see how what you are proposing denies the very humanity of women and treats them as simply biological incubators? Doesn’t that trouble your conscience at all?
Or wait a week or two and deliver normally.
Joey doesn’t seem to realize, as well, that a significant fraction of 8.5 month pregnant women are already (or very soon will be) going into contractions and about to deliver, and a significant fraction of 8.5 month fetuses have already been naturally born and are babies.
Or that 8.5 weeks = about 37 months, and pregnancies 37-42 months are considered term, and by definition you do not do abortions for term infants. Pregnancy is terminated by either induced birth (live or not), caesarean section, or regular labor and delivery.
There is, by medical definition, no such thing as an abortion past 8.5 months.
Nightjar,
Thanks for the well wishes!
It’s good to have you back.
If it’s strictly the latter, then the most consistent position is that abortion (termination of the fetus) is not unethical at ANY point of the pregnancy, even the hypothetical 8.5 month viable and healthy fetus.
The question of whether it’s unethical, in your opinion, is not relevant. The question is is/should it be legal. I happen to think that it’s unethical to promise to donate blood/tissue/organs and then back out. It’s a jerk move. But I also think it should be 100% legal because it’s more unethical to prevent people from controlling their bodies than it is to risk having the occasional person back out of an organ donation.
I know it was a Tpyo, but I still imagine Audley screaming, “NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!” at the thought of a 37 to 42 month pregnancy.
Gregory Greenwood: Glad to see I wasn’t the only one disturbed by Joey taking the authority unto himself to distinguish “whether the entire abortion debate is about personhood or bodily-autonomy”
What a smug, arrogant piece of utter SHIT. Hey Joey, the world doesn’t need another authoritarian fuckwad thinking he’s qualified to decide if people have the ‘right’ reasons for making decisions about their own body.
Seriously. Your existence is completely unnecessary.
It was a subconscious typo at that. Whatever bunch of medical “experts” who decided way back when that it would be a good idea to communicate pregnancy durations in both months and weeks at the same time need to be found with a time machine, and strangled.
Not so much disturbed as nodding knowingly and checking off another box in the “stupid troll” bingo list.
When attempting to defend the indefensible, to argue for that which is clearly wrong, the only option is to redefine the terms of the debate into something that one CAN argue about.
They all do it, the creationists, libertarians, MRAs, anti-choicers, all of them.
“I reject your reality and substitute my own!” was meant in jest, but underlying the joke is a very real insight into how the human mind works.
Because he’s trying to defend an undefendable position. Acknowledging you would make that even more difficult for him.
He is nothing more than a contemptible piece of noise, not worthy of any response save ridicule.
(Of course that won’t stop people from giving it to him anyway, this being the Internet and all that.)
Oggie and Amphiox,
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!
*collapses in a heap!*
*sobs!*
Another example of joey trying to redefine the terms of the debate into something he can actually argue about. If he stuck with the “legal” argument for too long, he would have to face the fact that his stand on abortion is completely contradictory to everything he has ever said or claimed or posted here concerning other issues of legality vs ethicality.
You can try to take some small comfort, for what its worth, that humans don’t have gestations like elephants, or whales….
Would someone like to get this for joey?
But, Audley, no periods. For 37 to 42 months. How can you say no to that?
I think we should kidnap joey and strap him to the light fitting in a delivery room of a busy maternity hospital. We should leave him there for some time – 8.5 months, anyone?
Rhetorical question: does anyone think that knowing what he was talking about would help?
The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa) @ 329;
I do find it disturbing that such heinous, dehumanising attitudes toward women are so commonplace but, like Amphiox @ 331, I am sad to say that I no longer find it surprising.
Yet more depressing proof that privileged, uncritical misogyny is not only alive and well in 2012 – it is thriving…
Nightjar,
So you’re saying that I’m looking a gift horse in the mouth?
And by that time, your ‘glow’ would light the world!
One reason I’ve been harping at Joey to show that it is legal to have an abortion for purposes of birth control only in the third trimester is get him to acknowledge it is at present illegal in the US. Ergo, his whole argument is nothing but hot air, as the legal ramifications are in place. All third trimester abortions are done for saving the life of the woman, or in cases of fetal defects, but this goes agains his fuckwitted logic of when does one stop aborting. And we all knew it was nothing but a precursor to stopping all abortions, even previability. Anti-choice fuckwits are so transparent, and so deceptive. The utter lack of ethical behavior Joey has shown with his whole temper tantrum is tremendous. I wouldn’t do or believe anything he says because of it.
Don’t bother. You’ve lost. You got nothing. Leave pregnant women alone.
No, Rey Fox. Joey must make sure that mothers not act in an unethical manner and demand that the fetus dangling on the cord outside their bodies are not
Regarding the house guest analogy, where one houses and feeds him and then kicks him out, I’m not sure this works. Most people never know when an unplanned pregnancy begins. I would think of the foetal house guest more as an invading animal like a rat or squirrel.
My cousin keeps rats as pets. She thinks they’re wonderful and would never contemplate getting rid of one. This, even though they kick their wood shavings everywhere and smell. And scare the hell out of my Mam.
I have no pets, but if I discovered that I had a rat in my house, eating my food and digging holes in my carpet, I would seriously consider getting rid of it.
If there was a law saying that I could not get rid of the uninvited rat, because it’s mean to kill the fluffy beady eyed little squeaker because it’s soooo cuuuuute, and because it’d already made a cosy nest and therefore had as much right to my house as I did, I’d be somewhat peeved. Wouldn’t you?
joey,
do you drive a car?… If so you’re a fucking murderer.. why not ban them?
This would only apply to the situation where a woman deliberately decides to get pregnant and have a child, goes through all the necessary preparations, and then, several months in, changes her mind.
How common is that? A wanted, PLANNED pregnancy is almost always preceded by a lot of forethought and consideration. Committing to having a child is committing to rearranging your entire life – emotionally, socially, economically, everything. Few people will go through that degree of soul searching and decision making and just change their minds, unless they were never sure to begin with.
joey probably wanted it to be an analogy for pregnancy after consensual sex (obliquely going for the punishing the slutty women angle), but of course it doesn’t work for that.
a 37 to 42 month pregnancy.
If (human) pregnancies lasted 37-42 months, I’d be one of Joey’s women who get an abortion at 8.5 months…of course, if pregnancy lasted an average of 40 months, that’d be first trimester.
I’ve felt sorry for elephants since hearing that their pregnancies last 18 months. But 18 months with no periods…
Dianne: I hope I’m not wrong, but I kind of assume elephants have a slightly easier time of it… for instance, they have four walking limbs to support the added weight, and a horizontal spine. I’m not sure about the pelvic canal mechanics of elephant birth, but I have a feeling it’s slightly less complicated than a human’s.
Thanks, Amphiox – I wasn’t quite clear enough and you fantastically closed that little loophole.
Non sequitur: I keep reading “peggin” as “peggle” and envisioning you as a unicorn who disperses rainbows and happiness.
Joey, did you read the link I put in #255? Here it is again. READ IT.*
Here’s the thing with outlawing certain types of abortion: when you do that, it makes it impossible to get not just for the slutty irresponsible women you want to punish, it also makes it impossible to get for the woman like the one in the story, who would literally have died otherwise. Because illegal is illegal. And even if you write an exception in for saving a woman’s life, who will perform it? An illegal procedure won’t be taught in medical school. No new doctors will even know how to do it. Any doctor who already does know how to do it will avoid it, because of the potential to be charged with an illegal activity, because it’s never entirely clear what proof will be required to show that it was the only option. Outlaw it, and women. will. die.
Sorry, dangling asterisk. I was going to summarize it, and decided fuck it, it’s not that long. Go read it.
Joey doesn’t care about any sluts that die. He wants to save babez and collateral damage is just too bad. Besides, if the sluts didn’t want to have babez then they shouldn’t be fucking.
Yay, Nightjar! Nice to see you again! o/
carlie @350 — Yes, that’s exactly how I’d describe myself: a unicorn of rainbows and happiness! LOL!
Unicorn? Rainbows?
Here you go! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxHhBx1FtLQ
Hi, Weed Monkey! Nice to see you too!
joey #249
Is this the same fuckhead who pulled this shit in the last abortion thread? Went on and on about can you kill a baby that’s still attached to the mother.
Would someone like to get this for joey?
404
:(
JAL: Probably.
I’m not interested in even addressing Joey’s idiotic hypothetical ‘gotchas’. Even giving ‘good faith’ answers lends them more legitimacy than they deserve. (not that I’m disagreeing with others who choose to answer them in good faith… you’re doing good work here)
Joey is here for one reason and one reason only: To paint women who take control over their own reproduction and their own bodies as cold heartless murderers, or at best, like stupid hamsters that need to be prevented from eating their own offspring.
Now go piss up a rope, you sack of misogynist feces.
I must have missed it.
surely someone has noted that Joey is presenting nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy, right?
…in focusing on the outlier examples, and then trying to make everyone conclude that if we don’t make those illegal, then EVERYTHING WILL COLLAPSE!!!!
it’s fucking classic slippery slope.
It is! I found him in this thread
This argument has been had before. It’s not going to go anywhere since he’s a fuckhead trying to play gotcha.
Ichthyic: I didn’t notice at first actually… but now that you mention it…
I suppose I was focusing too much on the way Anti-Womaners like to imply that pro-choice people are pro choice because they like killing babies.
I wonder if something similar to a partial-birth abortion procedure could be used to remove Joey’s head from his asshole? Or should we just stick to the heavy laxatives?
I wonder if something similar to a partial-birth abortion procedure could be used to remove Joey’s head from his asshole? Or should we just stick to the heavy laxatives?
no, I think it’s time for the Cattle Prod.
Good, Ichthyic, because I couldn’t quite figure out where or how to administer the laxatives.
The Damn. Funnel. Just. won’t… FIT!
Ichthyic, #361,
Do we have to post it to have noticed it? Is it post or it didn’t happen? Or do we have to trawl backwards through the endless fucking nightmare of other abortion threads for where someone almost certainly mentioned that Joey was being a slippery slopist?
Can’t we just have him humanely put to rest, after all, since I am pro-abortion, my slope must surely slip to homicide right? Can’t I just kill one little pro-lifer? Just one? A quiet one that no one would really miss? Oh go on. I promise I won’t ask again…
…fuck it. I am really failing this pacifism thing today. Must be because I accidentally got a dose of the Vox.
Louis
I’m not feeling very pacifist either, Louis.
TLC, #366,
Oh it will fit. If I learned anything from my cousin the mechanical engineer it’s that anything, ANYTHING, will fit ANYWHERE with the application of the right, carefully and professionally, selected hammer.
This case?
20lb iron lump hammer, minimum. Repeated use.
Louis
Greased with fat rendered from embryonic stem cells, no doubt.
Greased with fat rendered from embryonic stem cells
just so!
heh
And if our hypothetical corpses didn’t want to have their organs harvested for donation, they shouldn’t have been doing whatever it was that turned them into brain-dead, beating-heart organ donors (seat belts break just as condoms can – you get into a car you are implicitly consenting to the slight possibility of being ejected out of a collision and ending up brain dead).
But joey STILL hasn’t answered carlie’s question about mandatory organ donation.
Is it post or it didn’t happen? Or do we have to trawl backwards through the endless fucking nightmare of other abortion threads for where someone almost certainly mentioned that Joey was being a slippery slopist?
yes.
but only because I’m wagering that it was me again.
:)
(I’m very good at stating the obvious!)
ichthyic, there’s something wrong with blogspot links for non-US people at the moment. But it’s at the blogspot end, there’s nothing anyone can do here. TO see it, follow the link; get the 404; swap joemygod for www in the URL; reload.
Joey seems to be ignoring the fact that the beginning of a pregnancy is not nearly the same as the end of the pregnancy. Creating a baby is a process. By saying a fetus may be a person at 8.5 months does not imply that it was a person at 8.5 weeks.
By fixating on late term abortions, which do not happen nearly as often as he thinks, and are usually only done in extreme circumstances which he has absolutely no right to judge, he’s able to circumnavigate his arguments against abortions at earlier stages.
Yes.
Joey, why do you feel the need to lie?
If joey remains here and tries to pull the same shit, I’m just going to copy paste responses to him from the Irresponsible Humans thread (with link of course). Honestly, he’s such a waste of time and space. He failed to get us with his gotcha so he’s going to try again. His masks has already slipped in this thread and slipped so many times in the Irresponsible Humans thread.
So joey is pulling the same odious schtick as txpiper did back at the old sciblogs site, of popping into new threads with recycled arguments hoping it would not be noticed that they had already been dismantled in the older thread?
Color me unsurprised.
These trolls are all the same.
I just had a quick scan of the Irrational Humans thread Just_A_Lurker linked to @ 363, and Joey really does seem to be regurgitating, in some cases almost word-for-word, the same arguments that have already been comprehensively debunked in that thread, right down to the ludicrous hypotheticals and fuzzy definitions of ‘human life’ that he sucks out of his thumb.
It seems pretty clear that he is not arguing in good faith.
No question. His gotcha fantasies are rather disturbing. Not to mention repetitive. I think xe may be a might bit pissed that no one is falling for his gotchas.
Amphiox:
So aborting a viable fetus is unethical. Hmmm.
—————-
peggin:
So what happens if the woman decides to terminate her pregnancy at 25 weeks? 24 weeks is generally considered the point where the fetus becomes viable. So at 25 weeks, what are the woman’s options? Does she have to induce birth to a VERY premature baby, risking numerous complications to the development of the infant, not to mention accruing exorbitant NICU medical costs.
More dishonest attempts at ‘Gotchas’ from Joey, misogynist douchebucket.
Why can’t you comprehend that people have the right to bodily autonomy? Why is that so fucking hard for you? Why do Anti-Woman scum like you insist on trying to impose your sick religious agenda on people, through legislation if possible?
Joey, why do you hate women? Did you know that your mother is a woman? Why do you hate her, Joey? Why do you think she doesn’t deserve the right to control her own body?
Who gives a shit what an ignorant fuckwit like you thinks? Or rather, can’t think due to head up its ass…
Who the fuck gave you premission to ask more inane fuckwitted questions? Who the fuck gave you permission to think at all….All you have is bullshit, if you can’t speak clearly what your thesis is…
Sorry to say this True Christians ™ but you know in your heart I speak the truth: if we find anything on Mars with a heart beat you will have it killed and the entire planet sterilized because your God only allows True Christians ™ to live on this planet.
And Joey, who the fuck gave you permission to come between a woman and her doctor? Recent signed letter from your imaginary deity, or shut the fuck up, as you have no business, ethical or otherwise in their decisions….
joey
Under my world, the answer is easy — the woman should decide, in consultation with her doctor, what she wants to do, what’s in her best interest, what’s medically possible or advisably. It’s only in your world, where you think the government should have a say over these matter, where the question of “who decides” is even an issue.
It’s easy to discuss passing laws where the answer is clear cut, like your earlier ridiculous example of an imaginary woman who is 8.5 months pregnant and just decides on a whim to end her pregnancy right that moment rather than waiting another couple of weeks. But it’s the very fact that people like you will then go on to say, “Yes, but what about at 36 weeks? 35? 34? 33?” that makes me despise the idea of ANY laws regulating abortion, even at 8.5 months. Because letting the government pass any laws at all is the real slippery slope. Once it becomes acceptable for the government to regulate a pregnant woman’s uterus, how long is it going to take for them to start telling us how we need to eat and sleep and live our daily lives before getting pregnant, because we have to make sure we’re good healthy little incubators in case we should happen to get pregnant.
But I will answer one part of your question, about who should pay for the medical costs if the woman was required to give birth to a severely premature baby. YOU SHOULD. You are the one forcing the woman to make that choice, so you should be the one to pay for the medical costs. And not just while the baby is in the NICU, but for the rest of that baby’s life.
QFMFT
You want say Joey, take real responsibility for your fuckwittery. Or shut the fuck up, which is always an option…
TO see it, follow the link; get the 404; swap joemygod for www in the URL; reload.
ah, that was worth it.
thanks.
I wonder if this will work, just to see the pic.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gou128fufgA/T9DRq6vcZdI/AAAAAAABZf8/DWQ7WNqj8iQ/s400/ItsMyPussy.jpg
Peggin said:
This. This this this this-ity THIS.
NICU is just the beginning for most preemies — we kind of tend to have issues stemming from being born premature, like, oh, cerebral palsy, blindness, seizures… and that’s if –IF– we’re lucky enough to make it out of NICU in the first place.
It’s easy to discuss passing laws where the answer is clear cut, like your earlier ridiculous example of an imaginary woman who is 8.5 months pregnant and just decides on a whim to end her pregnancy right that moment rather than waiting another couple of weeks. But it’s the very fact that people like you will then go on to say, “Yes, but what about at 36 weeks? 35? 34? 33?” that makes me despise the idea of ANY laws regulating abortion, even at 8.5 months. Because letting the government pass any laws at all is the real slippery slope. Once it becomes acceptable for the government to regulate a pregnant woman’s uterus, how long is it going to take for them to start telling us how we need to eat and sleep and live our daily lives before getting pregnant, because we have to make sure we’re good healthy little incubators in case we should happen to get pregnant.
again, and much shorter:
slippery slope.
I would rather be aborted then have sadomasochistic, misogynistic, vagina dictating, vagina-pain mongering men like joey or one of his christian pro-forced birth buddies as a father. Pro-forced birthers on the same power trip as the man who sexually abused me as a little girl. joey do you think women and little girls who get pregnant by way of rape should be forced to stay pregnant and breed with their rapist? Joey, you and your pro-forced birth christian buddies do not own my vagina! You and your christian buddies remind me of my childhood rapist, he was a vagina dictating, vagina pain mongering misogynistic monster too.
This is what i have learned from the pro lifers and christians, little girl rape is pro-family and pro-life. People who hate rape, hate forced birth.
Minnie: Right the fuck on.
Minnie,
Right on the money. I’d also copy the first sentence, and make one change for us men:
I couldn’t live with myself if I were like that.
Louis
Louis you are a sweetie, thank you!
Ichthyic, #373/4,
Bastard! ;-)
Louis
P.S. It probably was you. But I’m claiming prior noticing despite the fact that I can’t prove it with
lab booksposts. ;-) It’s just True™. Newton/Leibniz?Now that people seem to be very alert about ableism and mentalism around here at this time, on a slightly related note, I want to point out that sadomasochists are a sexual
minority(?)group associated with much stigma.Using “sadomasochistic” as an insult does not make that stigma any better.
Lars,
Oh dear. I had some sympathy for you. Doubling down isn’t going to cut it. All the porcupines coming your way are going to be fully deserved.
Louism
Something tells me you’re not taking this seriously, and you believe that I’m not either. You’re wrong.
Doubling down? Fuck you!
(Correction: “Fuck you too!”)
I am a sexual sadist/dominant and I refuse to be ashamed of it, even though people like you seem to do your best to keep it that way.
jesus that was stupid
[meta]
Lars:
Lars, when you sexually, sadistically dominate someone, do you first get consent?
(You sure you want to chastise Minnie for such a terminological peccadillo, when the rest of the comment made it exceptionally clear what it was about?)
—
Minnie, I heard you clear. FWIW.
FFS joey the gotcha tactic doesn’t work when everyone lnows about it and is telling you that your a lying dick. Congrads it took how many hundreds of comments before you finally bullied someone into giving the response you wanted. Go away now.
Lars,
{facepalm}
The comments that Minnie and I made does not use sadomasochism as an insult in the manner of an ad hominem. Sadism and masochism are also not restricted/limited to sexual matters, mental illness is restricted to mental illness, shock horror.
Lars, you doubled down because you’re being a fucking idiot. The choice to not be a fucking idiot is YOURS.
No one is trying to shame your sexual preferences. Engage in sexual sadomasochism all you like, with my blessing and encouragement and full throated support. Sadism, masochism and sadomaschist acts are not limited to that subset of those acts that are sexual. The comments made qualified what sort of sadism/masochism/sadomasochism was under scrutiny, i.e. that which relates to abortion denial.
People who gleefully deny vital medical interventions to other people and who revel in the pain of those people are engaging in an act of sadism independent from sexual sadism in principle. People who do the same thing and revel in the pain of themselves are engaging in an act of masochism independent from sexual masochism in principle. It’s fuck all to do with sexual sadism/masochism/sadomasochism.
Calling someone a “schizo” or even a “paranoid delusional” (although paranoia has more colloquial uses too, it’s greyer than the others perhaps) or “bipolar” as an insult or ad hominem dependent on the precise usage, designed to borrow from the negative qualities associated with mental illness. It’s a deliberate call to that stigma. I.e. with no actual ability to diagnose these conditions this is borrowing specific “terms of the art” in medicine and apply them in order to denigrate the target individual.
Louis
Same to you, Rev. BDC. Same to you.
Yes.
Did I chastise Minnie? Are you really, really sure about that?
Sadomasochism is, though. Look it up.
See above.
The only definition of “sadomasochism” I can find, that is not related to sexuality, is as a psychiatric disorder. And you were saying…?
peggin:
But this is what you said before in #316…
So according what you say here, it seems like the woman only has two options once a healthy fetus reaches viability:
1) Terminate the 25-week pregnancy, resulting in a very premature baby.
2) Continue on with the 25-week pregnancy.
Are there any other options? Do you still think the woman doesn’t have the right to terminate the fetus at any point in the pregnancy?
Again, the only consistent position if you truly want to advocate no abortion restrictions at all is that the woman maintains the right to terminate the fetus at ANY point in the pregnancy. That is essentially the view stated by Ogvorbis in #259 and I commended him/her for that consistent stance.
About the psychiatric disorder definition, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReviseF65
Lars,
Your ignorance is not binding on me, and no, sadomasochism is not restricted to sexual matters.
Louis
Lars @ 397;
Given the context of minnie’s comment, I think the meaning was pretty clear. Perhaps the phrase ‘sadist’, used in its original meaning as a person who enjoys the infliction of pain on others, would have been preferable to ‘sadomasochist’ which has a modern connotation of alternate sexuality.
It is also worth noting that sadomasochistic sexuality is not unproblematic, given its connotations of dominance, and that there are cases where such a relationship can be used as a cover for outright abuse. There are regular commenters on Pharyngula who have experienced relationships where consensual sadomasochism has degenerated into abuse, and as sensitive I and many other commenters here are to any language that may be discriminatory or othering, their experiences cannot simply be discounted either.
[meta]
Lars:
<sigh>
Good as: you quoted someone and implied they were not helping your stigma.
(You really don’t get my play with words, do ya?)
Joey:
I again congratulate you on your cherry picking skills.
Now shut the fuck up and knock of the childish ‘gothcha’ games.
Then I suppose it would be easy for you to back that up with sources.
I’m not in a playful mood right now.
You forget fuckwit, the right runs up against medical ethics and legalities, and can’t be viewed in vacuum except by the terminally stupid like you. So, in effect we are right that the right should be there. You are wrong in that abortion can occur at 8.5 months for reasons of birth control. Which is why your fuckwittery is stupid shit, bad philosphy, a nd argument from ignorance. And your inability to define the situations properly is utter and totall fuckwittery on your part..
I’m curious about the non-modern connotations of the word “sadomasochist” that you seem to allude to. Care to enlighten me?
Was that an “I know you are but what am I”?
Lars your comment was stupid for the reasons Louis laid out above. Sadomasochism is not relegated to the sexual proclivities of some of its practitioners. There are real sadomasochists out there who take joy in hurting people who aren’t sexual willing partners. Which is why minnie used it in that way.
Your comment claiming that’s what was being used as demeaning descriptor and was then an insult to you shows you to be a big fucking moron.
And you trying to use this to support some other idiotic argument you were losing reeks of desperation.
And stupidity.
Hence my comment.
You’re welcome.
The same can be said about the term “homosexuality”.
So aborting a viable fetus is unethical.
So what if it is? Many unethical acts are perfectly legal. KKK rallies are unethical, but they are legal. Backing out after agreeing to donate tissue is pretty ethically shaky, but it’s legal.
In this case, there are two acts that are arguably unethical going on. Using someone’s body for your convenience against their will is definitely unethical and the fetus is doing that if the pregnant woman does not want to be pregnant. Is aborting a 25 week old, healthy fetus unethical? You might say so. I might say so, but only under certain conditions: 1. There is no medical necessity and no change in circumstances that makes continuing the pregnancy an unreasonable risk. 2. Abortion is freely available to all in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. In other words, not just legal, but available at any OB/Gyn’s office and free or very inexpensive. And no ridiculous restrictions like waiting periods or parental consent are put in the way of access.
Obviously, the conditions I outlined are not met in the US. But supposing they were. Now, in the case of a woman who is 25 weeks pregnant and doesn’t want to be, you have two entities both of which wish to commit an unethical act. In that case, I’d say the benefit of the doubt should go to the pregnant woman and the abortion be allowed. We don’t know the level of consciousness of a 25 week fetus, but we do know that the pregnant woman is aware and will actively suffer if we force her to continue the pregnancy. Therefore, her needs should come first.
Lars @ 416;
I was actually alluding to the original meaning of the pharse ‘sadist’ which, as I am sure you are aware, references the name of the Marquis de Sade, the infamous sixteenth century libertine whose absolute embrace of a personal freedom with no concept of personal moral responsibility lead to him being accused of various actions that were criminal at the time – some that today we would consider perfectly legal and acceptable, such as homosexuality, but others that are clearly problematic, such as the wholly non-consensual abuse of women.
Thus, the original meaning of ‘sadist’ is distinct from the contemporary meaning of ‘sadomasochist’, which is (when properly performed in a functional relationship) a sexual behaviour which strongly emphasises full consent and places the power to determine how far the encounter goes in the hands of the notionally submissive partner.
I apologise for my poor communication of this concept in my earlier post.
Lars:
<snicker>
I didn’t claim you were, O chastiser.
When did homosexuality stop being a sexual proclivity? :)
(… and I mean that as a comment about your argument. Not as a comment about homosexuality. I just felt the need to clarify that, for some completely fucking infathomable reason.)
Lars,
It sure would, but since all you’re trying to do is play some immature game of tu quoque (as if I haven’t already admitted to my gross imperfections on the matter of discriminatory language a thousand times already this week it seems), why would I bother exerting even minimal effort for so dishonest an interlocutor?
Pick the two dictionary definitions I googled up (this and this) in 2 seconds. Even the one most favourable to your whinging makes it exceptionally clear that the sexual element of sadomasochism is a SUBSET (albeit large) of over all sadomasochism. Further reading show definitions clear from all sexual usage and also dependent on context. The sense Minnie and I were using that word was clearly delineated by the context, it was obviously not a sexual reference.
The examples of you using mental health terms are not the same. You are seeking to insult/dismiss someone or someone’s argument by virtue of ascribing to them a mental illness you can have no idea whether they are suffering from or not. Unless they are your patient and you are a psychologist/psychiatrist, in which case you’re grossly breaking medical ethics. You’re, intentionally or unintentionally, borrowing the stigma associated with mental illness to damn someone and, intentionally or unintentionally, contributing to that stigma by saying “person be bad, therefore they must be mad”.
What Minnie and I did is to note that an act of sadism (i.e. pleasure in a certain cruelty) is necessary for certain types of anti-abortionist. It’s a definitional requirement. Mental illness is not a definitional aspect of being an arsehole. For women, that act of sadism can be coupled with an act of masochism, a taking of (non-sexual) pleasure in denying themselves vital medical treatment. They can claim sanctimony in line with a set of religious ideals, or superiority to women who’ve had abortions, despite the fact that denying themselves access to abortions will in fact (potentially) cause them harm themselves. They can relish their “noble” martydom, they can take pleasure in their struggle and pain as it somehow makes them “good” in their eyes. Nothing sexual there at all, yet masochistic. They can also take pleasure in denying that right to other women, therefore sadistic, yet non-sexual. Sadomasochism in one pot.
Similar things apply to the anti abortion men. As mentioned above they can derive pleasure from denying abortion access to women, sadism, and also suffer (less so) themselves by being forced to help support/parent unwanted children. The exact same sanctimony of the women can apply to the men, they can derive pleasure from having to struggle, from forcing that struggle upon themselves as a consequence of adherence to doctrinal anti abortion. Hence masochism, and since the two can exist within the same person, sadomasochism and not even remotely sexual. Sure, it’s nothing like the degree of masochism which the women could suffer from, but it’s still pleasure in pain/deprivation/struggle/adversity of the self.
Expand your mind, get over your (perhaps accidental) ableism and being called on it and stop being an abject fuckwit.
Louis
this doesn’t even make sense as an argument against abortion. She is against all abortion but settles for justifying it in “most” cases of rape? So everyone who was a victim of incest or was behaving in a ladylike manner should have kids because….?
The term “sadomasochist” was coined in 1890 by the German psychologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing. It was used to describe what he AFAIU considered a form of pathological sexual behavior.
And that is one of the two contemporary meanings of the word. The other contemporary meaning is the same minus the pathology bit.
Would not using the word “sadomasochist” (in the pathological sense) as an insult, be a form of ableism/mentalism? If not, why not?
And how can one use it in the non-pathological sense, without it being an expression of sexual prejudice?
Or is there a third meaning of the word that I’m still not aware of?
Ogvorbis:
If I have taken any quotes out of context, or have misconstrued their actually meaning/intent, then I am open for correction.
I’m just trying to fully understand the position here.
It seems like the advocate of absolutely no abortion restrictions can only fit in one of three groups:
1) Women have the right to terminate the fetus at any time, and it is never unethical.
2) Women have the right to terminate the fetus at any time, even though it can be unethical in certain cases.
3) Women do NOT have the right to terminate the fetus at any time, but it should be legally allowed at any time anyway.
Based on your responses, I group you in #1. If that is incorrect, then by all means correct me. It seems like peggin and Amphiox fall into group #3, or maybe #2 if I misinterpreted what they’ve said.
In any case in terms of legality, bodily autonomy of the woman completely trumps personhood of the fetus. The personhood of the fetus only comes into play in what one personally believes is ethical/unethical. But in terms of strictly the law, it is completely irrelevant. Personhood only becomes relevant once any type of abortion restriction is in place.
*looks at thread*
*blinks*
what just happened? why are people assuming Lars is being an ass because of the disagreement about ableism we just had elsewhere, instead of granting that he may be making a honest argument?
anyway, I don’t know whether Lars has a point and whether the use of kinks as insults is comparable to ableist slurs, but historically sadomasochism has primarily referred to sexual pleasure, and unlike “sadism” and “masochism” has much weaker non-sexual connotations. plus, argument from dictionary isn’t valid when JT does it to defend the supposed non-gendered nature of “bitching”, so it can hardly be more valid for other words.
just sayin’. if you want to refute Lars, it would help not to try do it JT-style
Ok, it seems Louis has explained me the third meaning while I was typing my comment. To me it superficially looks like armchair psychology, but WTF do I know, I’m not a psychologist. So let’s just say I stand corrected.
@Jadehawk. Thank you. I’m leaving for now, to try to shake off the anger and get my brain partially functioning again. No use discussing while in this state. Must remind myself this is the Internet.
If you are, it would be the first time since you showed up around here. Do you ever get tired of spouting the same nonsense, often word for word, again and again and again?
If you were actually trying to understand anything, there would be evidence: your arguments would change based on new information, for instance. You are not trying to understand. You are playing a childish game of ‘gotcha’, just waiting for someone to make a comment which can be taken out of context so you can crow that you have won and can prove that I, or someone else, says it is okay to kill a baby as long as the baby is still attached to the mother via the umbilical cord.
See, this is an example of you refusing to understand. A woman may choose to terminate her pregnancy at any time based on the laws of her residence and her doctor’s input. Terminating a pregnancy does not, necessarily, equal terminating a foetus. Your refusal to understand this shows that you are lying.
Another example of your refusal to understand what others have written. Whether it is ethical or not does not matter. There is lots of shit going on that I think is unethical. Does that mean it is necessarily illegal? No. Your refusal to understand this shows that you are lying.
Another example of your refusal to understand what others have written. Why should I, or anyone else other than the doctor have the right to tell another human being what medical procedure is allowable? Why do your views on abortion (a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy) automatically trump the views of other human beings? Once again, your refusal to understand this shows that you are lying.
This is correct. So your fantasies about a foetus/baby that is 99% through the birth canal are exposed for what they actually are. If you can get someone here to admit that, even though some of the foetus/baby is still in the mother, it is a person, you can then declare victory and claim that personhood begins as soon as the sperm and egg unite, thus outlawing all abortions.
You have this strange idea (well, you have a lot of strange ideas) that there is a point at which a switch is magically thrown to transform foetus into baby. There is not. It is a process. Again, you claim you are here to try to understand, but your rantings and games give lie to that assertion. You are not here to learn. You are here to play rhetorical gotcha games.
Go fuck yourself with a decayed porcupine soaked in crushed joloka peppers.
wow blockquote fail, sorry.
dianne:
But if it’s simply to end the woman’s suffering due to the pregnancy, why not just terminate the pregnancy via inducing labor as opposed to terminating the fetus (as others here have argued)? Would there be a point to terminate the viable fetus?
Um, no.
#3 isn’t even a coherent, or possible, option at all.
And still with this mealy-mouthed deliberately dishonest phrasing of “terminate the fetus”.
The proper phrase is TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY, you pathetic liar.
joey:
(The first bit is from way back in the thread, but…)
To demonstrate why your ‘intruder in my house’ analogy is so breathtakingly stupid, let me suggest a reasonable course of action might be to leave the house and call the cops.
What is that equivalent to in your analogy?
Astral projection?
. . .
Ok, joey, since this is hard for you to understand, head out to your backyard – or wherever the nearest fencepost is.
Walk over to it, stand next to it. Pause.
Then, grease it up well and sit on it. Make sure your get a good four or five pounds worth of it into your body.
Now, in one of these situations, the post is near you, and in the other, it’s inside you. Do you think you could tell the difference?
Is a pregnant woman so much stupider than you that she can’t?
. . .
And lastly:
I’m sorry, please demonstrate that you are in a superior position to determine the ethics of a pregnancy than the pregnant women herself. If you cannot do this, please shut up about her pregnancy.
joey @ 382;
‘Viable’ in the context of Amphiox’s post means ‘can be delivered with relatively few complications’. The 8.5 month qualifyer makes the context of the statement clear.
You are deliberately conflating the idea of a foetus that is ‘viable’, meaning one that can be delivered immediately without great complication, with ‘viable’ meaning that it could still be brought to term given time, or could be delivered immediately but with severe complications – in the case of a 25 week foetus, severe premature delivery.
There is no ambiguity in Amphiox’s position – the contradiction exists only in your deliberate misinterpretation of it.
This is not the meaning of ‘viable’ that has been employed throughout this thread. Please stop trying to move the goalposts.
Her options are a matter for consultation between her and her doctor – they have nothing to do with you or with a myth of an anthropomorphised, invisible magic man in the sky.
Should there be complications such that live, non-deformed birth is unlikley, or the woman’s health is in peril, then abortion is most likely the best option. Should the woman wish to terminate the preganancy at 25 weeks for other reasons, then she still has the right to do so because forcing her to give birth amounts to procreative slavery – what part of that are you finding so hard to grasp?
—————————————————————-
@ 407;
You are still wilfully misinterpreting what is meant by ‘viability’ in order to construct a rationale that would allow you to justify treating women as mere incubators. Stop it.
(empahsis added)
Lets have a look at what peggin actually wrote, shall we? You even obligingly include the quote in your post;
(Emphasis added)
Do you see the rather important distinction here? Peggin and others are pointing out that the woman has the right to end the pregnancy at any time; the loss of the foetus, should it occur, is a side effect of the termination of the pregnancy. This right exists because the mother’s bodily autonomy, as a conscious human with actual personhood, has to take priority over the potential personhood of the non-conscious foetus. Inducing a severely premature foetus would benefit neither mother nor foetus – it would in fact be irresponsible in most cases. However, this is no argument for forced birth – no person of conscience is going to countenance procreative slavery, however much the so called ‘pro-lifers’, such as yourself, might try to use the foetus as a chain around the necks of women.
The consistency lies in the right to terminate the pregnancy – whether or not the foetus survives is a sperate issue, the mode of ending the pregnancy can vary depending upon the level of viability of the foetus but, so long as the pregnancy ends when the woman wishes it to, then her right to bodily autonomy is maintained.
This has been repeatedly explained to you. Which part are you finding hard to grasp? Or, as seems likely from your prior track record on other threads, is all this simply word games in your pursuit of some kind of shallow ‘gotcha’ argument, and you have no desire to actually argue in good faith at all?
Ogvorbis:
Glad you agree. But others here still think personhood of the fetus is relevant.
Joey, either prove viable fetus are being terminated for birth control reasons, or you have no point. Pure mental masturbation without reality checks is for losers. Meaning you are a loser.
Joey
Perhaps I misspoke (mistyped?) when I originally said she didn’t “have the right” to terminate the fetus at any point, because what I really meant was that I, personally, wouldn’t believe it was right if I heard about a pregnant woman deciding to abort a fully healthy and viable 8.5 month fetus on nothing more than a whim (you know, without some other factor, like serious risk to her own life or health). However that doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal. Just like, if someone needed your bone marrow to stay alive, and there wasn’t some good reason why you were unwilling to donate, but you refused to donate it anyway, I’d kind of think you were a scumbag. But that doesn’t mean I think there should be a law requiring you to donate or that I think the sick person is legally entitled to your bone marrow. Their “right to life” does not trump your right to ownership of your own body.
I guess you could say that you pretty much answered yourself as to what my position on this is here:
With an issue like abortion, or just medical decisions generally, there are too many variables for me to trust the government to pass laws regulating how people need to behave. One of the biggest variables being simply the risk to the woman’s life. How do you pass a law saying that abortion is only legal if the woman’s life is at risk? And how much risk is acceptable? At what point do you say “well, if there’s an X% chance the woman could die if she doesn’t have an abortion, she can abort, but if the risk is only “X minus 1″%, then she has to continue the pregnancy”? Where’s the dividing line? And who decides? What if one doctor insists there’s an “X plus 5″% the woman will die if she continues the pregnancy, but another doctor insists that he’s wrong and that the risk is only “x minus 5″%?
Besides which, some women are willing to accept much higher risk to their own life for the chance to have a child, some would rather not expose themselves to any more risk than is absolutely unavoidable. And it shouldn’t be up to YOU to decide just how much risk someone else has to face.
So, unless you can create a world where the fetus can safely be removed from the woman’s uterus at any point after conception and placed in an artificial womb until it’s ready to be “born”, any law you try to pass regulating these things is going to err, either on the side of allowing abortions some people will personally think are unethical, or allowing women to die who otherwise might have been saved. I choose to err on the side or saving the lives of women; you apparently prefer to err on the side or letting women die.
hooooooboy
What total personhood of a fetus? If it has any, it is always less than that of the woman. You lose loser. Typical of idjit fuckwits, who must constantly posture, pose, lie, bullshit, and quotemine to pretend to have a point. You aren’t convincing me of anything other than your dishonesty.
Joey what do you hope to gain from this? And why the hell are you all treating him seriously when he won’t even address the fact that he lies and argues via spamming the same fucking idiocy.
Amphiox:
You’re right, #3 is pretty darn incoherent. But that is exactly how I feel about your position. Again, if I have misinterpreted, please correct me.
I’m going by what you said in post #320…
[emphasis mine]
Here you say the woman doesn’t have the “absolute right to choose exactly how the pregnancy is ended”. So doesn’t that imply that the woman doesn’t have the right to choose to terminate the fetus at any time?
So if it’s simply all about the “right to terminate the pregnancy” then would you be okay with laws saying that at 24 weeks and beyond termination of a pregnancy of a HEALTHY fetus can only be done through labor induction as opposed to abortion? These laws would not infringe the woman’s right to terminate the pregnancy, but she can’t choose exactly how the pregnancy is ended.
Jadehawk,
I’m going to reply on TZT. Apologies for the derail on a serious thread.
Louis
Stupid question, joey. When you first appeared at this blog, you claimed to be pro-choise, so pro-choise that you claimed it was alright to “abort” a baby that was delivered but still attached by the cord. You dared us to be just as “pro-choise”.
Were you lying or did you think that you were engaging in Swiftian satire. Not that the satire was sharp, coming up with theoretical woman who waited nine months to get an abortion because she did not want sharp sticks in her.
Tedious assclam.
Ing, just so you know, I will not treat the shitstain with any respect. He has no respect for us. He has his unreal examples and will not let reality intrude.
Mock the fuckface.
Gregory:
Same question to you. Would you be okay with laws allowing the “termination of pregnancy at any time”, but after 24 weeks the terminationcan only be done through induced labor. Again, this doesn’t infringe on the woman’s right to end the pregnancy at any time.
what kind of suffering are you describing here?
Skeptifem, it does not fucking matter. In fuckface’s little game, first trimester abortions do not happen. All abortions happen at 8.5 months or later.
Just mock the jackass. That is all he is good for.
Joey! Why haven’t you commented about your previous gotcha games on the Irresponsible Humans thread?
Also, this:
Is complete fucking bullshit. You know what the fucking position is here. We’ve been through this before. Stop playing games and fuck the hell off.
I’ve pointed out the time frame for testing for serious fatal birth defects and you are ignoring it. Have you ever fucking seen a baby with a neural tube defect? Do you have any idea how traumatic it can be to be forced to give birth to a baby without the top of its skull and zero chance for survival?
most of all, who the fuck are you to tell women what to do? You will never have to deal with this problem, and its why you invent imaginary straw women to attack instead of looking into how and why abortion actually happens.
Joey, either prove viable fetus are being terminated for birth control reasons, or you have no point. Pure mental masturbation without reality checks is for losers. Meaning you are a loser.
Joey,
Define “viable.” Regardless of the standard legal/medical definition, IMO, if a baby needs round the clock medical care (as opposed to the standard care needed by all full-term babies), needs to be hooked up to machines, or faces a high risk of medical complications that will affect it for the rest of its life, then it’s NOT “viable”. When I’m talking about a viable fetus, I’m talking about one where the mother could conceivably deliver the child and take it home the very next day without any greater than average risk to that baby’s life or future health.
ing
yeah good point. I am done with him.
Guys, seriously. He’s just playing gotcha in 249 he said
Then he tries to get us to admit killing baby once it’s outside the mother is what his strawman of the pro-choice wants. He is trying to admit to this to call us baby killers or work backwords that if you aren’t okay with killing a newborn still attached to its mother you aren’t really pro-choice.
This has all been said and done. He’s an assclam troll that doesn’t fucking get it, doesn’t want to get it and will twist your fucking words.
A paper using French data on third trimester abortions suggests the number of women who have abortions that late for birth control reasons is zero.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10426234.
Matt Penford, fucking facts means nothing. Joey’s questions are all that matters. You are slow on the uptake here. It is Joey’s game and any deviations will be ignored unless he can cherry pick for his benefit.
I salute all of you who have the stomach to go on knocking down joey’s fuckwittery. He has more than amply demonstrated, across at least two very long threads that I can think of (probably more, that I can’t bring to mind right now) that he is not an honest interlocutor; that he is quite happy to outright lie (having initially claimed to be pro-choice ffs!); and that his only intention is to ignore everything that anyone says to him – to ignore all arguments, all facts, and above all to ignore the lives, physical safety, rights and wishes of actual women – in favour of grinding around and around on his miserable little merry-go-round of attempts to get people to trip on his sophistry.
I salute you because almost anyone reading these exchanges will see joey for the liar-for-jeebus and all-around fuckweasel that he is, and will see the unspeakably revolting heartlessness of his forced-breeder position. Nothing less than making all abortion 100% illegal regardless of circumstances will do for joey, and he doesn’t care (or quite likely he is actually glad) how many actual women suffer and die for it – not to mention the suffering of their existing children and the rest of the families who love and need them.
@ joey;
I could point out the risk of complication through induced birth so early, as I did in my post @ 436. I could talk about the fundamentally unethical nature of your continued obsession with forced birth… but there isn’t any point. You have no desire to debate in good faith. You will never listen to reason. All you care about is controlling and dehumanising women, and I will not enable your misogyny.
I have been reasonable. I have been patient, but even my forbearance has its limits.
Get this through your skull – women are not answerable to you. Atheists are not answerable to you. Those who believe in the personhood of women are not answerable to you. I am not answerable to you.
I will never accept any argument for the procreative slavery of women, no matter what twisted perversions of pseudo-logic you vomit up. Women have the right – the absolute right in all cases – to control their bodily autonomy. That may mean induction if the foetus is at or very near term, but it most certainly should be abortion if the alternative is a very premature delivery that will result in comlications to the woman or the foetus at the time of delivery or in later life. The only alternative is the complete dehumanisation and de facto enslavement of women, which is clearly your preferred outcome for some sick reason.
Now kindly stop leaving your misogynist wet dreams of women-as-incubators all over the thread, and collect your complimentary decomposing porcupine suppository on the way out.
Proof from the Irrational Humans thread joey is a fuckwit pro-lifer playing gotcha!
His very first comment at #10
Lots of bullshit after that, most notably this one. Notice how he talked about “partial birth abortions” in this thread as well.
His comment 296
He responds to Ings comment (quoted here for context) about birth being the dividing line
joey doesn’t give a flying fuck about women’s rights. He’s all about saving the precious little boy fetus from nasty sluts aborting them for no reason at 8.5 months.
Fuck you joey. I called your shit in the last thread and I’m calling it here.
Congratulations on yet another cherry pick which allows you to claim I agree when, if you look at the entirety of the paragraph, I do not.
You, however, are a liar.
Here, in case you missed it the first time, is my entire response from which you cherry picked your lie:
Still claiming I agree with you?
And then you go on with your fantasy stories:
And I want to know what gives you the right to tell a human being what she can and cannot do with her doctor? Are you telling me that I really shouldn’t have that piece of cartilage shaved because that piece of cartilage is part of my body? No, you are singling out women for discrimination and treating them as things, not human beings.
Absolutely not. There may be medical complications which preclude that method.
Why are you so hung up on procedures? If my doctor tells me he needs to shave part of the cartilage in my knee, do I, or anyone else other than the medical profession, tell that doctor what method he may or may not use? Again with the double standard. Why are you allowed to tell a woman’s doctor exactly what procedure to use for a desired outcome?
skeptifem, he is referring to his own personal pain. The woman is just a thing, after all.
Joey, get the fuck out of here. Your lies and games are not only tiresome, they are also sickening. Your portrayal of women implies that you have never met a woman. Your gotcha games are peurile and immature. Your are not here to learn, you are here to play games. And we all know that. You want control over what women can and cannot do with their bodies. You do not see them as human, you see them as life support systems for their uterus. So get lost.
And I second my invitation to you. Shove a decayed porcupine soaked in crushed joloka peppers up your arse with a vigorous twisting motion. Repeatedly.
Matt,
I can’t say I’m suprised that there are zero women using late abortion for birth control– assuming that abortion in the first trimester is easily accessible, why in the world would any woman wait longer than she had to when she wanted to terminate her pregnancy?
I know I’ve said this a million times already, being pregnant with a planned and wanted pregnancy sucks. Hell, right now I’ve got some, um, uncomfortable digestive issues that are bad enough that I’m heading home from work early. To think of all of the physical complaints topped with having an unwanted pregnancy (leading up to an unwanted child) just seems like torture to me.
To Joey, it would not be torture. Just desserts, maybe, but not torture.
Audley, I feel for you. Well, not literally, but I, second-hand, understand what I think you are going through and you have my sympathy.
Thanks, Oggie. :)
There’s nothing to worry about, I’m just feeling uncomfortable and whiny.
They don’t. It’s a canard tossed out by disingenuous assholes who think the whole situation is some sort of game.)
Really, if someone is at all against late-term abortions, then the only rational solution is to support easy access to early-term abortions.
The woman doesn’t have the absolute right to choose how her pregnancy is ended, and NEITHER DO YOU. NOR DOES THE GOVERNMENT.
The term “absolute”, which you have deliberately and dishonestly ignored, means that woman has SOME right to decide how the pregnancy is ended. She has the right to choose among the options that her doctor DEEMS TO BE MEDICALLY INDICATED AND APPROPRIATE.
That means that the OTHER person who has the PARTIAL right to decide how the pregnancy is ended is the woman’s doctor.
So, IF, after be seen and assessed by her doctor, her doctor deems that either abortion or induced live birth are equally medically indicated, the woman has the right to choose which one she prefers. If her doctor determines that induced live birth is not indicated, while abortion is, then abortion is done. If her doctor determines that induced live birth is indicated, while abortion is not, then induced live birth is done. If the woman does not agree with her doctor’s recommendations, she can seek a second opinion from another doctor.
And the reasons why induced birth may or may not be indicated and abortion may or may not be indicated, will depend on a wide variety of CASE SPECIFIC factors which CANNOT BE LEGISLATED.
Oh but they might want a late-term abortion! Because you put so many fucking legal and financial and social and practical barriers in the way of her having a chance to access early-term abortion you fucking douchewad fascistic slimebuckets.
QFF’NT.
therefore, women are just flighty and can’t make up their fuzzy ladyminds so they go and
end their pregnancieskill babies on a whim.… and a woman wants a late-term abortion she has the right to it. Apart from instances of medical need that only become apparent late-term, you forced-breeder shites are overwhelmingly likely in reality to be responsible for its being late-term rather than early by restricting access.
Why aren’t you working for free access to contraception, fact-based sex-ed and early-term abortion? Oh yes, because you don’t actually give a shit. joey and his ilk are lower than fucking pond-scum.
I note that joey has dishonestly moved the goalposts again. After having his strawman of an 8.5 month fetus/baby thoroughly destroyed, he has moved it to 24 weeks.
And revealed yet again that he knows absolutely NOTHING about pregnancy and is not qualified to comment on ANYTHING related to it.
At 24 weeks, the fetus has NO chance of survival without MASSIVE medical intervention. Even with massive medical intervention, the survival rate only 39% (It is 17% at 23 weeks, 50% at 25 weeks). Of that 39%-50% of babies born before 26 weeks that do survive, even with MASSIVE medical intervention, only 20% will have a normal development and grow up to be normal, healthy children. The rest will have significant disabilities, 34% will have “mild” disability, which includes severe cognitive impairment, 24% will have “moderate” disability, including severe visual impairment and cerebral palsy, and 22% will have “severe” disability, with no ability to ever walk, blindness and deafness.
And this is if the fetus is COMPLETELY NORMAL AND HEALTHY.
Furthermore, 24-26 is often TOO EARLY to tell if the fetus and completely normal and healthy, and the only way to know is to examine the fetus AFTER it is prematurely born.
It goes without saying that the care required for a 24-26week preemie is massively expensive, and entails significant amounts of suffering that child will have to endure just to make it to gestational birth age.
These, among other considerations, are reasons why physicians may determine that induced live birth for a 24-26 week fetus is NOT medically indicated.
So, if at some future point in time, advances in medical science manage to make give a premature infant at 24weeks as good a chance for high quality survival as a term infant, AND the country as a UNIVERSAL ACCESS SINGLE PAYER healthcare system that means that any and all pregnant woman have access to this level of care, AND people like joey are willing to put their tax dollars where their mouths are and PAY THE NECESSARY TAXES to support such a system, THEN and only THEN, can one say that, at 24 weeks, termination of pregnancy is better done by induced birth rather than abortion.
Keep fantasizing, joey, about science fiction hypotheticals. At least by wasting your time doing that, you won’t be out there actively harming women.
Did I miss where joey demonstrated he was in a better ethical position to determine the outcome of a pregnancy than the pregnant person?
Because if not, he might want to mind his own business.
Let me put it to you this way, joey: if you cannot ethically trust a person with the outcome of their pregnancy, how can you ethically justify allowing them to get pregnant in the first place?
In other words, at what point during someone’s pregnancy does your control over the pregnant person begin? And if you don’t have such control, what are you arguing for here?
Anri, the answer is simple. No woman is to have sex unless she is married to a joey type male. This is to make sure that she is to act ethically through out her pregnancy and to prevent her from “aborting” the baby when the baby is still attached to the cord.
I still can’t help but think that Joey sees women as being somewhat like hamsters… liable to eat the damn thing if not watched carefully.
Joey, your view of women is disgusting and I wish you a long and lonely life.
back to the original topic.
have you seen the new ones that are up now?
Jane. fucking google it.
someone will be disappointed to find out sex doesn’t take up 40hrs/wk (or that you can’t earn $13 000 by working maybe an hour or two a day at most).
also, nice assumption that “sluts” are also all broke and jobless. spoiled, bigoted brat.
I’m not re-typing the longer ones, but they’re similarly stupid. did you know that the fact that there isn’t much abortion on TV proves something?
Sure it does. It proves that the poster of that piece of tripe has a big mound of adipose tissue where a brain should have sat.
Of course. Didn’t you know that the tele is a 100% accurate portrayal of life in these United States? Happy Days is exactly like the 1950s. That 70s Show accurately portrays the 1970s. Friends accurately portrays the life of the employed and underemployed in New York City in the 1990s.
You mean, about something other than TV execs’ assumptions about viewers’ sensibilities?
Ogvorbis: Ignorant sycophantic magpie. @ 476;
I like that – let us also remember that the various Star Trek series and Babylon 5 are completely accurate depictions of an inevitable future, and Game of Thrones is a historically accurate depiction of Westeros* in its medieval period…
—————————————————————-
* Bearing in mind that idiots like the authors of that webpage probably think that Westeros is hidden away somewhere in Europe, along with Middle Earth and Coruscant…
Gregory:
The author of that blog probably isn’t allowed to watch shows like Game of Thrones, silly! There’s nudity and sex and naughty words! And we all know that shit isn’t on the bible.
Anyway, HBO is the work of the Devil.
But they have Aaron Sorkin’s new show.
Nerd:
Naughty words! Also the work of the Devil!
(I am so looking forward to that. And the new season of True Blood!)
Gregory:
There are risks of complications from induced birth all the way up to the 39th week.
So because of these risks, I’m assuming you believe the woman should be able to choose to withhold vital NICU treatment for the fetus when it is born (allowing it die), regardless of how preterm the pregnancy is. Is this correct?
Fuckwit, you haven’t shown that viable feti are being terminated. Do your homework, or shut the fuck up. Otherwise, you have no argument, just fuckwitted mental masturbation…
Oh, and are you personally willing to pay for the care of said feti to death by old age/natural causes? If not, shut the fuck up as it isn’t your business, and you haven’t shown it to be…
And the goalposts get shifted again.
What do you expect from presuppositional philosophy? Must protect the unsupported and illogical conclusion at all costs, including intellectual honesty and integrity.
joey
Are you really that stupid? What part of “bodily integrity” are you having a hard time grasping? And in what possible way could a baby in the NICU be even remotely considered to be interfering with a woman’s bodily integrity?
I mean, I don’t think the woman should be required to pay the baby’s medical costs, but assuming she has any say at all over what kind of treatment the baby does or doesn’t receive, it should be based on the doctors’ recommendations. If the doctors think the baby had a good chance of survival, then she shouldn’t be able to choose to withhold treatment any more than she could with any other person.
joey really is desperately clutching at straws here.
Presumably because he’s still hoping to be able to build another strawman, under the illusion that somebody somewhere will fall for it if he does.
Dang, my blockquote in #485 was from another thread, so ignore it. I was trying to quote ‘Tis on the goalpost shifting. *walks away saying five “hail ramens*
What the fuck does this have to do with the comment you were pretending to respond to, joey?
I mean, if you’re going to play gotcha games with us can you at least try to sound a little less stupid and make a little more sense? Just a tiny bit?
What if a woman has a baby and then 45 years later decides she needs to shoot that baby in the head?
Huh? I assume you’d just be fine with that, wouldn’t you child killers?
Answer that one smarty pants.
I’m assuming you believe the woman should be able to choose to withhold vital NICU treatment for the fetus when it is born (allowing it die), regardless of how preterm the pregnancy is.
So who besides the nearest relative do you think should make critical medical decisions for a person who is not competent due to illness? Or do you simply believe in torturing babies with futile care when it is apparent that they have no chance of survival?
joey:
LOLwut?
Listen, Joey, you’ll never ever ever ever EVER be able to get us to admit that we’re baby killers, no matter how many goalposts you shift. Do you know why? It’s because not a single damned one of us has advocated for infanticide.
Ending an unwanted pregnancy =/= infanticide. Herp a derp!
Tell me, does being this stupid hurt?
Joey the fuckwit keeps trying to conflate three separate issues.
The first is post live birth. There is a baby and a mother, separate. All laws apply to both. Nobody here will argue that a woman can kill the baby post-birth, so every time Joey argues it, he shows his dishonesty and fuckwittery. Only theists deliberately tell that big of lies, and expect it to be swallowed.
The second is the birth process, starting with either water breaking or labor being induced by medical personnel. The goal is a live birth. Ergo, nobody is going to “kill the baby”.
The third is gestation of a fetus prior to the birth process starting. Here, the bodily integrity of the woman to end her pregnancy trumps any third party interference by the likes of Joey, who won’t put his money where is mouth is. But it is funny how once the fetus is reasonably viable and healthy, no abortions are preformed for purposes of birth control. They are performed for reasons of fetal deformity, or to save the life of the woman, who would die in the birthing process. Joey ignores the reality of the situation, living in his fantasy world where women regularly get pregnant to kill their viable feti. This is why you need to show it really happens Joey, to show you aren’t just blowing whacy-backy smoke, and there is a real problem.
Joey, why are you trying to kill women, by making them go through a medical procedure that will likely cause their death? You are the bloodthirsty one Joey, not us.
Hey there, joey.
Got that bit yet where you show you’re in a better ethical position to determine the outcome of a pregnancy than the pregnant person?
‘Cause if you’ve posted it, I’m not seeing it.
Come on, joey, this is important – otherwise, people might just decide to let pregnant women handle their own affairs without your ethical oversight, and that would be tragic, right?
…right?
joey @ 482;
Here is a though experiment for you, joey. Imagine two revolvers, one with only a single chamber loaded, the other with five of the six chambers loaded. Now imagine playing Russion roulette with one or other revolver – both carry a risk of fatally shooting one’s self, but both do not carry the same risk.
Only someone as spectacularly dishonest as you would pretend that the risk of complication to the foetus when inducing at 39 week is equivilant to the risk of complication when inducing at 25 weeks.
That has to be the single most egregious example of wilfully misconstruing a statement that I have yet seen from you, joey, and that really is saying something.
Once the foetus is born, it becomes a child capable of existence independent from the mother’s body. At that point, it achieves personhood and full status under law. Your pretense that respecting a woman’s bodily autonomy during pregnancy, and thus her right to end that pregnancy (even if a side effect of that termination is the death of the foetus) is equivilant to endorsing the killing of a child on a whim is obviouisly dishonest and a transparent attempt at crass emotional manipulation.
We are not the bloodthirsty ones here – you are the one who wants to outlaw abortion and thus condemn women to needless, agonising deaths to in the name of your… peculiar attitude toward the value of human life that places the notional ‘rights’ of a foetus above the bodily autonomy, health and even life of an adult woman.
I would be hard pressed to believe the depth of your misogyny if I had not seen its like so depressingly often in the past.
What’s mind boggling is that it’s a manipulation that failed right out the gate. i remember joey when he first showed up and people saw through this tactic within like 3 comments. He rather bizarrely just ignores people blatantly saying “you’re doing that; stop it” or even “Ok let me concede it for the sake of shutting you up, what’s the next page of your script”. People are constantly telling him his fly is down and he just ignores them continuing to ask people to compliment him on his wonderful shiny pair of trousers.
@Ing — It’s kinda like watching a bee try to exit a house… through everything BUT the open window.
*mimics a bee repeatedly bonking into a windowpane*
Gregory:
You’re darn right! If I had the choice, I would CHOOSE the revolver with only one bullet. It’s a complete no-brainer!
So what’s the point in mentioning the complications of delivering a premature infant? If the woman has no say in terminating it once it is born, the she has to deal with the risks of such a premature birth if she truly seeks to terminate her pregnancy at that very moment. If she wants to reduce the risks, then it would be wise to choose the revolver with the fewer bullets and simply wait. But if she still decides on the revolver with the many bullets, then she has to deal with the higher risks involved.
Illogical and fuckwitted premise, meaning anything beyond this point is bullshit, and Joey really knows that. But his whole irrational argument is based on that bullshit. Joey, either get real, or get the fuck out of here. Once born, anybody terminating the baby will be prosecuted for homocide. Since being born defines being totally human, you have no point.
Still no evidence from Joey there is a problem that needs to be solved, other than his delusional thinking. It is a category error to try to conflate a born baby with an in utero fetus. Only fuckwitted and dishonest idjits like Joey even attempt to do that. And his lies and bullshit are transparent for all to see.
The point is that you were asking if we would be OK with “laws saying that at 24 weeks and beyond termination of a pregnancy of a HEALTHY fetus can only be done through labor induction”. And the answer is no, because such laws would be fucking irresponsible and cruel. I know that’s not something you care about, but decent persons do.
If “the risks of such a premature birth” are too high, induced labour is not the way to go. And it’s precisely because these risks have to be evaluated on a case by case basis that legislating this stuff the way you proposed is irresponsible and cruel.
Btw, the one who ends up suffering the most if the risks are too high is the baby you just forced into existence. But then again, I don’t really expect you to care about that either.