Roe v Wade is on deck

[Lion IRC]

Answer the question: what makes your idea of morality on the subject of abortion better than someone elses?

On abortion specifically?
Because human flourishing is not assisted by allowing people to kill unborn babies.

 

[ZiprHead]

Neither does being a woman prevent you from thinking it's wrong to kill unborn babies.

There's that loaded language.

 

[Lion IRC]

No: I don’t think you are clear at all about who it is the pro-forced birthers want to ‘save.’ Or why.

I'm not confused at all about whose life is saved when they aren't aborted.

Can you say the same?

 

[Lion IRC]

Neither does being a woman prevent you from thinking it's wrong to kill unborn babies.

There's that loaded language.

Use whatever word you like.

Calling people in concentration camps Untermensch didn't make any material difference to what was actually happening to them.

 

[Ford]

You're essentially insisting that YOUR opinion is the correct one, and everyone else must follow it.

No. That would be special pleading.

Yet that is exactly what you're doing.

You are the equivalent of the Mormon smacking the Diet Coke out of your hand, and demanding that everyone follow your own morality.

 

[Lion IRC]

You're essentially insisting that YOUR opinion is the correct one, and everyone else must follow it.

No. That would be special pleading.

Yet that is exactly what you're doing.

You are the equivalent of the Mormon smacking the Diet Coke out of your hand, and demanding that everyone follow your own morality.

No. Read what I said.

If I'm not asking anyone for permission to speak I'm not going to assert that my opponent needs my permission to put a contrary position.

If I'm not going to accept abortion lobby polemics I don't assert that they MUST defer to my polemics.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If I said ...I should be allowed to pass laws that support my moral views but nobody else is allowed to pass laws which disagree with mine - THAT would be special pleading.

Saying "I want you to agree with me but I don't agree with you" is NOT special pleading.

 

[Ford]

If I said ...I should be allowed to pass laws that support my moral views but nobody else is allowed to pass laws which disagree with mine - THAT would be special pleading.

From where I sit, this is exactly what you're saying. To you, abortion is immoral. You want it banned, and don't care if some - or even a majority of - women want access to it as an option.

I don't think I'm missing anything here.

 

[Toni]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

Whose?

Don't make me start posting graphic content.

Really? Afraid I might be squeamish?

No. You asked a question as if you werent clear about whose life pro-lifers are concerned about. I didn't think I'd have to draw you a picture to help you understand.

Sorry, but. Not only do I have a degree in biology but I’ve had years and years of lab experience, including dissection, years of cleaning fish and game and yep, I’ve given birth to four children and have helped a number of people recover from surgeries.

Don’t attempt to play gross out with me.

I'll take it as read that pictures of mutilated, aborted human bodies don't move you emotionally.

I take it that you don’t actually know what you are talking about and would probably faint dead away if you actually saw a woman give birth.

 

[Toni]

Answer the question: what makes your idea of morality on the subject of abortion better than someone elses?

On abortion specifically?
Because human flourishing is not assisted by allowing people to kill unborn babies.

Human flourishing? Unborn babies?

Somehow, I don’t thin that means what you think it does.

 

[bilby]

human flourishing is not assisted by allowing people to kill

This is a highly doubtful assertion, even before you specify "unborn babies", which is a contradiction.

Human flourishing has been pretty much linked with allowing people to kill other people since, well, forever.

And prohibiting abortion is absolutely a barrier to human flourishing.

 

[Ford]

Human flourishing has been pretty much linked with allowing people to kill other people since, well, forever.

I've been listening to this thing lately called "Fall of Civilizations Podcast." It is very well researched, and the creator/presenter does a fantastic job of drawing you into the story of how many well known (and some lesser known) ancient civilizations - from the ones that sprang up in river valleys in the near east to the early Americas and China - arose, thrived, and ultimately collapsed.

Sumeria, Akkad, Babylon, Han China, Carthage, Easter Island, the Aztec and Inca empires, etc. etc. etc. One thing that stood out for me is how for most of the history of human "civilization," the lives of individuals have been astonishingly cheap. This narrative the "pro-life" crowd has been selling that "since the dawn of time, each life has been treated as a precious gift of god" is utter bullshit.

I mean, if you were a king in Medieval Europe, took a second cousin as a wife when she was 15, she pushed out 8 kids by the time she was 25, half of them survived (none of them sons) and then she died giving birth to the 9th girl, you'd just go out and marry another teenager so you could get a male "heir to the throne."

Good 'ole traditional Christian family values!

Since...oh...about 1973...this false narrative has been pushed that "every life, no matter how nascent, has always been sacred and must be protected at all costs" and it is a fiction.

 

[Lion IRC]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

Whose?

Don't make me start posting graphic content.

Really? Afraid I might be squeamish?

No. You asked a question as if you werent clear about whose life pro-lifers are concerned about. I didn't think I'd have to draw you a picture to help you understand.

Sorry, but. Not only do I have a degree in biology but I’ve had years and years of lab experience, including dissection, years of cleaning fish and game and yep, I’ve given birth to four children and have helped a number of people recover from surgeries.

Don’t attempt to play gross out with me.

I'll take it as read that pictures of mutilated, aborted human bodies don't move you emotionally.

I take it that you don’t actually know what you are talking about and would probably faint dead away if you actually saw a woman give birth.

*yawn*

Really?
A pissing contest over who has seen the most dead babies? Incinerated bushfire victims? Severed limbs? People with steering wheels embedded in their chest cavity?

 

[Toni]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

Whose?

Don't make me start posting graphic content.

Really? Afraid I might be squeamish?

No. You asked a question as if you werent clear about whose life pro-lifers are concerned about. I didn't think I'd have to draw you a picture to help you understand.

Sorry, but. Not only do I have a degree in biology but I’ve had years and years of lab experience, including dissection, years of cleaning fish and game and yep, I’ve given birth to four children and have helped a number of people recover from surgeries.

Don’t attempt to play gross out with me.

I'll take it as read that pictures of mutilated, aborted human bodies don't move you emotionally.

I take it that you don’t actually know what you are talking about and would probably faint dead away if you actually saw a woman give birth.

*yawn*

Really?
A pissing contest over who has seen the most dead babies? Incinerated bushfire victims? Severed limbs? People with steering wheels embedded in their chest cavity?

I thought that was against your religious and moral views?

Interesting how you see that giving childbirth is somehow equivalent to dead babies, incinerated bushfire victims, severed limbs and people with steering wheels embedded in their chest cavities and yet this is still something you think you should get to impose on women.

Wow.

 

[Shadowy Man]

In the United States it is a simple fact that the democratic legislated will of the majority PREVENTS abortion on-demand at any time.

that is simply not true. That’s not how the United States works. For example, Roe v Wade was overturned by justices who were appointed, not elected, by a President who did not win the popular majority vote and then confirmed by a Senate which does not equally represent the people but the states.

Nowhere in that process can you say the “will of the majority” was followed.

This would be a very different country indeed if the government represented the people equally.

 

[Ford]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do

I thought that was against your religious and moral views?

Interesting how you see that giving childbirth is somehow equivalent to dead babies, incinerated bushfire victims, severed limbs and people with steering wheels embedded in their chest cavities and yet this is still something you think you should get to impose on women.

Wow.

It's like the extremists who picketed Planned Parenthood locations. They started just protesting, then escalated it to shouting at anyone who came into the clinic, then holding up pictures of aborted fetuses, and finally...violence.

An escalation. Intimidation. "You will follow our religious views...or else!"

The latest lie (being told by the orange god of the right wing) is that clinics are happily hacking newborns to bits. They seem to really, really, really lean into the graphic, violent rhetoric and imagery when they feel their "argument" isn't landing.

 

[Jarhyn]

Answer the question: what makes your idea of morality on the subject of abortion better than someone elses?

On abortion specifically?
Because human flourishing is not assisted by allowing people to kill unborn babies.

This is a rather naive view.

Populations are often much more benefitted by stability rather than momentary growth, or even downsizing, depending on the circumstances of the environment.

Let's look at the rat population in an area. Rats breed quickly, and when there is enough food for all the children, the rat population explodes, and then scour up all the food, and once there isn't enough food, the population crashes again due to starvation and often fighting.

For the population to flourish, the rats would need to ONLY produce as many offspring as the current and future environment of those offspring can support. Any more than that and the population will start fluctuating with boom/bust cycles or just a widespread bust.

As such, when the system either doesn't have the resources for active pregnancies to come to term, it is much more advantageous to the population to "fail faster", and not even waste time being pregnant.

The latest lie (being told by the orange god of the right wing) is that clinics are happily hacking newborns to bits

So, blood libel.

Why is it always blood libel WRT child sacrifice for these people? This is the side whose accusations constitute admissions, so WTF are conservatives doing to kids?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In fact I would guess the majority of unwanted pregnancy abortions arise where no contraceptives were used.

NEWS RELEASE
JANUARY 11, 2018

About Half of U.S. Abortion Patients Report Using Contraception in the Month They Became Pregnant​

In 2014, about half (51%) of abortion patients in the United States reported that they had used a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, according to a new analysis by Guttmacher researcher Rachel Jones. This proportion represents a slight decrease from 54% of abortion patients in 2000, the last time these data were examined. The methods most commonly used by abortion patients in 2014 were condoms (24% of patients) and the pill (13%).

So no, in fact, the “majority” of abortions do not arise where no contraceptive is used.
Turns out you guess wrong.


Although we could take bets on what percent of the no contraceptive crowd are from fundagelical religions like baptist or catholic.

Wait... are you claiming a pro-lifer is uninformed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So can we ban abortion now?

...or does your 'whataboutism' have nothing to with the central argument for abortion-on-demand - my body my choice - no matter what Lion IRC says and does about contraception, adoption, welfare for single moms, sex education, monogamy...

Because I dont think youre entitled/authorized to trade away other women's bodily autonomy in return for pro-lifers "walking the walk".

But what is your objective?

Have I been unclear about my desire to end abortion - the deliberate homicide of unborn humans?

When there isn't an unwanted conception there isn't an abortion.

You mean you have to be pregnant to have an abortion? That's incredible!!! When did they discover this? Somebody needs to alert the media.

Good contraception greatly reduces the abortion rate because it's not needed.

You mean not getting pregnant reduces the likelihood of you having an abortion?
That's incredible!!! When did they discover this? Somebody.......

You are totally missing the point.

A simple approach that considerably reduces what you claim is the wrong and won't draw any opposition from the left. Yet your side is almost universally opposed to a win-win proposition. That strongly suggests that it's not your true objective.

So are you after reducing abortions or are you after increasing unwanted babies?

Have I been unclear about my desire to end abortion - the deliberate homicide of unborn humans?

So why do you reject something that goes a long way towards your stated goal?

Reality check time: On average the abortion rate is higher in areas where it's illegal than areas where it is legal.

Firstly, I think that data is questionable.

Secondly, correlation doesn't equal causation. (But you already know this right?)

Yeah, there's a confounder. Both are actually a function of how a society treats sex ed. The same forces that make abortion illegal also make for more oopses.

Thirdly, 'the rate of abortion' isn't as meaningful as the absolute quantitative number of abortions. We are counting human lives, not rates of abortion. If a jurisdiction which bans abortion has numerically fewer abortions that's the measurement which matters if you are counting dead babies.

So a partial victory is worth nothing?! Your opponents are inviting you to walk to the 50 yard line with no strings attached and you say no.

Once again, it looks like your true goal is elsewhere.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Have I been unclear about my desire to end abortion - the deliberate homicide of unborn humans?

so, you must then want to support the access to and even distribution of long-acting reversible contraceptives (such as IUDs) for women.

Yes, I'd even make it mandatory.

....if that's the only way to prevent 1 million abortions per year in the US

If there are that many women living in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country on earth, who for some reason are deliberately having unprotected sex, and are carelessly or foolishly unaware that they (biology101) might become pregnant, then prevention is definitely the best option.

But your side opposes it.

Admittedly from the past: IIRC 1987, I took a class "Marriage and family living" to meet a sociology requirement. Effectively, marriage ed. (And a very good course!) This is at the university, a 200-level course (not very many freshmen) and had an 18+ requirement. One class period was devoted to contraception. I was annoyed at what I saw as the waste of a class period on something people should already know. Due to my previous class being virtually on the other side of the campus I could barely make it to class on time. Since the classroom was only half full anyway that was of no concern. I get there that day, the room is 100% full, people are stacked up around every door several levels deep and they keep shooing people out of the room who were trying to stand at the edges. (I presume it was a fire code issue.)

As stated in previous posts these are demonstrably among the best ways to reduce abortions. Yes?

You need to ask that question to all those modern, independent, educated, women living in apparent ignorance of biology101.

And there's where you're wrong. It's mostly the uneducated.

It seems to me that THEY are the ones who aren't aware of this "best way" to prevent abortion.

Your way doesn't work very well in practice. As my father (psychology teacher) said, it's the good girls that get pregnant.

All this 'my-body-my-choice' dogmatic ex cathedra preaching from the church of feminism should be dissected to see if these women actually do know what they are choosing to do.

Well, we've seen the Republicans who are trying to ban it certainly do not know what they are doing. Ectopics/tetranomas/molar pregnancies are all abort or die situations--yet the Republicans are trying to deny abortions. Water breaks too early is abort/miscarry/die, yet the Republicans are sending them away until they're sick enough. I haven't heard of them succeeding in sacrificing a woman on their vile altar yet but there have been close calls. They did succeed in IIRC Ireland many years ago.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The majority of Americans disagree with the abortion lobby's (my-body-my-choice) position that abortion should be legal on-demand for any reason at any time during the pregnancy. Most Americans, strictly speaking, are not pro choice.

This makes me ask, which abortions should be banned. Opinions - anybody?

- Abortions coerced by an abusive, violent partner?

Of course. Consent does not exist there. But that's not the realm of abortion law.

- Down Syndrome babies? Eugenics?

Should not be banned. And note that there are many things far worse than Down's.

- Gender selection? Patriarchy?

So far it does not seem to be a problem, I see nothing that warrants state intervention.

- Abortions after 22 weeks?

The reality is that if delivery is viable no doctor is going to do an abortion. You're attacking a strawman. But note that delivery at the edge of viability almost certainly condemns the baby to a lifetime of severe medical problems. And note that you can get a live birth before viability. We had a case locally where the doctor knew there wasn't a chance and left it in a room to die which really upset a "pro-life" nurse. At birth the blood was oxygenated through the placenta, everything's fine. Once that ceases to supply oxygen if the lungs can't provide enough (and they're the limiting factor) the result is death by slow suffocation. All the NICU can do is prolong the dying.

- Abortions done without informed consent of both parents?

Giving him a "say" is a meaningless concept. Her choice has to count for more than his because it's her body. If the vote is split she wins anyway, so why even have it? And note the deception of "informed"--this is a dog whistle for mandated lying to the patient. The mandated "information" is always false. And it's also used as a roadblock to make it more expensive.