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.

Not only that, you're jumping the the conclusion I'm pro/anti abortion.

Seriously? I mean, SERIOUSLY?

If I was jumping to that conclusion, then why did you have to / the two sides? I made no such assumption. You should have noticed it by reading what I wrote. You DOUBLE should have noticed it when you typed your own post, and didn't actually know what to claim I was assuming.

Honestly, I'm kinda tripping on how crazy that is. You literally just accused somebody of saying something they didn't say, and the fact that even YOU didn't hear me say it didn't give you any pause, you still made the accusation.

What does that even feel like?

Who said it wasn't a baby/living person? Again, you're projecting a whole stance onto me here I never took.

I guess I was just trying to do you the service of seeking to make sense of a nonsensical position. My bad.

Regardless, it would not be morally justifiable to suggest that one innocent person has more right to avoid temporary pain than another innocent person has right to avoid permanent death.

When comparing "permanent death" to "temporary discomfort" I would suggest that "temporary discomfort" is the lesser injustice. By far. By FAR. I know, I'm such a mysoginist.

But, regardless, given that fact of moral calculus, I had to assume that you decided that the "permanent death" was a lesser evil, because the entity suffering it was somehow less than the entity suffering "temporary discomfort." It's the only way I can make sense of that stance. Perhaps you have a better answer. I'd be glad to hear it, especially if my other option is you telling me yet more things I never said.

Speaking (again) of which, you can get indignant and self-righteous all you want, but the record is clear. You've misrepresented me repeatedly, I have not misreprented you at all.

Your first response to me was a total of four sentences long. The first was a false statement. The second was a total and baseless misrepresentation of my point. The third was as well. The fourth, a sentence of four words, was the only true statement in your entire post.

The math on that: 4 correct words, 35 total words = 11.4% correctness. In 40K terms, your correctness has about a 6+ save. And, hey, you failed.

You said I assumed the woman wants to give birth. I did not. I did not even remotely imply it. In fact, I implied the opposite.

You suggested that I demanded some sort of control over a woman's reproductive process. I did not. I did not even remotely imply it. In fact, I concretely stated the opposite.

Then you suggested that I jumped to a conclusion on your stance on abortion. I did not. Etc. etc. etc. Etc. Etc.

Etc.

And, honestly, that's what infuriates me so much about this whole debate. There's a segment of the population that gets all "you go girl, good for you" about women getting abortions. Like it's some sort of injustice that society might frown on killing unborn babies.

"It's YOUR body, girl, don't let them tell you what to do!"

Screw that. It's killing a baby. Women getting abortions are not heroines. They're very rarely even victims. I support their right to do what's most practical for themselves and for society. We, as a society, have empowered people to make judgements on the lives of other members of our society in certain narrow situations. I fully support it. But let's not pretend like women getting abortions are (with vanishingly few exceptions) doing anything but taking the easy way out of a bad situation that they themselves created.

They're not "taking back control of their womb."

They're killing somebody as a pragmatic solution to a problem.

Okay but what about the video?

He didn't seem to get that crazy over it. Perhaps he could have taken a quick walk before he took part in a heated discussion. Perhaps these ladies didn't do anything, but it doesn't seem unlikely that the story is true given the response he got. You don't say sorry unless you did something you regret. Maybe the woman was freaked out or something, but again it doesn't seem unlikely that they shouted something at this guys wife. Maybe they shouted, "PEACE BE WITH YOU!", but I doubt it.

Long story short, get a sign and counterprotest, but kind of maybe raging a bit is probably not the best answer.

On a scale of 1-10 raging, this guy was lower than a five. How many rallies and protests have you guys been to? This was relatively irrelevant, and it is kind of funny that we are sitting here talking about it.

Phryxis wrote:They're killing somebody as a pragmatic solution to a problem.

Who is killing whom? In other words, what proportion of abortions are late-term?

If you are talking about early abortions I see no reason why you should have a problem with it unless you detail your reasons why. The second people can take these kids and grow them inside jars, instead of a living person, I'll have no more confusion over their position.

A woman not having the finances to raise a child is a pretty fething good reason to abort within a legal time frame. After a certain point it really is a matter of pragmatism, because I'm quite sure that pro-life folks aren't able to take care of all of those kids. They can want to be able to, and that is commendable, but the bottom line is that many, if not most abortions, are really quite sensible, and not taken lightly.

Seemed appropriate somehow.

Who is killing whom? In other words, what proportion of abortions are late-term?

Very small.

I'm not really all that concerned with determining the exact date when it's "a life." I've decided I'm ok with people killing other people, so if it's a person at 28 weeks, or 20 weeks, or the second the sperm and egg touch, whatever. Doesn't matter a ton to me, and it's largely undecideable.

The only concern I have is that the lines get blurred. Obama's got nutjobs like John Holdren suggesting abortion at up to 2 years old... That's why I lean so heavily on people to realize they're killing somebody. Abortion is a pragmatic tool in the function of our society, but it comes at a cost. You end up with lunatics deciding it's ok to kill off 2 year olds if they're excessively inconvenient. It's just not a slope to be trod upon, the sanity cost is just too high.

Phryxis wrote:I'm not really all that concerned with determining the exact date when it's "a life." I've decided I'm ok with people killing other people, so if it's a person at 28 weeks, or 20 weeks, or the second the sperm and egg touch, whatever. Doesn't matter a ton to me, and it's largely undecideable.

That's the entirety of the issue, though.

The only concern I have is that the lines get blurred. Abortion is a pragmatic tool in the function of our society, but it comes at a cost. You end up with lunatics deciding it's ok to kill off 2 year olds if they're excessively inconvenient. It's just not a slope to be trod upon, the sanity cost is just too high.

Can you directly quote him saying this? It is pretty confusing without context.

Obama's got nutjobs like John Holdren suggesting abortion at up to 2 years old... That's why I lean so heavily on people to realize they're killing somebody.

Comment from Amazon review of Ecoscience

First, anyone who quotes BOTH World Net Daily and Jerome Corsi in the same breath as "experts" has immediately lost any credibility they might have possessed. The quotes taken from this book are cherry-picked to the utmost. When I first read this book in 1977, I was impressed with the detail and attention given to what the authors recognized as a growing crisis. I must admit, it was a very depressing book. Most are when they deal with things we simply don't want to face; ie., unchecked population growth, depletion of our natural resources, the fouling of our environment. At least in the 1950-1980 time period there were still scientists who cared about what was happening to the Earth. Rachel Carson in "Silent Spring" was one among many. The authors of this book were not advocating sterilization, but saw the problems that unchecked population growth would have on our future in relation to the environment and to the sustainability of life. They are not advocating the positions that this commentator assumes, but they do point out dispassionately what the future could be (not necessarily WOULD be) if we do not begin to understand what we are doing to ourselves. The book is frightening (and is meant to be), depressing (to anyone whom has removed their blinders), and accurate.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't read this book. You know what I am guessing? I'm pretty sure that this comment is a reasonable summary of the book.

Hey, I may even go read this guys book though. Pretty damn old, 1978 is way back in the day. You couldn't even argue that I existed back then.

Oh, and to be clear, beyond the summary I don't really think that what this response said is true. Scientists stopped caring after 1980? Lolwut? John Holden may be a smart dude, but I doubt he is a pillar of scientific clarity. Few scientists can really step up and hit that mark.

Anyway...

Wiki wrote:Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.

Sounds like a really scary guy.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/john-holdren

John P. Holdren is Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Kennedy School, as well as Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. He is also the Director of the Woods Hole Research Center and from 2005 to 2008 served as President-Elect, President, and Chair of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His work focuses on causes and consequences of global environmental change, analysis of energy technologies and policies, ways to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons and materials, and the interaction of content and process in science and technology policy.

Ree wrote:

generalgrog wrote:I am pro-life, and I understand where the protesters are coming from. They feel that if they can help 1 mother change their mind then they have done a good thing. I am not saying that I would do what they do, because I personally am a bit leary about protesting about abortion. Not because I think it's wrong per se..but I am just not sure how effective it really is.

As to the father in the video.. he certainly had a right to vent his anger IF those protesters heckled his wife for going in for a medical procedure whereby the mother's life was threatened or the baby was already dead. If that was truly the case then the protesters were wrong, and they did apologize for the slight. Also they shouldn't be heckling if that is what they were doing...they should be offering to help the mothers. (It's unclear in the video what they were doing before the confrontation)I do think that he went overboard with his emotional ranting. I thought those two women were quite Christlike in their tolerance of the abuse he was dishing out.

GG

Very true @ the first part. This style of "protesting" boils down to heckling outside of clinics and is not effective.

In this case, the baby was at 16 weeks but had no chance for survival.

Though they apologized, it seems like to me that they were kind of trying to brush him off/get him out of their faces. This is after they told him and his husband that they were "killing their unborn baby."

Backstory of the video:
http://goodmenproject.com/2010/10/23/confronting-life/
This is written by the person who took the video.
Chris, when you wake up, could you shove this into the original post please?

Two men were having a baby?. Now thats pain for ya

I'm torn on the issue, I don't subscribe to "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice" in eithers totality.

Despite what some have said, there are plenty who do view abortion as a form of birth control. Didn't one of the View's ex-cohosts recently come out and say she's had as many as 9 abortions? 40% of unintended pregnancies are aborted.

In my opinion, people who view it as a form of birth control are scum. Plain and simple.

And as Frazzled mentioned back at the beginning, it's not just the womans womb. That thing growing inside of her is only half of her. An ex-girlfriend of mine, and I, had a pregnancy scare once. She was very firmly of the position that she was going to have an abortion. She didn't care that I was dead set against it. Thankfully, she wasn't pregnant.

So what the hell happened to my rights on the matter? We took precautions to make sure she didn't get pregnant, but even if she had I was willing, and capable of raising the child. But I would have had NO say at all in it, even though I would have been it's father.

So for those who advocate "It's her womb, so piss off", I say to you "piss off". Two people consentually made the decision to have sex. Two people contributed DNA to the baby. Two people should get a say in the process.

I know pregnancy is not easy on a woman. My wife has had a child. It was very hard on her, and I've got some misgivings about having another child. And I understand that this is a big part of the reason why women feel they should have the sole right to the decision.

But from my point of view, your nine months of discomfort is no justification at all to rob me of a life time of the love and joy that I would experience from my child.


Now, I agree that there are cases that warrant an abortion. A serious defect that will ensure an early death, or a horrible life. Rape induced pregnancy (though I'm kinda 50/50 on this). My biggest concession would be a mutual agreement between the two DNA donors.

If neither parent wants the baby, and going through with adoption is "too much trouble" then personally, I think the baby is better dead then being with people like that.

Sounds like a really scary guy.

It depends on what scares you.

I mean, if this guy was literally out there promoting the abortion of 2 year old undesirables as his primary function, then that's not scary, that's... I dunno, an actul Nazi reference being fulfilled. It's beyond scary.

So, what's "scary" is that you've got a Science Czar who's willing to voice some of these things. It shows just how easily we could get into eugenics, etc. etc.

Obviously we know Beck will overplay the evil of his political enemies, but I still find that book creepy. I mean, it's about putting sterilizing agents in the drinking water. Even if you don't advocate that, do you really NEED to have that discussion? We can all appreciate what overpopulation is, we all know where people come from, we all can imagine ways to slow that process. Writing a book about it seems a bit unnecessary and ghoulish.

It's also the first step in the process.

It's the "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" of eugenics.

The mistake, I think, is to assume that suddenly there will be Nazis marching around, with obvious Nazi uniforms, saying Nazi stuff, and if not, all is cool. It doesn't happen that way, it happens by degrees.

Holdren is scary precisely because he moves by degrees, and in doing so has sufficient credibility to be in positions of real power.

Manchu wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:While he may have a point about people having to terminate pregnancies for medical reasons, it doesn't change the fact that he was behaving like an insufferable ball-bag.

As the lady in the video pointed out to him, they are not protesting the kind of procedure he claims his wife had.

No, they just assumed she was until told otherwise, just the way they treat everyone else going there, with total contempt. But people go into these clinics for all sorts of reasons, and all get moralistic finger wagging abuse from these people for being evil murderers. The protesters don't stop to ask the reasons for people going there, they just tar them all the same, I don't think their apology was particularly genuine, they just wanted him to go away so they could carry on branding everyone walking into the clinic the same way. It's so much easier when you don't have to study and face up to the details of individual cases. The Doctors working at these places get nothing but abuse and threats, their lives are made hell, some have even been murdered.

There is a lot of people focusing upon very late term abortions and people having an abortion in place of contraception. These people are in the minority, the bulk of people having abortions do so early and because of a variety of reasons, not that they simply couldn't be bothered to use a condom. Though it is worth pointing out that some kids get into trouble in that way because of their conservative religious upbringing in which they have not been taught about sex in a practical manner. They are not taught about contraception and responsible sex but simply told to be abstinent which simply doesn't work and when they start trying stuff they are not prepared with the knowledge to have safe sex and unexpected pregnancies happen.

Manchu wrote:Can we talk about the video?
man with camera = jerk of simply astounding proportions
Where is his allegedly guilt-ridden, having-the-worst-day-of-her-life, in-the-midst-of-a-medical-emergency wife while he goes around with a camera yelling at middle aged ladies so that he can post the footage on the internet?
And who in the United States goes to an aborition clinic for a medical emergency? His story doesn't add up. At all.
The only argument for abortion this douche bag offers is the idea that he could possibly be someone's father.

Just No.
No Manchu, man with camera = man taking his wife to have a near dead and deformed fetus removed from her womb after going through the stress of trying for a child, seeing her in great emotional pain, feeling the grief of loss himself and having those primitive protection/anger conflicts that most men get in trying to protect their women from something they can't get up and fight.
This man is taking his beloved to the clinic to see about having an operation to remove a deformed fetus instead of beginning the happy road to fatherhood, his wife must be going through all manner of emotional pain, grief and guilt, they both still have the unpleasantness of the operation to go through and the fallout from that...

And then she gets screamed and shouted at by some harridans as a murderess or whatever else they labelled her...

If they had said that to my wife in that situation I might well have done exactly as he did or likely been far more vitriolic. The actions of this man are entirely, utterly understandable. He suddenly does have a physical enemy, he does have someone stood there verbally attacking, no fething wonder he lashed out at them, frankly the silly bitches got off lightly.

Manchu wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I Don't see this guy as a jerk at all... I see him as a frustrated person who needed to vent after having to deal with the loss of his own kid and I see anyone in his way, insulting him and his wife as a piece of crap.

I don't know how those ladies exercising free speech got in this alleged father's way. In fact, despite their best efforts they have not been able to get in the way of anyone seeking an abortion for the last thirty seven years. Even if I were to accept his story, I'd still say he was a total jerk: if he just needed to go outside to calm down, why yell at some strangers? You don't get to calm down by yelling at strangers. You don't get to vent your anger at strangers. And who brings a camera along? The answer is "jerks bring their cameras along."

I agree with GG. Those ladies showed patience with his abuse.

Manchu wrote:And he's not on "God's side," is he? Herpty derpty derp.

When did he claim to be? It is the 'Christians' who aren't out helping the homeless or rescuing drug addicts or working with the disabled or saving children from prostitution but instead standing outside clinics and screaming who are acting in a fairly directly hypocritical manner. Like those Westboro nuts or the 'Christians' who protested and campaigned against dungeons and dragons games instead of doing something ACTUALLY worthwhile. Those Westboro fethers, standing at the funerals of 19 year old soldiers and shouting at their parents that they are praying for more dead soldiers and that their son was a 'cigarette enabler', they are exercising their free speech... does that make it correct to do so? I would suggest not.

They are not Christian to me, they are people who have constructed ivory towers for themselves and deign to sit in judgement over the rest of humanity, against the teachings of Jesus.

They are hypocrites.

Manchu wrote:Chris, you'll have to excuse me for being rather skeptical of the backstory provided by this man. On the bare face of the video, we have a man going up to two ladies and getting extremely morally indignant and self-righteous over them allegedly being morally indignant and self-righteous. I think he even calls them hypocrites. Seriously. Whatever valid points he may have been able to make are completely undercut by his own adoption of the method and posture he claims to be opposing.
In his blog entry, he encourages others to take up "non-violent" means in imitation of him. But I will tell you this as a lawyer: going up to people on the street and venting your fury at them is not non-violent. In fact, you might be charged with assault. (The police car he saw was almost certainly there for him. The protesters had likely been told to go home for their own safety.) Think hard about why the term non-violence has so much moral weight--because it actually is an alternative to the method it critques. This man may be right to be angry over people like those protesting ladies (if what he claims about them is true)--and if that's the case, he should be pretty furious with himself. Because he's one of them.

Your scepticism is irrelevant. If we discuss this at all (and frankly on dakka, I'd now rather we didn't), then we only use what evidence we have to hand, the information we are presented with, the rest is conjecture on your part.

He CAN be morally indignant and self righteous over them, they are purporting to be Christians, which should mean a religion of love, tolerance, support and understanding, yet they are shouting abusive and hurtful things to any woman going into the abortion clinic, they are assuming that all women entering the building are aborting healthy fetuses and that further, they have the moral right to stand and shout at them, which is NOT ONCE supported by the teachings of Christ in the bible.

And he CAN be excused for losing his temper with them, in fact I think he showed very great restraint in his dealings with these false Christians. These ignorant, self appointed, judges over life and the morality of others. We can have little understanding of just what pain and sorrow this man was feeling, what love and anguish this man had for his wife, the damage and wounding this experience had taken to their relationship.

This woman, his wife, having endured all the terrible loss and grief and pain a woman can be forced to bear, is taken to this medical facility to have an indignant and intrusive operation carried out on her, she is being exposed to so many unpleasant and horrible things, and where are the 'followers' of Christ? Providing succour? Lending strength? Praying for her? Making her a cup of fething tea?!?

No, they are stood outside jeering and heckling and telling this poor woman how hateful she is...

It is wicked and contemptible. It is the action of a vile person. It is against the teachings of Christ, whom they proport to follow.

"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:" (Luke 6:37)

"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." (Romans 14:10)

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5)

Phryxis wrote:

Sounds like a really scary guy.

It depends on what scares you.

I mean, if this guy was literally out there promoting the abortion of 2 year old undesirables as his primary function, then that's not scary, that's... I dunno, an actul Nazi reference being fulfilled. It's beyond scary.

So, what's "scary" is that you've got a Science Czar who's willing to voice some of these things. It shows just how easily we could get into eugenics, etc. etc.

Obviously we know Beck will overplay the evil of his political enemies, but I still find that book creepy. I mean, it's about putting sterilizing agents in the drinking water. Even if you don't advocate that, do you really NEED to have that discussion? We can all appreciate what overpopulation is, we all know where people come from, we all can imagine ways to slow that process. Writing a book about it seems a bit unnecessary and ghoulish.

It's also the first step in the process.

It's the "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" of eugenics.

The mistake, I think, is to assume that suddenly there will be Nazis marching around, with obvious Nazi uniforms, saying Nazi stuff, and if not, all is cool. It doesn't happen that way, it happens by degrees.

Holdren is scary precisely because he moves by degrees, and in doing so has sufficient credibility to be in positions of real power.

Oh, hi Gailbraithe! Where have you....wait, YOU'RE not Gailbraithe!



/nazis everywhere

I really don't see why people care so much about something that likely has absolutely not effect on them.

If your the possible Mom you should get a say, if you are the possible father, you should get an opinion on the matter.

Otherwise, seriously, go clean up a park or something.

Seriously? I mean, SERIOUSLY?

If I was jumping to that conclusion, then why did you have to / the two sides? I made no such assumption. You should have noticed it by reading what I wrote. You DOUBLE should have noticed it when you typed your own post, and didn't actually know what to claim I was assuming.

I had the two sides to demonstrate that you don't actually know which way I jump. I still haven't said which side of the fence I'm on, and I don't intend to. It has absolutely no bearing on my point.

Honestly, I'm kinda tripping on how crazy that is.

I suggest calming down and injecting a dose of reality. You're discussing ethics on a board for toy soldiers. Calm down and maybe we can have a proper discussion.

You literally just accused somebody of saying something they didn't say, and the fact that even YOU didn't hear me say it didn't give you any pause, you still made the accusation.

Accusation? To quote:-

I find the whole "it's the woman's body" to be a fairly ridiculous argument. It's not "the woman's body" it's the baby's life.

To which I responded that the womans body is an issue, so far as that if someone insisted on a woman carrying a baby to term against her will, then they were forcing someone to suffer pain and discomfort for their morality.

I have not said whether this or a good or bad thing. Again, you jump to conclusions. And again, you've written a bizarely hysterical post railing against positions I've never taken. And again, you've completely ignored the point I've made. As said before, either respond to the point I've made, or don't respond at all. Your continuous nasty remarks and offensive comments only serve to undermine everything you say, not support it.

Who said it wasn't a baby/living person? Again, you're projecting a whole stance onto me here I never took.

I guess I was just trying to do you the service of seeking to make sense of a nonsensical position. My bad.

Regardless, it would not be morally justifiable to suggest that one innocent person has more right to avoid temporary pain than another innocent person has right to avoid permanent death.

Morally justifiable? Allow me to clarify something here. America recently went to war, and expended many lives in order to secure it's grip on an oil supply. I'll think you'll find what's 'morally justifiable' is a whole new ball game when it comes to death. War is nothing more than state sanctioned assassination. How is that relevant you may ask? Well, what it comes down to is what you believe is the intrinsic value of the human life.

And, in a roundabout sort of way, you have clarified it is, in your eyes, morally justifiable to cause someone severe pain and discomfort to save another's life.

That's fine. I just wanted that clarified, instead of which, you've tried to dump a load of things on me to defend, which I never said on the first place.

When comparing "permanent death" to "temporary discomfort" I would suggest that "temporary discomfort" is the lesser injustice. By far. By FAR. I know, I'm such a mysoginist.

But, regardless, given that fact of moral calculus, I had to assume that you decided that the "permanent death" was a lesser evil, because the entity suffering it was somehow less than the entity suffering "temporary discomfort." It's the only way I can make sense of that stance.

I've decided nothing. I've taken no stance at all, merely pointed out that one uncomfortable truth, to quote:-

Ketara wrote:I simply pointed out the uncomfortable truth that if you are against abortion, you must theoretically be in favour of forcing a woman to go through pain and pregnancy against her will. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Perhaps you have a better answer. I'd be glad to hear it, especially if my other option is you telling me yet more things I never said.

You told me the fact that it's the womans body is a ridiculous argument back on Page 1. To which I surmised that to hold such a position, you must also hold the position I just gave in the quote above. hich you then confirmed, in the last thing of yours that I quoted. To conclude, I was right. You do hold that position. You've just said it point blank yourself.

Speaking (again) of which, you can get indignant and self-righteous all you want....blah blah, etc etc

Again, with the personal comments. Really, is there any fact in this bizare rant at all? Your strategy seems to be to set me with half a dozen strawmen, accuse me of accusing you of things, and then insult me for supposedly accusing you of these things. Please. Calm down. Use logic. Do not insult other people. I think such a strategy would lend far more weight to your words. Rather than making stuff up, how about disputing the one and only thing I've actually said in this whole discussion, to reiterate:-

Ketara wrote:I simply pointed out the uncomfortable truth that if you are against abortion, you must theoretically be in favour of forcing a woman to go through pain and pregnancy against her will. Nothing more, and nothing less.

You said I assumed the woman wants to give birth. I did not. I did not even remotely imply it. In fact, I implied the opposite.

You suggested that I demanded some sort of control over a woman's reproductive process. I did not. I did not even remotely imply it. In fact, I concretely stated the opposite.

Errr.....You just told me that:-

When comparing "permanent death" to "temporary discomfort" I would suggest that "temporary discomfort" is the lesser injustice. By far. By FAR. I know, I'm such a mysoginist.

That seems to imply you are in favour of forcing women to carry babies to term against your will. Sorry, but that's the way it looks.

Then you suggested that I jumped to a conclusion on your stance on abortion. I did not. Etc. etc. etc. Etc. Etc.

Yes you did. Because I haven't got a stance. I have at no point in this entire discussion, even once given my own personal view on things. I've merely pointed out that the womans body is a factor in the equation and not 'ridiculous' as you put it. I then postulated that(reiterates for third time, in hope of getting it across):-

Ketara wrote:I simply pointed out the uncomfortable truth that if you are against abortion, you must theoretically be in favour of forcing a woman to go through pain and pregnancy against her will. Nothing more, and nothing less.

And, honestly, that's what infuriates me so much about this whole debate. There's a segment of the population that gets all "you go girl, good for you" about women getting abortions. Like it's some sort of injustice that society might frown on killing unborn babies.

"It's YOUR body, girl, don't let them tell you what to do!"

Screw that. It's killing a baby. Women getting abortions are not heroines. They're very rarely even victims. I support their right to do what's most practical for themselves and for society. We, as a society, have empowered people to make judgements on the lives of other members of our society in certain narrow situations. I fully support it. But let's not pretend like women getting abortions are (with vanishingly few exceptions) doing anything but taking the easy way out of a bad situation that they themselves created.

They're not "taking back control of their womb."

They're killing somebody as a pragmatic solution to a problem.

So hang on. First you tell me it wouldn't be morally justifiable for a woman to seek an abortion to spare themselves pain and discomfort( 'it would not be morally justifiable to suggest that one innocent person has more right to avoid temporary pain than another innocent person has right to avoid permanent death'). But then you say you 'fully support it'.

Care to clarify this? Do you therefore not believe your own stance is morally justified?

Ketara, if I may interject for a second, I believe that Phryxis has made it clear that he supports abortion, all things considered. What he's saying is that if you support abortion, you must make your peace with the fact that it involves ending a human life and that everything is just window-dressing or equivocation.

I tend to agree.

At what point does a blastula become a human being?

Certainly. I've recognised he's said that later on. I just find it peculiar he also seems to have said:-

it would not be morally justifiable to suggest that one innocent person has more right to avoid temporary pain than another innocent person has right to avoid permanent death

I'm wondering how he reconciles these two statements. Nothing more, nothing less. Although dodging all the personal attacks has gotten a bit tiring, so once he clears that up for me, I'll probably stop posting.

Kilkrazy wrote:At what point does a blastula become a human being?

Not sure. They ARE tasty, though.

That's the crux of the argument around abortion.

Kilkrazy wrote:At what point does a blastula become a human being?

When it can give you the finger?


Guys do we really need to have this discussion on a board about toy soldiers? I am closing this as its out there and is only going to start a flame war in a big way - too much emotion on this topic and people's opinion don't change for deep personal reasons. If someone has an issue with that they can contact another moderator. If a mod has an issue they can contact me on the mod forum.