Right to Life Ethical Considerations

Or, say, holding a cougar responsible for mauling a jogger. Sure, it's easy to say that the cougar was just a dumb animal that didn't know what it was doing, and that it's the jogger's fault for being there. Me? I don't like to blame the victim, I guess. Clearly they did, in fact. Abortion was legal when I was born, so if I was an unwanted pregnancy, they certainly had that option. Since they chose not to use it, I was clearly not an unwanted pregnancy, but a pregnancy that had the full permission to take residency in a uterus. When I moved out, I guess. You? What did I tell you about the ad hominem? Anyway, the disturbed position is yours - you, who would bind all women into sexual slavery. You, who reduces them to nothing but life-support systems for your goddamned precious fetuses that you couldn't give a rat's ass about after they're born.We're talking about thinking people, 2B. Sometimes children, for god's sake. What on Earth is the value of an unthinking, brainless, worthless zygote set next to that? They're a dime a dozen. They're so cheap that a woman's body just throws them away, on it's own, most of the time. If you're concerned about this plague of zygote murder, you need to get into the trash and start combing through the tampons, because countless numbers of the zygotes you're so concerned about are floating out with the trash every day.But, of course, you're not really all that concened. You're just a bitter, twisted individual who can't stand the thought that a woman might take control of her own sexual and reproductive destiny. You're scared to death that the zygote she aborts might be yours. And I have to say, you must be a pretty fucked up person indeed if you don't have any other way to convince a woman to bear your child except to chain her into having no other legal choice.

In my understanding, the topic of this thread is "abortion", not "Holmes lets ancient grudge break to new mutiny." And I think it's pretty shitty of you to try to bait Schraf off-topic in that regard.

Hrm, really? I don't see her doing that.I see her refuting the assertion that what was presented actually was a "study", and not just a collection of anecdotes. 2B hasn't actually presented a study, just 200 selected examples of harmful abortions.Your post is off-topic. It's another one of your trademark distortions. Ah. You're the expert on her previously stated opinions?The simple truth is, Holmes, you're extraordinarily inept at actually percieving the positions of other people. So I highly doubt that Schraf has actually taken the position you've shoved in her mouth. I'm all but absolutely sure, in fact, that this is simply another example of how you load your questions in order to argue against positions people haven't actually taken. Sure. The relevant difference here is, Schraf and I are actually presenting the opponents position. You? You're just making up positions and then falsely presenting it as the position of your opponent.Exactly like you're doing here. Schraf didn't attack the use of studies on principle, as you assert; anyone can read her post and see she did exactly the opposite. I'm trying to steer a thread back on topic, which was, as you'll recall, abortion. I don't see any abortion content in any of your posts in this thread so far.

Quote the claims. Link to the messages, too.

Show me. I've asked you to and you haven't. Well, you could start by saying the names of the threads and the numbers of the posts where those exchanges occured. How does that sound? We've tried that in the past. But your determination to achieve an appearance of superiority in every encounter means that you construe an attempt to correct your grevious misunderstandings as an attempt to move the goal posts. What studies? Yeah, Holmes. You're on to us. We're emailing back and forth - spending hours on the phone - synchonising every single reply to you, calculated for maximum effect.Yes, that's exactly what we're doing. Boy, you should see how bored we are when you're in lurker mode! It's unbearable. She calls me up and we're all like "shit, when is Holmes gonna post again? My life is a joyless sinkhole without the unadulterated pleasure of tweaking that dude on the internet whose name I don't even know."You need help, Holmes. Between your paranoid delusions, your astounding egomania, and your creepy enthusiasm for sex with minors you're probably rocking about four or five seperate neurotic complexes.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I'm not the master of anything, Holmes. I just know you well enough to know that you regularly lie about what other people have said.Hey, prove me wrong by all means. Quote the statements you're referring to. But I'm not about to take the word of the likes of you on it. Supporting your claims is on-topic if the claims themselves are on-topic, which you've argued. It's incoherent for you to make claims that you argue are on-topic and then assert that the defense of those claims is not. If proving what Schraf said is off-topic, then your claim about what she said was off-topic in the first place. Sure. 200 hand-picked examples of harm are not, however, and don't make any sense to use as an answer to the question of how many are harmed. I just want to be sure, though it's off-topic. When you say "the science", are you referring soley to the methodologically flawed Rind et al study? I don't see that as the same argument at all. The choice in regards to sex with children is children having sex with adults vs. children not having sex with adults.But in this case, the choice isn't women having abortions vs. women not having abortions, it's women having abortions vs. women carrying a pregnancy to term. Not having sex with a child has no negative consequences for the child. Carrying a pregnancy to term has significantly more negative consequences than abortion.It's ridiculous that I have to explain that to you, of course. It's idiotic that you think there's any sort of equivalency here, and it's symptomatic of the fact that you have no particular committment to the truth insofar as it moves you towards your goal of appearing superior to posters like Schraf and myself.There's no inconsistency in Schraf's position. In each case it's the position of least harm. Oh, poor baby! It really is too much to be borne that we're not all on bended knee before your luminous intellect, isn't it? You're a truly brave and generous man, Holmes, the way you suffer us ungrateful wretches who simply don't have the decency to thank you for illuminating us with your glorious sun.

Or, if you don't believe that the extinguishing of a living thing with no mind whatsoever isn't such a bad thing.I don't believe that it is. Certainly not as bad as an unwanted pregnancy. Since you're just making up stuff now, let me correct your misunderstanding: the majority opinion in the United States is that abortion should be legal and avaliable: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.moderatemajority.com/abortion.htmPerhaps not under every concievable circumstance, but certainly a majority of Americans hold the exact opposite opinion that you ascribe to them - that a fetus can be aborted without it being a moral outrage or the murder of a person. One of the things about being an intelligent person is the ability to examine a position outside of emotional feelings on the issue. I don't claim to be doing it all the time, and I don't think Holmes has ever done it, but I invite you to try it. Try to examine the physiology of pregnancy without your emotional feelings about babies and how cute they are. I dare you to do it.

All kinds of things are "human". Hairs can be human. Cheek scrapings and nail clippings can be human. A hair from my head, follicle attached, has more cells, more DNA, than I did before the 5th week of pregnancy. According to the law, at birth. What part of that do you find ambiguous? It refuted your comment. Clearly, Americans recognize the right of women to make determinations about who gets to live in their bodies at any given time. I'm not surprised you can see it, given that that's exactly your attitude towards pregnant women.

...nobody has that right, Holmes. Nobody has the right to demand sexual activities from others. Children have no right to demand sexual favors from other children, or from anybody else. Nobody does.I'm surprised that I have to tell you that, in fact. What on Earth is wrong with you? What proscription? I'm not familiar with anybody here who's asserted that it's harmful for minors to have consensual sex with each other. In fact, considering how frequently minors do that, and how obviously all adults were once minors, it would be pretty stupid indeed to argue such a point. Sexual contact with adults? Really? With adults? Try to remember that's what we're talking about - sex with adults and minors. No, it wasn't. It was about adults having sex with minors; that's the point now, and it's been the point all along. Do I have to impeach you with your own statements again? Who said anything about prostitution? Jesus, try to stay on the topic, Holmes! Or is that impossible for you? You can take your "olive branch" and cram it up your ass, and you're a real piece of work for bringing up Jazzn's experience like it's relevant to you and I - and distorting it while you do so. At least I had the decency to apologize to him. I noticed that's a courtesy that is apparently beneath you.

According to the law. What part of that was hard to understand? The law governs my civil behavior. So on the civil question of when I'm going to act like a given organism is something with rights I should protect, I'm going to look to the law.I don't hold myself above the law, I guess. Apparently you think differently. So, you think that the majority of Americans think abortion is murder, but they support legal murder in exactly... what circumstances, exactly? There, in the poll. That's a majority of Americans supporting the right of women to choose to have abortions. Look, it wasn't a poll about forcing women to have abortions, was it? The pro-choice position isn't a side. It's not the other extreme of a continuum. That's a distortion by abortion foes.The pro-choice position is a compromise - between those who want abortions, and those who don't. The compromise is this - people who want abortions get them, and people who don't want them, don't.Which means that the debate is between those who compromise and those who are unwilling to compromise, ever. Which side are you on, exactly?

As a rule, you'd be wrong. The majority of pregnancies end this way, in fact - naturally aborted by the woman's body. And if she can't bear the thought of gestating it? She's just screwed?Do you think you could try to get over, just for a minute, your deep hatred of women who have sex? Your posts are dripping with it, with your desperate need to slut-shame any woman who fails your astounding high and arrogant standards. It's really an obstacle to discussing this issue honestly. Really? I found the distinction to be quite clear, both in practice and under the law - birth. I doubt it. You know, one of the things that a reader becomes totally convinced of from reading your posts is that you don't know anything about the physiology of pregnancy. When you really study the issue, you see that it's a lot less about the woman's body nurturing and protecting the vulnerable, and a lot more about an antagonistic physical relationship where the fetus greedily assaults the mother's immune system, penetrating its defenses for every last scrap of nourishment it can steal, regardless of what it actually needs, and the mother's body scrambling to erect a defense in a delicate balancing act between starving the fetus and being devoured by it from within.Maybe these terms shock you. If they don't make sense to you it's because you haven't studied the physiology of pregnancy short of Osborn books on where babies come from.

quote:

---

"I affirm my belief that women who have sex are all sluts, unless they're having it with me. Even the married ones are slutty, just a little bit.

​

"I affirm my belief that these women need to be punished for being sluts, and the best way to do that is to inflict a dangerous medical condition on them, a condition that is the leading cause of death for young women worldwide, and make sure they have no medical recourse to recitfy the situation. Of course, we're gonna take the baby away when it's over; why should a slut get to raise a child?"

---

quote:

---

"I affirm how angry I am that, once, I gifted a woman with my seed and in spite of this amazing gift, she threw it back in my face by getting an abortion. I affirm how angry I am that a woman would dare to determine, for herself, what other human beings were allowed to reside in her uterus. I affirm that once a man pokes it, he owns it. I affirm that I will devote my life to making sure than women do not dare to determine for themselves who is allowed to take up residence in her body and leach nutrients and resources from it."

---

It's pretty obvious what's going on with you, 2B.

No, but she can un-pregnancy herself. It's called "abortion." Why? What right does that fetus have to gestate in that uterus? Let it find another, willing uterus if it wants to gestate so bad.Oh, it can't do that? It'll die when we try to take it out? Well, that's a tragedy, but what fault of the mother's is that? Speaking of lies...Look, this never happens. You're just making this up. Well, consider yourself corrected. The physical relationship is quite antagonistic at almost every level. Or, hey, how about this middle ground - women who want abortions get them, women who don't want them don't have to have them.Seems to me that's the perfect compromise. I don't know why you're obsessed with the extremes, here - why does it have to be all or nothing for you? Why does it have to be either nobody gets an abortion, or everybody does?Isn't that pretty stupid, actually? I'd noticed that, actually.

Or divorce. See, there's an alternative that gets you the same thing.But there's no option for terminating a pregancy but abortion, because those terms are synonyms.It sucks that, when you remove the fetus from the uterus, it dies. But how is that the fault of the mother? It's a sad but necessary consequence of the termination of the pregnancy. It's not "murder." It's a lot more like self-defense. It doesn't have any will or malicious intent. Neither does a dog when it attacks the mailman. But we put down dogs that attack people; so too does a mother have the right to put down an attacking zygote.I mean, shouldn't the fact that you recognize that we're talking about something incapable of will or intent be a clue to you that what we're talking about doesn't have the same kinds of rights as full-fledged adults, or even children? I'm sorry, I thought you were the expert on delivery proceedures? I'm not "upset" about it. But doesn't that give me the same basis not to be upset when a woman makes a decision about who gets to live within her body? Not me! Look, I'm not making this stuff up about pregnancy. You can look up the physiology yourself. Oh, really? 1 out of every 3 American women have committed murder? Like, killed a person? And, what? We should lock them up? Deliver the death penalty to 1 in 3 women?You don't think you're an "extreme guy"? The more you talk about your position, the more extreme it appears.Hey, I'm a moderate. I believe in a compromise. That compromise is this - people who want abortions can have them. People that don't don't have to have them. Seems pretty simple and fair, to me. If you're so opposed to abortions, how about you choose not to have any? Uh-huh. One in three American women are terrorists. Not extreme, folks!

How could that possibly be compared? How would we measure "unwanted pregancies" in any meaningful way in a time before the restrictions on abortion were eased?The truth is actually pretty simple - once we started educating teens about sex, teenage birthrates declined, STD's declined, everybody got healthier and smarter about sex.And you want to roll that back? Because what, you think teenagers won't figure out how to have sex without some kind of instruction manual? Trust me, they get the hang of it pretty quickly no matter what you tell or don't tell them. What they won't know anything about is how to use the technologies we've developed to make sex safer. Those do require instructions.