Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I find this humorous, although honestly, I find it offensive that people would think someone is stupid/sexist for think that abortion is murder. I don't use that term but I do find that it is in fact the case.

From what I can tell, most abortions are done because the mother was in danger, or the baby would have had a very bad illness. In that case I think it is OK, but to get an abortion because you can't afford it, just sounds wrong to me. I think they should have practiced safe sex.

So, I'm not really Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.

Yeah Mike, I know what you're saying.

There's no room for nuanced opinions on the internet, though! Pick a side and angry-type at any who disagree! Call them names! Troll and Nazi are quite popular, it would seem.

Compromise and understanding are for sissies!

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah Mike, I know what you're saying.

There's no room for nuanced opinions on the internet, though! Pick a side and angry-type at any who disagree! Call them names! Troll and Nazi are quite popular, it would seem.

Compromise and understanding are for sissies!

until a lot more people stop thinking that way, you're right, nothing will every get solved/resolved. can't talk. can't be heard over the yelling.

I still find the "8,864,902 Terminated" Hilarious though. That's the population of a small country.

Mike Noble wrote:
From what I can tell, most abortions are done because the mother was in danger, or the baby would have had a very bad illness.

Every woman that I know that had an abortion did so because they "weren't ready for a baby". Essentially, an "oops; abortion"

I suspect that most people here have a similar experience.

I am firmly Pro-Choice, however, I am also firmly Pro-Third-Oops; abortion-Sewn-Shut-Uterus.

Manstein wrote:
You are correct, it most assuridely is a very special situation. But once again I think I lose you after that. Using your comment (first bold), I don't ride around in a warzone too often, but does that mean I no longer have the right to my life by doing so?

I think you'll find that the rules and conventions governing killing in a warzone are very different from those governing killing in everyday circumstances.

Manstein wrote:
I have never been in a warzone in my entire life, and most likely never will, but I still have a right to my life if I did go into said warzone, or shopping mall, or park, or anywhere.

I would contend that no one actually has the right to life, or that the right to life is at least not inalienable, and that it can therefore be considered either forfeit or invalid in certain circumstances, such as riding around in a war zone, or a womb.

Manstein wrote:
Assuming that your comment was more in reference to "the physical world," how is a woman's womb any different? Sure adults arn't hanging out in wombs, but fetuses (and by basis of this argument, babies and therefore life) hang out in wombs by the millions each and every year. So, to assume that a woman's womb is some sort of alternate dimension where the laws of man no longer apply is a little.... exceptional.

Of course it is, what other component of human experience is comparable to the state of the fetus in the womb? I mean, as I noted, we make many exceptions to general rules for special circumstances, even regarding human life as illustrated by the above warzone example. As such, there is no particular reason that making another exception due to the presence of another set of extraordinary circumstances is perfectly reasonable.

Manstein wrote:
Since I think that a good portion of people can agree that abortions conducted at birth, or even in the last trimester or two are "bad," the question comes down to this: Are fetuses life? If the answer is no, then claiming abortion at this stage is wrong would also mean that all forms of male masturbation are equally as bad, as male sperm could be roughly compared to this definition of "a fetus."

It would also mean that any woman who does not allow herself to be impregnated during menstruation is morally reprehensible.

Manstein wrote:
If the answer is "yes" a fetus is life, then it is indeed life. Life is life, you can't be "kind of alive" or "kind of dead" you are either alive or dead, period. Therefor if a fetus is life and since all human life is equal (since killing a baby/child is the same as killing an adult) abortion would be murder.

Why are you assuming that all human life is equal, and according to what metric are you determining this equality? Certainly not the value you yourself place on human life, as that would mean you value every person on Earth as much as you value your mother, which is possible I suppose, but it must mean you spend an awful lot of time grieving. It can't be some kind of objective system, as that would involve the necessary existence of some kind of universal agent like a deity, which just opens a whole new set of problems. That just leaves us with human being equal in a sense which has nothing to do with value at all, which is an odd notion that seemingly gets us out of the abortion conundrum altogether. After all, if you don't value a thing then killing it should be no problem.

In any case that's not sufficient to determine whether or not abortion is murder. Murder is the unjustified killing of another human being. All you've done here is establish that abortion involves killing a fetus, which is true, that all people are equal (though I think its a dubious claim), and that killing is bad. Seeing as we allow people to do lots of bad things, even kill each other, there is no reason to conclude that the badness of a thing has any bearing on its justifiability.

Manstein wrote:
To conclude that, fetuses are only require "special consideration" because we don't know if they are "alive" or not. Naturally, this operates under the assumption that all parties agree that murder is bad, and should not take place at all.

Murder is bad by definition.

But, to refute your point, there are other reasons to grant fetuses special consideration; namely their contingent relationship with the mother.

Manstein wrote:
Using your logic, laws invariably punish actions that take place BEFORE the action the law is installed to prevent.

Your line being: "[Anti-abortion laws] are therefore misogynistic because they are about punishing women for promiscuity, and not actually "saving a life" as advertised."

Using this same logic I can say: "Rape laws are about punishing people for being sexually aroused, not actually about preventing the act of rape." Clearly the ducks don't line up here.

That's a faulty generalization. I can make a specific claim about a specific law without having to simultaneously claim that it is generalizeable to all other laws. That being said, yes, you can argue that any given law X is in fact designed to punish a particular action which is not explicitly mentioned in the content of a law. That's a legitimate argument that has been made many time throughout history.

Manstein wrote:
So its fair for me to say that all Democrats are Communists on the basis that there is even one person in existence who is a Democrat and also a Communist?

No, that isn't what I said. I said that if there are misogynists in the pro-life movement then I can legitimately say that an indefinite number of pro-life supporters are misogynists. The word "all" is not an indefinite number, it is a word which denotes the whole of the noun to which its attached.

Manstein wrote:
You can't generalize entire movements based on the belief of a few people in it.

Again, that isn't what I said. You need to read more closely.

Manstein wrote:
O don't be sassy! You can find examples of just about anything you want in any particular group of anyone. My figure is figurative and I can call on you to prove that a significant portion of anti-abortion activists are indeed acting the way they act on the basis that they hate, mistrust, dislike, or otherwise believe in the subjugation or limitation of women. My bet is, you, nor anyone else, can't prove that.

Phyllis Schlafly and her followers seem significant to me. He Eagle Forum has 80,000 members according to Wikipedia.

Manstein wrote:
Huh? Your point here is?.... There are examples of people being whatever you want them to be. Sure, a person CAN consider abortion to be murder, but believe that it should be allowed, and then come to an alternative conclusion because he is a misogynist but to infer that a significant portion of anti-abortionists do this is silly.

Why? Because you don't want to consider that it might be true?

Manstein wrote:
People can be anything you want, there are homophobic homosexuals too, doesn't mean that most closested homosexuals are homophobs.

Not certainly no, but that doesn't mean the existence of such people isn't an indication that there are more like them.

You seem to be confusing what you want to be true, or what you feel is reasonable, with what is actually likely to be the case.

Manstein wrote:
Honestly, looking at that comment it makes me wonder if you just like to argue for the sake of it. There are exception to almost all rules, but basing all your arguments on the minority exceptions and then inferring that they take up a larger chunk than they do is pretty nitty gritty run around logic.

Here's the thing, we don't know if they are the minority, or the majority. That's the point. You're arguing as though you have some sort of data which indicates what the majority of group X believes, or how large any particular minority is. You don't, no one does, so talking about what is in the minority or majority is meaningless outside of your own subjective judgment.

Manstein wrote:
Circular nonsense? So is homicide also circular nonsense? Me shooting you fatally is wrong because it is murder, and since murder is accepted as wrong, me fatally shooting you is also wrong.

You're confusing homicide with murder. Homicide is simply killing another person, and is not considered to be wrong in and of itself. Murder is unjustifiable homicide, and is considered to be wrong because we unjustifiable things to be wrong. You fatally shooting me is only wrong if doing so is also murder.

Manstein wrote:
Your statement "Abortion is wrong because its murder, and its murder because its wrong" is in itself incorrect. Abortion is wrong because it is murder and murder is wrong, abortion is not murder because abortion is wrong, as you state.

You didn't escape the criticism, which makes me think you didn't understand my point. Murder is only murder because its wrong. Considered from a value neutral perspective abortion is merely killing a fetus. It only becomes murder if you consider that act to be wrong. Therefore, as I already stated, and you indirectly proved by being unable to formulate the the statement in a substantively different way, it is circular.

Manstein wrote:
Another one of those, huh? moments here where I think you argue just for the sake of it. I mean, you are correct but that isn't the point at all. My statement is about I thought it was ironic and foolish that one group of people were chastising another for their beliefs, your scientific and exact breakdown of why this all occurs is totally irrelevant.

What is ironic about that?

I think its funny that people actually believed it. On a side note, if the goverment were to fund something for planned parenthood, would it be sent to the entire organisation or just the one operation, building?

TJ is complicated in regards to the NA issue. He didn't write the Indian Removal Act but he did unfortunately lay the ideological underpinnings for it. Lumping him in with Pol Pot is still in vary poor taste and poor schools in making comparisons. Comparing him to one of the foundational thinkers of fascism may have been more appropriate (Jackson would be the Hitler/Pol Pot contemporary).

The idea that abortion is murder is a new one, got up to strengthen the argument by an appeal to emotion. In modern times when abortion was illegal, it wasn't prosecuted as murder, it was prosecuted as abortion.

Another new idea is that early abortion should be illegal. The foetus was not considered to be alive until full formation, or quickening. These stages does not occur until after 12 to 20 weeks (speaking somewhat approximately).

America is going to hell! MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLAME THE VICTIM!

Kilkrazy wrote:The idea that abortion is murder is a new one, got up to strengthen the argument by an appeal to emotion. In modern times when abortion was illegal, it wasn't prosecuted as murder, it was prosecuted as abortion.

Another new idea is that early abortion should be illegal. The foetus was not considered to be alive until full formation, or quickening. These stages does not occur until after 12 to 20 weeks (speaking somewhat approximately).

I was under the impression that it was technically alive as soon as fertilization occurs. A cell is still a living thing. If people don't want to consider it to be alive until full formation that's fine I guess, but I really doubt it is medically accurate.

Mike Noble wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The idea that abortion is murder is a new one, got up to strengthen the argument by an appeal to emotion. In modern times when abortion was illegal, it wasn't prosecuted as murder, it was prosecuted as abortion.

Another new idea is that early abortion should be illegal. The foetus was not considered to be alive until full formation, or quickening. These stages does not occur until after 12 to 20 weeks (speaking somewhat approximately).

I was under the impression that it was technically alive as soon as fertilization occurs. A cell is still a living thing. If people don't want to consider it to be alive until full formation that's fine I guess, but I really doubt it is medically accurate.

Do you consider an egg to be a live chicken

Mike Noble wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The idea that abortion is murder is a new one, got up to strengthen the argument by an appeal to emotion. In modern times when abortion was illegal, it wasn't prosecuted as murder, it was prosecuted as abortion.

Another new idea is that early abortion should be illegal. The foetus was not considered to be alive until full formation, or quickening. These stages does not occur until after 12 to 20 weeks (speaking somewhat approximately).

I was under the impression that it was technically alive as soon as fertilization occurs. A cell is still a living thing. If people don't want to consider it to be alive until full formation that's fine I guess, but I really doubt it is medically accurate.

I was talking about not alive in law. The anti-abortionists think that the foetus should be considered alive in law. That is a new thing.

I am not getting into the so-called medical definition of life. It isn't the topic.

youbedead wrote:

Mike Noble wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The idea that abortion is murder is a new one, got up to strengthen the argument by an appeal to emotion. In modern times when abortion was illegal, it wasn't prosecuted as murder, it was prosecuted as abortion.

Another new idea is that early abortion should be illegal. The foetus was not considered to be alive until full formation, or quickening. These stages does not occur until after 12 to 20 weeks (speaking somewhat approximately).

I was under the impression that it was technically alive as soon as fertilization occurs. A cell is still a living thing. If people don't want to consider it to be alive until full formation that's fine I guess, but I really doubt it is medically accurate.

Do you consider an egg to be a live chicken

Generally yes, if it is fertilized than it does meet the criteria for what qualifies as a living organism. But, as Kilkrazy said, this is off topic.

It amuses me that normally those who are very anti abortion are the same people who call for wars.

Life is sacred! Unless it doesn't suit us!

corpsesarefun wrote:
Life is sacred! Unless it doesn't suit us!

That's one of those things which very few people admit to, but if they did it would serve to clean up the debate a whole lot.

They're also against gay marriage. I mean come on, who gets less abortions than gays?

corpsesarefun wrote:It amuses me that normally those who are very anti abortion are the same people who call for wars.

Life is sacred! Unless it doesn't suit us!

Actually, the problem is that there is a great deal of overlap in the views of people who are anti-abortion, but also in favor of cutting government services and social safety nets. So yeah, some people are perfectly all right going to almost any length to make sure a baby is born, but once that happens, they stop giving a damn.

Bookwrack wrote:Actually, the problem is that there is a great deal of overlap in the views of people who are anti-abortion, but also in favor of cutting government services and social safety nets. So yeah, some people are perfectly all right going to almost any length to make sure a baby is born, but once that happens, they stop giving a damn.

QFT! well said.

Bookwrack wrote:
Actually, the problem is that there is a great deal of overlap in the views of people who are anti-abortion, but also in favor of cutting government services and social safety nets. So yeah, some people are perfectly all right going to almost any length to make sure a baby is born, but once that happens, they stop giving a damn.

Hence Mississippi, the worst state in the United States.

Mike Noble wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Mike Noble wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The idea that abortion is murder is a new one, got up to strengthen the argument by an appeal to emotion. In modern times when abortion was illegal, it wasn't prosecuted as murder, it was prosecuted as abortion.

Another new idea is that early abortion should be illegal. The foetus was not considered to be alive until full formation, or quickening. These stages does not occur until after 12 to 20 weeks (speaking somewhat approximately).

I was under the impression that it was technically alive as soon as fertilization occurs. A cell is still a living thing. If people don't want to consider it to be alive until full formation that's fine I guess, but I really doubt it is medically accurate.

Do you consider an egg to be a live chicken

Generally yes, if it is fertilized than it does meet the criteria for what qualifies as a living organism. But, as Kilkrazy said, this is off topic.

However it was alive before fertilization, same with a sperm or egg. They are always living

I think everyone who wants to be pro-life and outlaw abortion should have to sign up to take one or two of the unwanted snotbags home.

Bookwrack wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:It amuses me that normally those who are very anti abortion are the same people who call for wars.

Life is sacred! Unless it doesn't suit us!

Actually, the problem is that there is a great deal of overlap in the views of people who are anti-abortion, but also in favor of cutting government services and social safety nets. So yeah, some people are perfectly all right going to almost any length to make sure a baby is born, but once that happens, they stop giving a damn.

I've seen my fair share of pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty. While they're hardly representative of the larger movement I can't help but wonder how they live with themselves.

Slightly OT, but I feel the urge.

I am (mostly) pro-life. I believe that the child's (fetus's) father should have a say, it might be in her body, but its still a part of him. Also against "oops" abortions. I also believe if the mother or the child would die or have some severe disorder, is a rape victim, incest, that sort of stuff, that its ok to abort. I have one child, unplanned, and I am getting a vasectomy in the near future. If I want more kids I'll be adopting "one or two of the little snotbags"

I'm picky about who we go to war with. Invading Afghanistan, cool. Iraq, not so much. Canada, I totally support

I'm pro gay marriage. Gay people have the same right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

I hate the current layout for the death penalty. Make it quicker and cheaper for convicted murderers, with only one chance at appeal. They had their chance, and they potentially live better lives then some of us, and that tax money can be better spent (homeless shelters and teen centers?).

Back on topic.

I LOL'd. There isn't even 8,000,000 people near Topeka, maybe like...80.

Manstein wrote:Most of the facebook posters seem to be older in their years.... most likely don't realize that the Onion is a joke website and just skimmed the article before declaring it horrid.

They think abortion is murder..... therefore feel outraged.

Because they think abortion is murder, and because they have been fooled into outrage.... they are therefore misogynist and stupid?

Although these people are guilty of completely missing the point of the article and laziness (since they most likely skimmed it and did not bother to check the source), I must say some of them come off better than some of the posters I see here.

Just because they feel upset about something (remember these people think abortion is MURDER, not an issue of womens' rights) doesn't mean they are as "stupid" as some of the posters here make them out to be.

As much as I hate to say it, most of the posts in this thread are a lot more idiotic and intolerant than most of the Facebook posters.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm appalled.

Surely we can muster more than 8 billion dollars to secure ourselves from the threat posed by the unborn.

Exactly, just imagine if the Abortionplex has been there for Hitler's Mom, Pol Pot's, or Thomas Jeffersons!

Just curious, TJ is a bad person now?

I relaize its a joke, but its a sad, pathetic joke. I've seen some things from the Onion that were funny, but this one sucks sweaty old wiener dog balls.

Frazzled wrote:
I relaize its a joke, but its a sad, pathetic joke. I've seen some things from the Onion that were funny, but this one sucks sweaty old wiener dog balls.

Oh Frazzled... its funny to some of us.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I relaize its a joke, but its a sad, pathetic joke. I've seen some things from the Onion that were funny, but this one sucks sweaty old wiener dog balls.

Oh Frazzled... its funny to some of us.

So are snuff films.

Frazzled wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I relaize its a joke, but its a sad, pathetic joke. I've seen some things from the Onion that were funny, but this one sucks sweaty old wiener dog balls.

Oh Frazzled... its funny to some of us.

So are snuff films.

I think that's just you. I'd prefer to keep a wide berth from snuff films, and would prefer them not to exist.

Ir's hard to believe a country can be so divided...
Not to belittle either argument (Personally pro-choice) but both parties seem to use extreme examples and language when arguing either case.

purplefood wrote:Ir's hard to believe a country can be so divided...
Not to belittle either argument (Personally pro-choice) but both parties seem to use extreme examples and language when arguing either case.

Its not a divided issue though. Its just a not funny joke. Heh heh get it 8mm served heh heh. Meh, call me when they are funny again.