• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

In general you may use deadly force in self defense if you have a reasonable belief of imminent harm from not doing so. However, we are seeing women being turned away because the threat isn't beyond a shadow of a doubt, or because the threat isn't imminent enough even if the threat is certain.

So the analogy would be...I can do something which will absolutely and unquestionably end the life of another human despite that human being neither an imminent nor certain cause of my death - absolutely and unquestionably.

Normally if it's not imminent you are required to go to the cops. But in this case there's no cop that can stop the threat. Thus it's purely a matter of the level of the threat, not how imminent it is.

Isn't this a violation of proportionality when it comes to lethal self defence?

Shouldnt we err on the side of...your pregnancy isnt unquestionably going to killl you but an abortion will unquestionably kill the unborn.
That's not how self defense laws work.

Let's consider a case that has come up in the news: despite multiple ultrasounds they are unable to visualize the pregnancy. The most likely scenario is that it's ectopic--and remember you can use deadly force against anyone you reasonably believe is trying to kill you. While there is no intent an ectopic is certainly a deadly threat. The threshold for self defense is met yet an abortion has been denied.

<God throws Lion out of a plane with a baby hanging on. The baby isn't going to be able to hold on through the opening shock so you must not pull the chute until you're 800' above the ground. To pull at 1,000' is murder.>

There's easier ways than this to present the abortion trolley dilemma.
It's not a trolley dilemma--the question is whether it runs over just the fetus or the fetus and the woman. No life is saved.

If we are certain we can only save one life, there's nothing immoral saving one life because we didn't choose to end the other.
But that's not how the abortion bans are being implemented. They're requiring the women to be in a critical state before they do an abortion, or in some cases they do a c-section instead of an "abortion" even though a live birth is an impossibility.

And "choose" is an attempt to pretend the situation isn't what it is.

Water breaks too early. Infection is inevitable, there's no chance of a successful pregnancy. Doom is as certain as the ground rushing towards you. But if she's not low enough (sick enough) she can't pull the ripcord (have an abortion.)

Likewise, the success rate of a molar "pregnancy" (it hardly deserves the term) is 0%. They're basically a cancer and will kill if not aborted before they spread.
 
Late term abortions happen when there is a very grave condition of the fetus that would prevent the fetus from surviving and would put the mother’s life and/or health at serious risk. Late term abortions account for only a very small number of abortions performed.

Law is not the only limiting factor: one has to find a doctor and facility willing to terminate the pregnancy involving a non-viable fetus. This is not easy to do. Nor is this an easy decision for the parents to make. Usually, in such cases, the child was very much wanted.
Late term doesn't require a threat to the woman, non-viability is enough. Pregnancy is inherently a threat, if success is impossible cut your losses.
 
So Lion, why are you not upset about your god’s ongoing genocide of hundreds tens of Millions of children every year?

Because I dont think God causes what you describe.
Do you think god could have stopped miscarriages if he wanted to?

But you want to interfere with other people’s reproductive choices. Such hypocrisy

I don't want to interfere with their choice. I want to interfere with the choice of people who earn their living killing unborn humans.
Do you think god could stop those people if he wanted to?
 
You realize that PP has reduced the number of abortions more than the so-called PL people??

Dont agree.

He didn't ask whether you agreed; He asked whether you realized.

It's a matter of fact; You don't get to agree or disagree on matters of fact, only to know or be ignorant.

You have chosen poorly.
 
So Lion, why are you not upset about your god’s ongoing genocide of hundreds tens of Millions of children every year?

Because I dont think God causes what you describe.
Do you think god could have stopped miscarriages if he wanted to?

But you want to interfere with other people’s reproductive choices. Such hypocrisy

I don't want to interfere with their choice. I want to interfere with the choice of people who earn their living killing unborn humans.
Do you think god could stop those people if he wanted to?
Forget holy induced abortions.

Let's talk preclampsia, vaginal wall prolapse, weak bladders, and post partum depression. The intelligently designed god induced bonuses some get to deal with thanks to pregnancy.
 
If there is a God as you describe, He's the biggest abortionist ever.

I don't accept that God performs abortions.
Why? Do you *know* that he doesn't, or just don't like the idea that he might? How can we ever know if he does or does not perform abortions?

Well, for starters we could what rational skeptics suggest. Look for empirical evidence to see who or what causes the thing in question.
But you said you “don’t accept” which means you have already reached a conclusion. Looking for evidence is the beginning not the end of research. So, since you don’t accept a statement as true you must have already done the research, so I would ask again, why do you not accept it as a possibility? How did you come to know this?

Starting with a conclusion and then looking for evidence is definitely not what rational skeptics suggest. So have you used a different method?
 
Starting with a conclusion and then looking for evidence is definitely not what rational skeptics suggest.
At least in this instance, the creo isn't even pretending to present "science"
So have you used a different method?
Of course. It's the good old "root through my favorite book looking for something ambiguous enough to imply the conclusion with which I'd like to start" routine.
I want to interfere with the choice of people
I don't think you are possessed of the smarts or the ability, let alone the right, to interfere with people's choices, period.
 
But you said you “don’t accept” which means you have already reached a conclusion.

No. It means I dont have to accept insupported claims. (Hitchens Razor)

Looking for evidence is the beginning not the end of research.

Great. Tell people who claim God causes cancer, abortions, etc to start their research.

So, since you don’t accept a statement as true you must have already done the research, so I would ask again, why do you not accept it as a possibility?

It is a possibilty. I'll accept it when people meet their burden of proof/persuasion.

Starting with a conclusion and then looking for evidence is definitely not what rational skeptics suggest.

I was presented with a conclusion.
- God did it.

So have you used a different method?

No. I love the scientific method.
....of proving God caused (X, Y, Z.)
 
Great. Tell people who claim God causes cancer, abortions, etc to start their research.
It's right there in the term "Almighty God".

I realize how much effort lots of theists put into pretending that they understand God well enough to describe Him, but they can't understand the term "Almighty God". It's a big part of the reason I don't take theology seriously.
Tom
 
Starting with a conclusion and then looking for evidence is definitely not what rational skeptics suggest.
I was presented with a conclusion.
- God did it.
Not that God did it, that god created an intelligently designed human body that couldn't prevent it. Unlike whales, with regards to cancer.

But this has been corrected for you repeatedly, but you seem to only care to repeat the false claims.
 
Not that God did it, that god created an intelligently designed human body that couldn't prevent it. Unlike whales, with regards to cancer....

The bible doesn't claim that God made a race of Super Humans who could eat kryptonite with impunity.
 
Lion, your failure to donate your kidney has absolutely, definitely caused somoeone to die. I would like to legislate the PRO-LIFE position that anyone who still has two kidsneys is required to sign up for compatibility testing, and is required to donate if another person will die without it.

That is totally 100% PRO-LIFE legislation.

And not just kidneys, but also blood, bone marrow, pieces of your liver, pieces of your lung, sheets of skin, etc.

Are you pro life? Are you ready and gleeful to sign up to be ruled by that? You do not get to choose when or if. You are just required to donate the use of your body if someone else would die without it.

Are you Pro-Life?
(This assumes you are already on all of the organ donation registries and give blood every 56 days… now we’re asking about forcing you, your family, your children, etc.)
 
Whether “the abortion lobby” wants unrestricted abortion uo yo 36 weeks or not depends on what you mean by “ the abortion lobby”. Yes there ate pro choicers who want unrestricted access to abortion and there plenty who do not.
 
So Lion, why are you not upset about your god’s ongoing genocide of hundreds tens of Millions of children every year?

Because I dont think God causes what you describe.
Do you think god could have stopped miscarriages if he wanted to?

But you want to interfere with other people’s reproductive choices. Such hypocrisy

I don't want to interfere with their choice. I want to interfere with the choice of people who earn their living killing unborn humans.
Do you think god could stop those people if he wanted to?
I;m repeating the questions for Lion. Are you interested in answering them?
 
You and bilby are on the same list Rhea

Do you mean the list of people who act in a pro-life way by making actual voluntary bodily donations? Yeah, I’m on that list. I am on the lists for bone marrow donation, organ donation and I donate blood as often as possible since I have an extremely rare type of blood needed for saving preemies.

When I talk about what it means to be Pro-LIFE, I walk the walk, voluntarily. And I do not condone, ever, legislating non-scientific religious restrictions that harm life, such as trying to ban abortions so that women who miscarry are at higher risk of death.

The ridiculous and treacherous argument that anyone wants “abortion on demand up to 40 weeks” serves only to harm human life. It’s a made-up, fabricated lie to try to get people to act against human life in favor of empty religious moralizing. The number of cases where, if you heard the details, you’d actually want to deny the medical care is 1 in a billion, while the number of cases where the stupid thoughtless, uninformed blanket hyperbole will kill women and never save a baby is happening every day.

If you and your fellow forced-birthers really wanted to reduce abortions, you could eliminate 50% of them in less than 12 weeks (and even more in the next 12 weeks) by supporting free and easily accessed long acting reversible birth control and comprehensive sexuality education.

But the reality of your position is that every time people who call themselves “pro-life” are given the chance to reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies, you turn it down and fight against it. You are READY to have more ongoing abortions, for decades, so that you don’t have condone sex outside of procreation.


The difference between what pro-lifers say, and what they do… is what they do.
And what they do is prolong the instances of millions and millions of abortions, because stopping them requires caring more about stopping abortions than stopping fornication. And y’all just cannot bring yourselves to put anything higher on your list than making sex as risky as possible in an effort to stop the sex.

You don’t care about abortions. You only care about controlling people’s sex activity. Your actions show it.

88% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. So if you all turned your attention, efforts, money and support to providing long acting reversible birth control and the education and access to use it effectively, you could STOP the use of abortions as birth control by July. This has been shown in action in 3 US cities/regions that providing free long acting reversible birth control, even from just one or two clinics in an area, results in an enormous decrease in abortions (they had over 40% in each of 3 cities).

But.
You.
Won’t.

Because controlling women’s sex lives is and has always been the Prime Directive. And stopping abortions will never be higher on your list. So you will never ever give out birth control and actually stop abortions.


Religious conservatives have had over 100 years to establish themselves as the people who spend all of their energy in preventing pregnancy, and preventing the desire to end pregnancy by making pregnancy as risk-free as possible through prenatal care, making parenthood as accessible as possible through support of food, housing and daycare, and supporting single parents.

But.
You have squandered the last 100 years in keeping pregnancy and parenthood as risky as you possibly can. You have not established yourselves as the people to prevent pregnancies and prevent the negative impact of pregnancies. With predictable results. The Catholic church has even had worldwide programs to undermine confidence in condoms, resulting not only in unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions, but also to increased disease. That’s what y’all have built. More abortions, more deaths.

Your prime directive is clear. And always has been. If stopping abortions means accepting that people have sex outside of religious boundaries, you will accept the abortions rather than accept the sex. The laws you fight for prove it.

It’s pathetic and barbaric. And it is transparent AF. Your actions have always spoken. Anti-Fornication is the real platform, not anti-abortion.

88% reduction in abortions. 12 weeks. (With a full-court press) The answer has always been in front of you. We see it. You pretend you don’t see it, in fact you fight us on it, because it challenges your actual Prime Directive of punishing fornication.

I challenge you: if you could reduce abortions by 30% in 3 months, but it meant handing out condoms and making commercials to promote their use - would you do that? Then, if you could reduce those abortions by 80% by handing out hormonal implants, would you do that? EIGHTY PERCENT reduction in abortions, by summer. Would you?

I would.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom