Abortion

[Jarhyn]

I'm saying that too, like the lonesome sperm.

Or the lonesome ovum.

Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves. Then there would be no unwanted pregnancies.

Absolutely!!

Yes, it is the duty of man to take responsibility, be the grown-up, and protect the perpetual minor that is woman from falling prey to her own uncontrollable hormone-driven licentious urges.

Or, hey, here's a crazy idea -- maybe both parties are adults. They can share their precious bodily fluids if they please; and if they don't care to breed like rabbits they can take precautions; and they can buy some Plan B if they forgot the precautions; and if Plan B fails they can move on to plan C and abort the pregnancy before it's gone on long enough to create a mind capable of having contrary interests.

The left and the right are trying to out-Puritan each other; and if there's one thing history has taught us about Puritans, it's "The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."

Everything but the last. I don't see anyone on the left asking for purity. Instead, I am personally asking for everyone to be mature enough to pay forward responsibilities they have the power to duck out on otherwise.

 

[Elixir]

Who is being forced to have abortions against their will? Who is being persuaded to have abortions for some political agenda? What political agenda?

Boy, do you ever ask hard questions!

What the fuck are you talking about?

REALLY hard questions! I don’t think that poster will address any of them with an actual answer, least of all that last one.

fix your own house first before you try to meddle in the business of others.

Maybe if you phrase that in terms of motes and eyes ….?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm saying that too, like the lonesome sperm.

Or the lonesome ovum.

Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves. Then there would be no unwanted pregnancies.

Absolutely!!

Yes, it is the duty of man to take responsibility, be the grown-up, and protect the perpetual minor that is woman from falling prey to her own uncontrollable hormone-driven licentious urges.

Or, hey, here's a crazy idea -- maybe both parties are adults.

Not necessarily actual adults.

They can share their precious bodily fluids if they please; and if they don't care to breed like rabbits they can take precautions; and they can buy some Plan B if they forgot the precautions; and if Plan B fails they can move on to plan C and abort the pregnancy before it's gone on long enough to create a mind capable of having contrary interests.

The left and the right are trying to out-Puritan each other; and if there's one thing history has taught us about Puritans, it's "The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."

Well thank fucking gawd we have you to protect us from our puritanical ideals of self-autonomy.

 

[Bomb#20]

They can share their precious bodily fluids if they please; and if they don't care to breed like rabbits they can take precautions; and they can buy some Plan B if they forgot the precautions; and if Plan B fails they can move on to plan C and abort the pregnancy before it's gone on long enough to create a mind capable of having contrary interests.

The left and the right are trying to out-Puritan each other; and if there's one thing history has taught us about Puritans, it's "The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."

... we have you to protect us from our puritanical ideals of self-autonomy.

Exactly where in "Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves." do you see an ideal of self-autonomy?

 

[Bomb#20]

And moreover, even AFTER personhood is achieved, STILL no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER. That’s why rape is illegal. That’s why kidnapping is illegal.

Exactly my point with regards the Benderpocalypse. ...

... In the U.S. we have the right to drag an unwilling witness into court and put him on the stand, and we have the right to use his mouth and his brain to tell the jury what he knows.

I agree that using body against one's will is a weak argument. About as weak as suggesting the Sixth Amendment conflicts with that argument.

I would say that the argument that the state has a right to compel "use of the body" is not being faithfully treated here.

You guys don't have substantive arguments. You're just reacting by going into denial, the way utilitarians typically react when it's pointed out that sometimes framing an innocent man leads to more total human happiness than admitting you don't know whodunnit.

Taking something out of the body, expecting a song and dance under penalty for noncompliance is a different matter than taking some physical element of their bodily structure away, particularly to give to someone else.

So what? Everything is different from everything else. If being different were enough to defeat counterexamples then theories would be nothing but unfalsifiable rhetorical slogans. I was obviously treating "use of the body" faithfully.

The issue isn't whether you can come up with a hairsplitting distinction that allows you to draw a carefully routed line between the uses of bodies you approve of and the uses of bodies you disapprove of -- of course you can. The issue is that once you do that you will have utterly defeated the entire purpose of saying "no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER. " in the first place. The purpose was to draw a simple, easily-stated, intuitively appealing bright line, so as to forestall the endless arguing over what justifies the rule and which cases go on which side of the line.

Can you come up with a distinction that lets you put subpoenas on one side of a line and kidney-sucking violinists on the other side? Sure! The trouble is, Learner et al. can just as surely come up with a different distinction that puts abortion on one side of a line and kidney-sucking violinists on the other side. Once you've retreated from the straight bright line to a curved dim line, the endless arguing over what justifies the rule and which cases go on which side of the line are back in business. There's no escaping it. "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

 

[Rhea]

What do you mean by ‘educating them about abortions?’

response in no particular order, I'm a little busy today)

In general, simply I mean consistent thorough educating the young, showing them what others have gone through, consequences of getting pregnant, and there's more to life than tik tok and instagram, so to speak. There are variable reasons of course, case by case.

This absurd argument seems to pretend that sex for pleasure and abortions started about 10 years ago.

Is it a straw man? Ignorance? Deliberate false accusation?
Whoever told you this was LYING and you are repeating that false witness.
(And making a laughingstock of your faith when you do it - again and again)

How about this. Sex is fun. people like it. That is none of your business at all, and it is unnatural an inhumane for you to attempt to regulate it.

What we need to educate is so people know how pregancy can be avoided while still enjoying sex, and how to detect it and where to find options if it happens to you anyway. Preferably option that can be identified and accessed early in a pregnancy when carrying out that option has the least impact on the person who is pregnant. (Including options to carry the pregnancy if desired.)

Who are you to educate people about whether they should be having abortions? What is your training and experience in this matter? Why the fuck do you think you have the right to force your unwanted opinions on others when you clearly have zero plans and zero resources to support the children that would be born if the women were to listen to your "advice"? Mind your own fucking business and fix your own house first before you try to meddle in the business of others.

Quoting for truth.

Until the “pro-life” crowd successfully legislates the full financial and medical support of pregnant people and their subsequent parenthood, they expose themselves as a group that considers controlling sex MORE important than reducing abortions. They expose themselves as liars and hypocrites.

Everything they **DO** supports the prime directive of trying to make sex as risky as possible in order to control where women can do it.

The difference between what you SAY and what you DO - as always - is what you DO.

Pro-choicers DO more things to reduce abortions than pro-“life”ers do.
And they always have.

 

[atrib]

We are learning from the masters - Prochoice. With your unlimited demand for abortion at any time, in any circumstances.

And we see the mask slip. The "help" that Tigers was talking about is not offered because the Pro-life advocates feel a calling to serve humanity, but is a reaction to the idea that the Pro-choice people dare to counsel women that they have a choice when it comes to their own bodies, often served up with a generous helping of judgement and resentment on the side. The same judgement and resentment that comes through loud and clear in this post.

 

[Tigers!]

We are learning from the masters - Prochoice. With your unlimited demand for abortion at any time, in any circumstances.

And we see the mask slip. The "help" that Tigers was talking about is not offered because the Pro-life advocates feel a calling to serve humanity, but is a reaction to the idea that the Pro-choice people dare to counsel women that they have a choice when it comes to their own bodies, often served up with a generous helping of judgement and resentment on the side. The same judgement and resentment that comes through loud and clear in this post.

Thank you for your analysis of my (our) motives.

 

[Tigers!]

Quoting for truth.

Until the “pro-life” crowd successfully legislates the full financial and medical support of pregnant people and their subsequent parenthood, they expose themselves as a group that considers controlling sex MORE important than reducing abortions. They expose themselves as liars and hypocrites.

Everything they **DO** supports the prime directive of trying to make sex as risky as possible in order to control where women can do it.

The difference between what you SAY and what you DO - as always - is what you DO.

Pro-choicers DO more things to reduce abortions than pro-“life”ers do.
And they always have.

No dispute from me that the "pro-life" crowd has dropped the ball concerning the provision of care for those who wish to continue with their pregnancy and the abysmal lack of support after the birth though I do recall that there are maternal health nurses available, with maternity hospitals etc.

If the "pro-life" did enact legislation that provided the care you spoke in another thread you would be up in arms. You would stamp your feet, jump up and down, clench your fists and cry "This is the thin end of the wedge. We are on the slippery slope. They are trying to restrict abortion rights".
Quite clever actually. Damn the "pro-life" is they do nothing and curse them if they do anything.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Everything they **DO** supports the prime directive of trying to make sex as risky as possible in order to control where women can do it.

The difference between what you SAY and what you DO - as always - is what you DO. ...

... If the "pro-life" did enact legislation that provided the care you spoke in another thread you would be up in arms. You would stamp your feet, jump up and down, clench your fists and cry "This is the thin end of the wedge. We are on the slippery slope. They are trying to restrict abortion rights".
Quite clever actually. Damn the "pro-life" is they do nothing and curse them if they do anything.

I hope you're using "you" as a plural reference to the abortion-rights movement in general. Because if you meant Rhea personally, it looks to me like her "Policies that will reduce abortions - a collaborative look" thread proves you wrong -- she hasn't been reacting to the contributions of the abortion-prohibitionists there in any way that fits your description.

 

[Tigers!]

... Everything they **DO** supports the prime directive of trying to make sex as risky as possible in order to control where women can do it.

The difference between what you SAY and what you DO - as always - is what you DO. ...

... If the "pro-life" did enact legislation that provided the care you spoke in another thread you would be up in arms. You would stamp your feet, jump up and down, clench your fists and cry "This is the thin end of the wedge. We are on the slippery slope. They are trying to restrict abortion rights".
Quite clever actually. Damn the "pro-life" is they do nothing and curse them if they do anything.

I hope you're using "you" as a plural reference to the abortion-rights movement in general. Because if you meant Rhea personally, it looks to me like her "Policies that will reduce abortions - a collaborative look" thread proves you wrong -- she hasn't been reacting to the contributions of the abortion-prohibitionists there in any way that fits your description.

Yes I was. You in the plural not directed at Rhea or those like her/him. I am aware of the thread that spoke of collaboration and has been pleased that it is there. There is some possibility of working together to ensure that mothers and their children are not left behind as it were.

 

[Learner]

Oh dear more technical speak. It takes two to tango, a mother and father. After fertilization, ONLY then there's developement of a human being! Your lonesome sperm has NO signicance, just like loosing the hairs from your head that even has human dna in it.

As has been pointed out, I hope you will acknowledge and understand that
the sperm cannot develop on its own - it needs an egg.

I think there's some mis-understanding here. What on earth do you think I'm arguing about? Clarification: I totally understand and agree, there are various different element parts involved.

And the product of that fertilization ALSO cannot develop on its own, it needs a uterus to implant in.
And the implanted embryo ALSO cannot develop on its own, it needs the organs of the woman, plus all the food she eats.

Yes sure, like the above, I had already understood the sequence of the process.

That is your flaw. You chose - quite arbitrarily - that as soon as the only thing you need to discard is the woman, then MAGIC! It’s okay to discard whatever the potential being still needs and call it it’s own entity with no care for the rights of what it needs.

It's YOUR flaw to think so. Who choosing to discard the woman or not care for the rights of what the child needs ? The absurdity just reflects a strong baseless opiniated resentfulness, since I am non of the above.

Back when the man was needed as well as a woman - the potential being had no riight to his actions.
But by magic, once the only thing the potential being needs is a womann - IT CAN HAVE HER!

It’s arbitrary to say that on this potential life continuum, you wish to choose its agency at whatever is the point when the men have no more responsibility. It’s arbitrary and cruel.

That's an issue yes. Responsibility. Who's taught it from a young age? What environment is there (poor run down sections of society) that such lessons in life can be taught those things, and who listens and take responsibilty serious, when there are many of the enticing attractions and distractions in the modern world? I'm all for responsibility.

 

[Learner]

ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...

Who is being forced to have abortions against their will? Who is being persuaded to have abortions for some political agenda? What political agenda? What the fuck are you talking about?

Come on now, your playing with me. You didn't know that the fight for rights becomes political? Agendas usually become apparent when there are conflicting sides.

there's going to be conflict within the nation, in this case not all people are religious, for example. Our duty as I see it, is to simply tell people, and educate them about having abortions and the value of life, if they want to listen etc.. and as Tiger mentions there are local churches that do help, the degree obviously is dependent upon on the available funding, It's not every where I know.

Who are you to educate people about whether they should be having abortions? What is your training and experience in this matter? Why the fuck do you think you have the right to force your unwanted opinions on others when you clearly have zero plans and zero resources to support the children that would be born if the women were to listen to your "advice"? Mind your own fucking business and fix your own house first before you try to meddle in the business of others.

Training??

Responsibilty is what you teach to your kids! Got it?

 

[Rhea]

Quoting for truth.

Until the “pro-life” crowd successfully legislates the full financial and medical support of pregnant people and their subsequent parenthood, they expose themselves as a group that considers controlling sex MORE important than reducing abortions. They expose themselves as liars and hypocrites.

Everything they **DO** supports the prime directive of trying to make sex as risky as possible in order to control where women can do it.

The difference between what you SAY and what you DO - as always - is what you DO.

Pro-choicers DO more things to reduce abortions than pro-“life”ers do.
And they always have.

No dispute from me that the "pro-life" crowd has dropped the ball concerning the provision of care for those who wish to continue with their pregnancy and the abysmal lack of support after the birth though I do recall that there are maternal health nurses available, with maternity hospitals etc.

If the "pro-life" did enact legislation that provided the care you spoke in another thread you would be up in arms. You would stamp your feet, jump up and down, clench your fists and cry "This is the thin end of the wedge. We are on the slippery slope. They are trying to restrict abortion rights".
Quite clever actually. Damn the "pro-life" is they do nothing and curse them if they do anything.

This is absolutely false and the record of legislation worldwide proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Pro-“Life”rs DO NOT present legislation to reduce the risk and harm from pregnancy and parenthood. And they fight it whenever pro-choicers present it.

All of the legislation to make single parenthood less risky is proposed by pro-choicers. And all of it is opposed by Pro-Lifers. Show me an exception. It does not count if one church in one town does it. It needs to be available and accessible so readily that anyone making achoice about abortion doesn’t even have to think, “this will harm me beyond what I can bear.”
Free pre-natal care - to make being pregnant less scary so that people don’t choose abortion out of fear.
Free medical attention for childbirth - to make the financial burden of even choosing adoption less insurmountable
Free childcare - so that having a baby doesn’t mean you have to quit your job or go into poverty to have the child.


Show me a pro”life”er who has proposed this legislation and show me a pro-choicer who has opposed it.

I will repeat: Pro-“life”ers have had CENTURIES…. CENTURIES to make a name for themselves as nurturers of the “life,” reducing the fear of parenthood, reducing the individual struggle, reducing the danger, the burden, the fear, the scorn, the shaming, of NOT choosing abortion.

And they have done NOTHING to reduce the need for abortion, and they have fought every effort by the “bleeding hearts” who are trying to ensure that choosing birth is not overwhelming.

You have had centuries to make an impact on this.

And instead what does the pro-“life”er do?

Shame and blame about “responsibility.”
Want to see an example?

That's an issue yes. Responsibility. Who's taught it from a young age? What environment is there (poor run down sections of society) that such lessons in life can be taught those things, and who listens and take responsibilty serious, when there are many of the enticing attractions and distractions in the modern world? I'm all for responsibility.

Blame, shame, disdain.


This does not reduce abortions. This makes abortions a better choice than birth.

Demonstrating that he cares MORE about controlling sex than reducing abortions.

 

[Elixir]

Come on now, your playing with me.

“you’re”

You didn't know that the fight for rights becomes political?

What do you mean “becomes”?
When the granting and revocation of rights is a function of government, it’s political from day 1.

Agendas usually become apparent when there are conflicting sides.

Yes, that’s how we learned that the agenda of the American religious establishment is in direct conflict with the rights conferred upon American citizens by the Constitution of the United States of America.

The fact that right wing fascism has become the mechanism whereby religious fanatics are now able to revoke rights that were previously guaranteed, is not an indicator of a newly politicized fight over rights, it’s a complete abandonment of democratic principles.
In an actual democracy, people are granted domain over their own biological functions.

 

[Rhea]

Responsibilty is what you teach to your kids! Got it?

This kind of blaming, shaming and disdaining is what causes abortions.

This is what you do when faced with a choice:
Do I

• Provide birth control, medical and family services, embrace to those who have sex and may become pregnant unintended? Making it so that abortions are not needed by people having sex.
• Try to stop the sex, and when people disobey me, tell them that they lacked responsibility and have done something wrong? Making abortions a more appealing option than birth.

And you choose to ACCEPT the increased abortions because you are unable to put that above controlling the sex. You choose abortions over forgiveness and compassion.


Preaching about “responsibility” is making the pregnancy a thing that is shameful - a “lack of responsibility”. It says, loud and clear, “You’re BAD for becoming pregnant. I urge you to hide it from me so you can avoid my disdain. Oh, and also you’re on your own, except for that one preachy church that might help you for a week and tell you how wrong you are the whole time.”

Meanwhile, you also ASSUME that all of these people have “responsible” parents. That is an achingly naive assumption, showing a lack of care for others because you can’t even be bothered to understand their situation.

 

[pood]

Mind your own fucking business and fix your own house first before you try to meddle in the business of others.

I think Jesus said something about the beam in one’s own eye but nary a word about abortion, to my knowledge.

 

[Elixir]

We are learning from the masters - Prochoice. With your unlimited demand for abortion at any time, in any circumstances.

And we see the mask slip. The "help" that Tigers was talking about is not offered because the Pro-life advocates feel a calling to serve humanity, but is a reaction to the idea that the Pro-choice people dare to counsel women that they have a choice when it comes to their own bodies, often served up with a generous helping of judgement and resentment on the side. The same judgement and resentment that comes through loud and clear in this post.

Thank you for your analysis of my (our) motives.

Is there another analysis you’d like to offer, or was that an acknowledgment that atrib is correct?

 

[pood]

Ah, cross post, already noted by Elixir!

 

[Learner]

I'm saying that too, like the lonesome sperm.

Or the lonesome ovum.

Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves. Then there would be no unwanted pregnancies.

Absolutely!!

Yes, it is the duty of man to take responsibility, be the grown-up, and protect the perpetual minor that is woman from falling prey to her own uncontrollable hormone-driven licentious urges.

Or, hey, here's a crazy idea -- maybe both parties are adults. They can share their precious bodily fluids if they please; and if they don't care to breed like rabbits they can take precautions; and they can buy some Plan B if they forgot the precautions; and if Plan B fails they can move on to plan C and abort the pregnancy before it's gone on long enough to create a mind capable of having contrary interests. The left and the right are trying to out-Puritan each other; and if there's one thing history has taught us about Puritans, it's "The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."

We all have different ideas on what we individually consider as a life-form or human being. What can be done about the differences of views? I'm not pro-choice of course, but I would accept there to be allowed the option of choice. Various reasons really, viewing from my faith. The USA for example, is not a Christian nation; laws passed, based on Christianity will be conflicting with alternative views of other groups, naturally, which could make things a lot worse. But we are still part of the community and the approach would be to simply give advice, just as it is with preaching the Gospel, for those who are willing to listen. The obvious pre-emptive approach through advice would be something like "prevention is better than cure" .