Would everyone here agree that the creeping government control of pregnancies and criminalization of terminated pregnancies is scary orwellian shit?

[–]Leprecon 11 points12 points13 points 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Would be nice if feminists had sense enough to stop using those funds and the clout to ruin individual men and start using them to defend women's rights against religious extremism.

They also do that, the problem is that everybody expects them to, so when it happens it comes as no surprise to anybody and nobody cares :( There are protests against abortion every day too that are ignored.

But yes, a government shouldn't have any say in it, and it sickens me when states pass symbolic anti abortion legislation that cannot be enacted due to the supreme court ruling.

Several states have enacted "trigger laws" which "would take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned."

That sort of shit is just fucking depressing and pointless political pandering. Why don't they create some legislation saying that they would fight Hitler should the chance arise?

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Leprecon 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]robobreasts 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nitrogen76 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]duglock 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]cooj 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DBi -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cooj 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DBi 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The definition that you are using does not match up with the one used in the poll.

Compare "thinks abortion should outlawed and criminalized" and "53% currently say abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances."

see http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/-trrvu0n2ec-mym1hguzfa.gif

Also see "With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation's policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans -- and, in particular, Republicans -- seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among political moderates as well as conservatives.

It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction." at the end

TL:DR The Gallup does not show what you think it does. The definitions of pro-life imbecile and you are using and the one Gallup is using are different definitions.

[–]lampplant 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lampplant 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]zyk0s 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]zyk0s 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]melb22 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

The instinct of self preservation almost always trumps the instinct to protect the young.

How much a mother is willing to risk to protect the young is directly related to how much she already has invested in it and how her chances of getting more offspring stand.

If you wanna talk about what's natural, then talk about mice eating their own babies in times of stress and scarcity.

If you wanna reduce the number of abortions via government measures, then the way to go is welfare and an infrastructure for children and child care. This already has been demonstrated.

In Eastern Germany, before the reunion, there were no restrictions on abortion and contraception, in fact both was completely covered by the government health care. Despite that the birth rate was almost double of West Germany and abortion rates were a fraction of what they were in the west.

After the reunion most structural government support for young mothers and families broke away, the western restrictions on abortion were introduced and you had to pay for your contraception. Birth rates dropped, abortion skyrocketed.

A stable environment for families is the determining factor. All that criminalization of abortion does is to have more young women die of coat hangers. Unless you think this is what the government wants ...

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You said that before, but I'm not sure what to think, since you seem to be arguing seriously for it in some of the other comments you've made here. The answer to misandry isn't misogyny. I disagree with any of the notions that all mothers do a cost-benefit analysis on their offspring, that all men are potential rapists, or that all men or women are potential baby-killers. But I am getting a little tired of seeing this parade of horrible mothers (the latest being the gem of the drunk mother who stuffed her newborn into a microwave and cooked her to death-- the fact that she did it over an argument over paternity with her boyfriend is just icing on the cake) through /r/mensrights as "proof" that mothers suck and fathers are awesome. We don't have to demonize mothers to bring fathers up where they belong.

[–]rantgrrl -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

We don't have to demonize mothers to bring fathers up where they belong.

I look at it this way.

Those feelings you have? Guys have to deal with them from the constant barrage 24-7 from MSM of how they are a danger to their kids, how their sexuality is damaging to everyone around them, how they are child-abusers, rapists, wife-beaters, pedophiles and can't coordinate their socks.

Maybe people should focus on changing that rather then complaining about one small subreddit in a sea of virulent misandry.

Personally? I like explorations of evil mothers because my mother was a sociopath and I don't think sociopathic mothers are given enough attention. Family law terrifies me precisely because if she had divorced my father (she died instead) I would have become her ward and been pitched into a living, endless hell from which I would not have emerged alive.

The /MR is the only place where I get the most horrific parts of my life actually affirmed as true and, you know, important.

[–]Alanna2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Those feelings you have? Guys have to deal with them from the constant barrage 24-7 from MSM of how they are a danger to their kids, how their sexuality is damaging to everyone around them, how they are child-abusers, rapists, wife-beaters, pedophiles and can't coordinate their socks.

I get that, and my comment history, like yours, bears out defending men from these and similar accusations. You are, as you know, preaching to the choir. But if I wasn't already sympathetic to the MRM, your approach would just piss me off.

Maybe people should focus on changing that rather then complaining about one small subreddit in a sea of virulent misandry.

That's a straw man. Of course those false impressions should be changed. But considering most people have never even heard of MRM, I don't think their first impression should be, "we paint all mothers as potential baby-killers."

I like explorations of evil mothers because my mother was a sociopath and I don't think sociopathic mothers are given enough attention.

But that doesn't mean that attention to sociopathic mothers should be a plank in the men's rights platform.

Family law terrifies me precisely because if she had divorced my father (she died instead) I would have become her ward and been pitched into a living, endless hell from which I would not have emerged alive.

This is a legitimate men's rights issue, but the way you characterize it makes it sound like the vast majority of cases where there is no maternal abuse or insanity, it's okay to marginalize the fathers there. The best mother in the world should still share custody 50-50 with her ex in the event of a divorce, barring other factors.

The /MR is the only place where I get the most horrific parts of my life actually affirmed as true and, you know, important.

What you went through sounds horrible, and I can't imagine. Having said that, though, /mr shouldn't be used as surrogate therapy for you and your childhood issues. There should be no dissonance between saying you had a shitty mother, and saying that most parents, mother and father, make heroic levels of self-sacrifice in various ways for their children.

[–]rantgrrl1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The irony is that I don't actually judge mothers as much as most people.

Here's the thing. I can accept that I was subject to a calculus at birth and that, if I failed, I would have been killed. I can accept that women can be ruthless when they have to be about their own offspring. I'm glad that our society has seen fit to allow women abortion. What I can't accept is choosing to let a child live and then treating that child like an emotional waste disposal. That is an even more selfish act then killing a child you can't support.

One thing that having a horrific mother did for me is make me realize, consciously, what a good mother is made of.

I don't judge mothers for smoking in the house, or not avoiding every single drop of alcohol during pregnancy, or not feeding their kid organic, or eating fruit in the third trimester or not putting their kids in the very best pre-pre-school so they learn french and factoring quadratic equations by the time they're three. Nor do I judge mothers for kicking their kids out at seven in the morning and telling them the house is closed till sundown, or having a life of their own or being overwhelmed and getting violent or yelling.

I don't judge mothers for almost every single petty reason they judge each other.

But I do hold mothers to one standard(that they often fail) and this is it: That they try to see the world through their kids eyes instead of compulsively defending their point of view.

There should be no dissonance between saying you had a shitty mother, and saying that most parents, mother and father, make heroic levels of self-sacrifice in various ways for their children.

Get that ego stroking somewhere else. You're not getting it from me.

I have seen such appalling behavior from parents towards their children. I think most people take all the pains of 'growing up' and inflict them on their children in order to create a facade of adulthood.

We are a society that hates its children. From not supporting young parents during infancy to abusive, coercive teaching practices to emotional incest... ugh, even the shit that's considered normal is horrifying.

[–]therealbarackobama 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]therealbarackobama 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bizarrecomment 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]s0nicfreak 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aavagadrro 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_Toast 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]memymineown 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wanted to see how many of the people here are more concernced with taking women's rights away than with fighting for their own.

Where, anywhere in this thread or anywhere in the MRM for that matter, do you see MRAs demanding women not have rights, that men would? I would dearly like to see some of that.

You know, taking away a women's right to her body is not the only way to protect a mans reproducitve rights. It's even a rather poor way. The problems that come with it are more a result of the legal landscape surrounding it and family courts, not with abortion itself.

Oh, I see where you were heading. Well, first of all, the idea that MRAs want to deny women their right to choose is a Feminist LIE. It is an utter fabrication, a total misrepresentation of the MRA position. Fortunately I can let you in on what said position is:

"Men should have the exact same legal rights as women, and vice versa". This would mean that in the case of Abortion: A) men should have the right to simply walk away from a pregnant girlfriend, for no reason at all if he so wishes, for exactly the same time frame women could opt for abortion/adoption, or B) women's right to choose, and even adopt, would be restricted to mirror the rights men have in this area, which is to say, none. You will note we do not have an 'official position' on abortion itself, just that men and women should have identical legal rights - whatever they happen to be.

The position you have makes you not much better than the Dworkins of this world.

You mean the position you constructed in your own mind makes the straw-MRA you posit no better than Dworkin. Your OPINION on abortion is shared by MRAs, and opposed by other MRAs. Kinda like in society in general. And we have big enough problems without trying to 'solve' the abortion debate at the same time.

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Men's rights should not become about punishing and oppressing women and discrediting womanhood on principle

I have never heard an MRA, speaking for the MRM, speak against abortion rights. I have also never heard an MRA say that men should have the right to compel a woman to either have an abortion or carry a baby to term. Feminists twist the MRM positions on these issues to make it sound like men support this-- case in point: there was a thread a few months ago on just this topic, "financial abortions" as they seem to have been dubbed, in /r/feminisms, and the mods went through and deleted every single post supporting the financial abortion and left all the ones that disagreed, so that anyone reading through it would get the impression that the MRAs were in favor of forcing women to get abortions if they didn't feel like paying child support. But I've never seen any MRAs actually support this position.

However, I'm a woman, and long before I was into men's rights, I was against abortion, so I don't think that's a very good "litmus test" for how seriously a MRA supports women's rights.

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Make up your mind. Is abortion a good thing or not? Do you want to see more of them or not? Do you think they should be avoided or not? Everyone agrees that unwanted pregnancies are a bad thing, so don't give me that. The question is what to do when you find yourself unexpectedly pregnant. I personally subscribe to the "don't have sex if you absolutely don't want to get pregnant," followed up by "if you do have sex without wanting to get pregnant, make damn sure you use contraception, at least two methods, and use them properly," followed up by "if you do get pregnant, take responsibility for the sex you had and deal with the pregnancy for nine months, and then give the kid up for adoption if you don't want to deal with it anymore, or keep it and revise your life plan." I'm generally asked then why I want to "punish women for having sex." It's pretty indicative to me of the feminist mindset that "responsibility" and "punishment" have become so synonymous to feminists that they literally cannot tell the difference anymore.

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm questioning your weasel-wording in several comments where you claim no one is "for" abortion, when you yourself seem to think it's no big thing and that everyone should get one.

You're the one who chose to drag a highly polarized debate with many men and women of various political ideologies on both sides into a men's rights subreddit and try to paint everyone on a certain side as anti-woman, and, by extension, anti-equality. Abortion is a men's rights issue only in that "reproductive freedom" currently translates into "women can do whatever the hell they want and men have to pay for it," meaning that it's a long way from equality, but that really has little to do with abortion rights, which meant equality originally because supposedly men could have sex with impunity but women ran the risk of getting pregnant and then being stuck that way.

In short, sir, you seem to be trolling.

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]imbecile1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Guy51234 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hopeless_case 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Liverotto 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TOGTFO 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mowza 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ghebert001 -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]cooj 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwilke 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]mullanaphy 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well according to biology human life starts exactly at fertilization. The science part is solid and black and white on whether a fetus is human.

The second part though is a lot more gray and comes down to personal interpretations on when personhood starts and when human life should be protected.

Pro-lifers tend to all agree that human life equals personhood no matter what part of gestation. Pro-choicers tend to have more variation yet from personal anecdotes it usually is in line around the time of brain\pain development or when the fetus could be viable outside of the womb.

P.S. You don't have to be religious to be pro-life and you don't have to be atheist to be pro-choice. Nor does it have to do with oppression, it has a lot more to do with whether the fetus has rights and if she does where her rights are trumped by her mother's rights.

[–]cooj -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]beyelzu 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cooj -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ghebert001 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ghebert001 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cooj 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]everhood13 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cooj -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]cooj -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]cooj 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cooj 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cooj1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ManThoughts -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]amaefm 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManThoughts -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManThoughts 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManThoughts 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]amaefm 15 years ago* [recovered] (42 children) | Copy Link

The government doesn't fund abortions directly. Lol @ horrors. Stop watching Beck and Hannity.

[–]zyk0s 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]amaefm 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]amaefm 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The first one sounds like not much worse than a DNC(iirc) which is a routine procedure women get all the time. It's not "horrific"

Perhaps you missed the part where they have to cut the fetus up, piece by piece, and vacuum it out?

At least partial-birth abortions are intact, and there is actually, believe it or not, a compassionate argument for partial-birth abortions. If the child dies in utero, or has some severe internal defect that means it won't live very long, a partial-birth abortion allows the doctors to give the parents an intact body to mourn. Partial-births are usually only done when there is a medical reason; elective late-terms are generally done with the other method, which, as you noted, is similar to a D&C (it's dilation AND cutterage, not the Democratic National Convention), except that it's a lot more horrible (IMO) when you're chopping up a fetus that's basically an underdeveloped baby instead of the bean-sized embryo/fetus in the first trimester.

[–]amaefm 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cooj -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]everhood13 9 points10 points11 points 15 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]cooj 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

A blastocyst does not have a thought process, any feeling, etc.

1- You're in a car accident and lose all cognitive and emotional function. You are still a person. The ability to think and feel are not adequate criteria for determining personhood.

2- Chimpanzees have great cognitive capacity than many human beings which are conferred rights in the United States as "persons", yet we don't grant personhood to chimps.

3- The list of fully grown animals that we slaughter every day for meat/hide that are smarter than newborn infants is pretty substantial. You said "we kill and shed clumps of skin cells every day"? Well, we "kill and shed" animals that are smarter than newborns every day with impunity, so why not start murdering inconvenient infants?

In my opinion, personhood does begin at conception. I may be wrong, but the burden of proof is not mine, because I'm not the one destroying whatever it is that a fetus consists of. If you think personhood begins some other time, maybe you'd like to share when you think that is?

[–]mwilke 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Interesting viewpoint. Would you be against a pill that aborted the cells one second after the egg and sperm joined? What about a pill that blew them up one second before they joined?

When people say that personhood definitely must begin at conception, and not five minutes later, or at the onset of some identifiable features, or basically without any other justification, I feel like they must have other reasonings. I'm not saying you do, but typically that other reasoning comes from something like the person believing in a soul, or some other mystical "something" that happens at the exact second an egg and sperm are united.

I think the truth is that it's a gray area, which doesn't make it easy for people on either side. I also think we haven't really thought through our positions on sentience and what makes a person a person... They're pretty new ideas for our species to grapple with.

As far as where I stand... I'd never kill a monkey, but I have no problem obliterating blastocysts. But I wouldn't abort an eight-month fetus... Unless the mother would certainly die, so obviously I believe the life of a fully-formed adult human is more valuable than the eight-month fetus when it comes down to it.

I wish I could have your certainty and just be able to draw a line in the sand. It would be easier, for sure.

[–]cooj 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Interesting viewpoint. Would you be against a pill that aborted the cells one second after the egg and sperm joined? What about a pill that blew them up one second before they joined?

"Conception" is a useful but not entirely accurate way to describe when I think personhood begins. I think personhood begins whenever three things are present: humanity, genetic individuality, and inhabitation. Humanity and genetic individuality is easy to understand. Once the mass of cells (or whatever it's appropriately called at that stage, zygote?) has its own genetic code, it's a unique individual. Inhabitation means that the individual has begun to occupy space (not in the sense that they take up room on this planet, but that they sort of claim an area for bodily processes, growth, maturation, etc.). Inhabitation is hard to understand, but it's a pretty common word in personhood discussions that you start to grasp after a while. A good (but not complete) way to understand it is to say that inhabitation is implicit claim that a potential person makes on an area of space in order to grow into an actual person. If you can look at an object in space/time and say "that's the fetus", then it has passed the test for inhabitation. It has claimed an area (not talking about the space inside the uterus, I'm talking about the physical space that the body contains) to develop itself. If you end a life after it has humanity, genetic individuality, and inhabitation, you've murdered someone IMO. I'm not sure how this fits with your scenarios, but that's what I think is right.

I'm not saying you do, but typically that other reasoning comes from something like the person believing in a soul, or some other mystical "something" that happens at the exact second an egg and sperm are united.

I know you weren't accusing me, but I don't think humans have souls or anything like that. I think a lot of people settle on conception because the other options look so terrible when closely examined. Birth, brain activity, heartbeat, breathing, ability to feel pain, emotional behavior, etc all fall apart under the weight of damning counterexamples. Anything offered as criteria for when personhood begins must stand up to counterexamples. For example, take "feeling pain" as criteria. Obviously taking a shot of morphine doesn't do anything to reduce your personhood, so pain is not adequate criteria. They all seem to fall apart in this same manner.

I think the truth is that it's a gray area, which doesn't make it easy for people on either side. I also think we haven't really thought through our positions on sentience and what makes a person a person... They're pretty new ideas for our species to grapple with.

I think this is far and away the best part of your comment (although I enjoyed it all). You're absolutely right. The issue of what makes one a person has been given too little thought. The answer is probably somewhere grey. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to figure out what's true though.

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

1- You're in a car accident and lose all cognitive and emotional function. You are still a person. The ability to think and feel are not adequate criteria for determining personhood.

Also, disagree, actually. Terry Schiavo, for example, wasn't a person anymore. Everyone in my family knows (and agrees, we all have mutual pacts) that if we're braindead, and won't get better, we want to be put down, not have the shell of our body kept alive.

2- Chimpanzees have great cognitive capacity than many human beings which are conferred rights in the United States as "persons", yet we don't grant personhood to chimps.

Heh, another moral grounds for disagreement. I believe that sentient, sapient, tool-using critters should be treated as more than just animals. The greater apes, elephants, whales and porpoises, ravens, parrots, and octopodes are currently on my list of Animals We Should Not Kill Or Eat.

3- The list of fully grown animals that we slaughter every day for meat/hide that are smarter than newborn infants is pretty substantial. You said "we kill and shed clumps of skin cells every day"? Well, we "kill and shed" animals that are smarter than newborns every day with impunity, so why not start murdering inconvenient infants?

The thing is, an infant is just potential, yes. But it's not parasitic potential like a fetus is, first of all--no one's body is being usurped for an infant. If the pregnancy is far enough along that it could survive outside the mother, then sure, I'll accept giving it a chance (unless it's a life or death choice with the mother, or it's got severe medical issues that would kill it anyways). But that's already the law right now.

And secondly, honestly, I do value infants less than older people who have developed minds and personality. If I had to choose to save the life of a ten year old or an infant, the ten year old, hands down. Same for an adult versus an infant. The only time that reverses if for really old people. And for a blasocyst or balls of cells, it's not even a question--the mother's right to bodily integrity is far more important.

We also don't just kill animals for fun--that's animal abuse, and is morally wrong. But we do kill infants if they're parasitic, like with malformed Siamese twins where only one can live.

I think preventing suffering is more important. Better the potential child never exist than live in misery. Just like I believe in euthanasia.

[–]cooj -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

if we're braindead, and won't get better

...

Heh, another moral grounds for disagreement. I believe that sentient, sapient, tool-using critters should be treated as more than just animals. The greater apes, elephants, whales and porpoises, ravens, parrots, and octopodes are currently on my list of Animals We Should Not Kill Or Eat.

They're on your list for "don't kill or eat", but are they on your list for "provide adequate medical care" or "enfranchise with voting rights" or "levy taxes on"? Obviously not. You can't be selective about which parts of personhood you want to apply. A thing either has it or it does not.

The thing is, an infant is just potential, yes. But it's not parasitic potential like a fetus is, first of all--no one's body is being usurped for an infant.

The fetus and the infant both have the same potential: to be a fully formed and functional human being and take part in society. The fetus is just in a different position (which you refer to as "parasitic").

And secondly, honestly, I do value infants less than older people who have developed minds and personality. If I had to choose to save the life of a ten year old or an infant, the ten year old, hands down. Same for an adult versus an infant. The only time that reverses if for really old people.

Let's suppose I hypothetically agree with you here. The following has NOTHING to do with what you posted above:

And for a blasocyst or balls of cells, it's not even a question--the mother's right to bodily integrity is far more important.

You're talking about comparing life for life, and then all of a sudden you change from "life" to "bodily integrity". I would never favor a ban on abortions when the abortion was to save the life of the mother, but I would DEFINITELY favor a ban on abortions when the abortion was to save the "bodily integrity" of the woman. Life shouldn't outweigh life, but life should ALWAYS outweigh bodily integrity.

I think preventing suffering is more important. Better the potential child never exist than live in misery. Just like I believe in euthanasia.

Glaringly fucking stupid. Ask any person whose mother considered aborting her pregnancy but did not if they would rather be dead or alive. It's not your right to decide if another person's life is worth living.

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

They're on your list for "don't kill or eat", but are they on your list for "provide adequate medical care" or "enfranchise with voting rights" or "levy taxes on"? Obviously not. You can't be selective about which parts of personhood you want to apply. A thing either has it or it does not.

Oh really? Do we let children vote, or make them pay taxes, or drink alcohol, or have sex? No? They must not be people then. We already allow levels of personhood. (And yes, I do support providing animals with adequate healthcare, I'm an avid supporter of animal rescue.)

The fetus is just in a different position (which you refer to as "parasitic").

Yes. And that's the defining, deciding factor.

Glaringly fucking stupid. Ask any person whose mother considered aborting her pregnancy but did not if they would rather be dead or alive. It's not your right to decide if another person's life is worth living.

Right, because no one ever commits suicide or decides it wasn't worth living. You never see foster kids who are depressed and miserable wish they'd never been born.

Straight up: If I were a wee soul of person facing the choice between being aborted and living a miserable, impoverished, abusive life, I'd rather never exist.

Also, to reverse your example and show how idiotic that argument is, talk to my sister. If my mom hadn't gotten an abortion, she wouldn't exist, because my mom would have been forced to give birth to what would most likely be a massively deformed child, and would never have had another child. She didn't know she was pregnant until after receiving massive torso X-rays. Nearly 100% guarantee of deformities, 50% chance it would have ended up with fatal malformities anyways. So she got an abortion. And there's my wonderful sister. So go talk to anyone who only exists because their mother terminated a previous pregnancy, and see how they feel.

[–]cooj -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Right, because no one ever commits suicide or decides it wasn't worth living. You never see foster kids who are depressed and miserable wish they'd never been born.

Point is, it's not YOUR decision. YOU do not get to decide if MY life is worth living. Seems obvious, no?

Oh really? Do we let children vote, or make them pay taxes, or drink alcohol, or have sex? No? They must not be people then. We already allow levels of personhood. (And yes, I do support providing animals with adequate healthcare, I'm an avid supporter of animal rescue.)

You know what I mean, try to be more charitable. A chimp will never be a part of human society. The rights of the Constitution don't protect chimpanzees. Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

Yes. And that's the defining, deciding factor.

In your opinion... If the "parasitic relationship" is what determines whether abortion is right or wrong, then I suppose you support the right to have an abortion up until the very hour before birth? As long as the umbilical cord is connected, the mother could slit the baby's throat as it leaves the womb.

Also, please understand that if a fetus doesn't have a right to life, and it's "just a lump of cells", there may be some consequences you're not happy with. For example, if a fetus does not have the right to life, then ANYONE can take that life away with impunity, not just the mother. Imagine scientists invented a "fetus death ray" that would completely end the life of any fetus it strikes without harming the mother in any way. So you're walking down the street 4 months pregnant, when a man comes up to you and points the death ray at you, killing your fetus. When it's convenient for you, the fetus is "just a lump of cells", but if you wanted to carry that baby to term and the death ray prevented you, I think you might think your rights were violated. In other words, you want the decision to be ALL ABOUT THE WOMAN. You want the fetus ignored... unless you want it. That's not how the world works, sorry. Ethical decisions do not depend on what you want at the time, despite what Walt Disney might have you believe.

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

If the "parasitic relationship" is what determines whether abortion is right or wrong, then I suppose you support the right to have an abortion up until the very hour before birth? As long as the umbilical cord is connected, the mother could slit the baby's throat as it leaves the womb.

Look up a couple of posts. I already addressed that. But to repeat: "If the pregnancy is far enough along that it could survive outside the mother, then sure, I'll accept giving it a chance (unless it's a life or death choice with the mother, or it's got severe medical issues that would kill it anyways). But that's already the law right now."

For example, if a fetus does not have the right to life, then ANYONE can take that life away with impunity, not just the mother.

Nope.

In other words, you want the decision to be ALL ABOUT THE WOMAN.

Yes. Where have you been in the abortion debate? The point is that it's HER body, and therefore HER choice. No one else's. It's not about slaughtering fetuses for funzies, it's about a woman's right to control over her own body. With the side benefit of not haivng impoverished, miserable children being added to the world. You may not think that's important, but I certainly do.

[–]cooj0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cooj0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'll say it again slower: Because it's about the woman's rights to what happens inside of her body with her consent.

I know that's what you THINK, but you have no rational justification for what you think unfortunately. The fetus IS NOT YOU, it's something (or in my opinion, someone) else. It's not a fucking part of your motherfucking body, it's just inside it. If you want to say it's a worthless lump of cells equivalent to a tumor and it has no rights, then it logically follows that it can be destroyed by anyone with impunity so long as they don't harm you in the process. Why would it be aggravated assault? The fetal death ray doesn't TOUCH OR AFFECT YOU IN ANY WAY. It simply destroys a thing that has no rights.

I think you'd have a lot of trouble convincing rational people that the logical consequences of your view are worth it (i.e. a woman might not want the right to abort until the point of vitality if it came with its logical consequence: that a person could walk around with a fetal death ray killing the unborn with impunity).

[–]InfinitelyThirsting0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

but you have no rational justification

I do. It's a ball of cells, growing in my body, part of me. It's attached to me, and is using MY blood to grow. It may be your opinion that it's something/one else, but you can't say there's no rational justification for considering something attached to me, inside my organs, using my blood, is not a part of me.

The fetal death ray doesn't TOUCH OR AFFECT YOU IN ANY WAY. It simply destroys a thing that has no rights.

So you're making up a completely impossible hypothetical scenario. Because it's impossible to remove a fetus without causing an affect upon the woman--the hormones change, she'll bleed and shed lining and cramp and be in pain. Because the fetus is attached to her, and a part of her body. But you want a magical fetus death ray, not anything that affects THE REAL WORLD and how REAL BIOLOGY works. When you invent your magical fetus death ray, get back to me and we'll talk about it, because I see no use in using an impossible scenario to justify taking away someone's rights now.

If you want to say it's a worthless lump of cells equivalent to a tumor and it has no rights, then it logically follows that it can be destroyed by anyone with impunity so long as they don't harm you in the process.

And again, no. If someone kidnapped me and removed a tumor from my body without my consent, it would still be illegal, even if they healed me up all nice and shiny afterwards. Or if I had a sixth finger, and you decided to remove it for me without my consent--still illegal, still assault, because it's up to ME if I think that sixth finger is gross and in the way, or super cool and I use it to play piano.

Or, even by your perspective, if the fetus is a person, that still doesn't give just anyone rights to it. A parent can take their child to get their ears pierced, but if a stranger jabs a needle into a random kid walking by, it's assault. I can take my kid across state lines, but if a stranger does it, or even a parent without custody, it's abduction. I can spank my child legally, but if you lay a hand on them you bet your ass it's child abuse.

Just because you have the right to do something to your child doesn't mean everyone in the world can do it to them.

[–]cooj0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I do. It's a ball of cells, growing in my body, part of me. It's attached to me, and is using MY blood to grow. It may be your opinion that it's something/one else, but you can't say there's no rational justification for considering something attached to me, inside my organs, using my blood, is not a part of me.

It has a different genetic code than you do. It's undoubtedly using your body and your nourishment to grow, but it's CERTAINLY not you. DNA testing is what we use to determine identity.

So you're making up a completely impossible hypothetical scenario. Because it's impossible to remove a fetus without causing an affect upon the woman--the hormones change, she'll bleed and shed lining and cramp and be in pain. Because the fetus is attached to her, and a part of her body. But you want a magical fetus death ray, not anything that affects THE REAL WORLD and how REAL BIOLOGY works. When you invent your magical fetus death ray, get back to me and we'll talk about it, because I see no use in using an impossible scenario to justify taking away someone's rights now.

It's called a counterexample! We use these in moral reasoning. The test for counterexamples is not plausibility, unfortunately for you. Maybe take a critical thinking class?

And again, no. If someone kidnapped me and removed a tumor from my body without my consent, it would still be illegal, even if they healed me up all nice and shiny afterwards. Or if I had a sixth finger, and you decided to remove it for me without my consent--still illegal, still assault, because it's up to ME if I think that sixth finger is gross and in the way, or super cool and I use it to play piano.

I'm trying really hard not to put your ignorant account on ignore. IT'S NOT PART OF YOU, STUPID MOTHERFUCKER. It uses you for nourishment, it is attached to you, it's inside your organs, ALL THAT SHIT IS TRUE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT YOU!

Or, even by your perspective, if the fetus is a person, that still doesn't give just anyone rights to it. A parent can take their child to get their ears pierced, but if a stranger jabs a needle into a random kid walking by, it's assault. I can take my kid across state lines, but if a stranger does it, or even a parent without custody, it's abduction. I can spank my child legally, but if you lay a hand on them you bet your ass it's child abuse.

Only if a fetus is NOT a person do we have rights to do whatever we please to it. It is the moral equivalent of a cockroach, unless you say that personhood has been conferred. ANYONE can murder it, because it's not your child, it's a ball of cells (aka cockroach). I can step on a cockroach, I can destroy your fetus. If it's a person, you can start calling it a child, and you can protect its rights.

Just because you have the right to do something to your child doesn't mean everyone in the world can do it to them.

So now the fetus is "your child"? You're not even worth debating. You, more readily than any pro-choice advocate I've ever come across, have highlighted EXACTLY what's so fucked up about the abortion debate. You know virtually nothing, you provide no form of support for your arguments short of spouting what you think and claiming it as fact, and you do it all with an air of superiority. I'd rather have a conversation with a right-wing nutjob any day. Thanks to the Reddit Enhancement Suite, I can permanently put you on ignore! THANK FUCKING GOD. JESUS.

[–]InfinitelyThirsting0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]everhood13 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cooj 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]cooj 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]amaefm -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]amaefm 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]amaefm -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManThoughts -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManThoughts 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManThoughts 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bizarrecomment -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bizarrecomment 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]bizarrecomment 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Being able to live independent

Better euthanize anyone on dialysis right now. Also all small children. And severely mentally disabled people. And elderly.

physically unattached to any other person

Granted, this is, as far as I have been able to tell, the one thing that sets a fetus apart from any other situation, the physical connection to the mother. The question is does a temporary physical connection make someone less of a person? If someone sewed your arm to mine, surgically, do we both suddenly not become people?

being able to express own will.

That depends on your definition of "will," but that would seem to again discount all sleeping, unconscious, comatose, severely retarded, and senilely demented persons, as well as all children under the age of 2.

And still you haven't answered my other question:

I didn't see where you asked that.

If you have the only match for a liver or a kidney, should you be forced to donate?

No, but that's not the same thing, ethically. Passively letting someone die due to inaction is morally wrong to some, but it's not the same thing as actively killing them (considered wrong pretty universally). Abortion is the latter, not the former.

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Better euthanize anyone on dialysis right now. Also all small children. And severely mentally disabled people. And elderly.

You didn't listen. Independent of any other specific person. A dialysis machine can be replaced with someone else. A mother can be replaced with someone else. A womb cannot be replaced. As long as someone is physically indispensible for something, that someone calls the shots in that matter. As simple as that.

Concerning willl: even a newborn is very able to express will when it's hungry for example. As long as the embryo is in the womb, it is physically impossible to discern any will from it without using the mother as proxy and medium.

The only example concerining will of yours that is somewhat relevenat is comatose: becaue everyone else can act or the situation is very temporary. But anyoen who can act in some way expresses will through those actions. And even comatose people have expressed their own will prior to that.

And the passivity argument isn't really making the question irrelevant. Because a preganantr woman can cause miscarriage by simply doing nothing. This is not without risk to herself though. So basically by making abortion illegal you are actively forcing other people to harm themvelves. You are playing "Saw".

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You didn't listen. Independent of any other specific person.

I didn't listen, you're right, because this is text printed on a page. But I did read. The entirety of what you said was:

Being able to live independent and physically unattached to any other person and being able to express own will.

I do not see the word "specific" there. And since that's the keyword in your entire (new) argument, kind of critical to have that there, right?

Reread your own comments before you accuse others of not paying attention.

As long as someone is physically indispensible for something, that someone calls the shots in that matter.

I agree that this is both the crux of the matter and a legitimately debatable moral, ethical, and legal problem. Unlike you, I can see both sides. Unlike you, I'm a woman (making a slight assumption here, I'll admit, but I bet I'm right), and have been faced with this choice. Unlike you, I continue to be potentially faced with this choice every month. And I disagree that a human life is less important than another human's temporary bodily autonomy. The US legal system may currently agree with you, but your headline suggests they are moving slowly but steadily in my direction. It's just a question of which you give priority to.

As long as the embryo is in the womb, it is physically impossible to discern any will from it without using the mother as proxy and medium.

I fail to see why this is relevant to clarifying status. Just because you can't discern will doesn't mean it's not there.

becaue everyone else can act or the situation is very temporary.

Nine months isn't temporary?

And even comatose people have expressed their own will prior to that.

But there's no guarantee that they will at any point in the future, whereas the majority of pregnancies that make it past the first few weeks make it to term (or close enough).

Because a preganantr woman can cause miscarriage by simply doing nothing.

How does that work?

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I fail to see why this is relevant to clarifying status. Just because you can't discern will doesn't mean it's not there.

"Just because there isn't any evidence doesn't mean he is not guilty."

Nine months isn't temporary?

Much less temporary as sleeping or unconsciousness. Oh, and then there is also the the fact that on one hand you have peanut sized lump, and on the other a full grown adult.

But there's no guarantee that they will at any point in the future, whereas the majority of pregnancies that make it past the first few weeks make it to term (or close enough).

Actually I fully support euthanizing comatose people with low likelyhoods of ever waking up. The resources actively spent on keeing them a vegetable are deniend hundreds of other 3rd world children and prevent them from having a life and outright cause their death.

How does that work?

Hunger strike.

[–]Alanna1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Much less temporary as sleeping or unconsciousness.

People can be in comas for months.

peanut sized lump,

How does size matter? When its born, assuming full term healthy weight, it's about the size of a cantaloupe. I have a friend who just gave birth to a perfectly healthy, full term girl who was only four pounds. A person's a person, no matter how small.

How does that work?

Hunger strike.

Any woman who does that to miscarry would severely weaken or kill herself before she got to the point of miscarriage.

"Just because there isn't any evidence doesn't mean he is not guilty."

If you just did what I think you did-- compare my discussion of the theoretical will of a fetus with a false rape claim-- then yeah, confirmed, you're trolling. Again, you seem much more interested in trying to equate anti-abortion with misogyny than you do in any aspect of men's reproductive rights. NARAL isn't the end-all be-all arbiter of what constitutes women's rights.

[–]Downvoted_Defender -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]everhood13 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. Just like Plan B actually increased the rate of abortions, giving more and more "outs" increases risky behavior and increases accidents.

Oh really? A mild bump in the US rate from 19.4 per 1000 to 19.6 is hardly anything to counteract the fact that rates have been plummeting, not surprisingly as contraception got better--we've had Plan B for five years, and it has not created a spike in abortions. In the UK, it's still falling. Also, the more contraception available, the lower the rate of pregnancy, and abstinence-only education has been shown to be an utter failure that increases teen pregnancy rates. In fact, the slight rise in US abortions exactly matches up with the rise in teen pregnancies and abstinence-only education.

Do a little more research and you'll see that pregnancy and abortion rates are tied to contraception access and effectiveness, not legality of abortion. People had risky sex before abortion, and always will, but unintended pregnancy rates have been dropping since the Pill and legal abortion, with the exception of teen pregnancy since abstinence-only education. All evidence goes against your argument.

I think adding paper abortions will increase the number of real abortions, but the orphanage kids aren't relevent--fathers don't pay for kids in orphanages, just ones the mothers keep. If the mother knows she can't take care of the kid on her own, and can't extort the father for money, she'll be far more likely to get an abortion.

[–]s0nicfreak 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deus_Imperator -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]everhood13 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]everhood13 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deus_Imperator -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwilke 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deus_Imperator 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deus_Imperator -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]s0nicfreak 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaytodayhurray1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]s0nicfreak0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]throwawaytodayhurray0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]s0nicfreak0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deus_Imperator1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]s0nicfreak0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]s0nicfreak1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deus_Imperator -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deus_Imperator -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deus_Imperator1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deus_Imperator1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deus_Imperator2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Foster children are not kids that are unwanted and not aborted, they are kids taken away from bad households with fail parents.

They are also unwanted children. That's why there are specific foster set-ups for infants. Preemies from teen pregnancy and drug users (who are the biggest populations who should be getting abortions).

You want these mothers to keep the kids, even if they can't take care of them--that's exactly how kids end up in the foster system.

And let me raise another point: What will you say to the loved ones of the hundreds of women who will die giving birth to children they didn't want, who could have received a safe abortion and still been alive? To the thousands of women who will end up with lifelong complications because of it? Fifteen percent of mothers suffer from incontinence because of childbirth, and it can cause prolapse later in life.

[–]amaefm 9 points10 points11 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]amaefm 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]amaefm 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments