Another thread about Abortion

[mixedmedia]

Originally Posted by Xerxys

Come on guys, this argument, though true, is weak. Whats the number of women who got knocked up because the condom broke? And if the number is significant (I could google it, but I'm lazy) does it really justify an abortion? The condom being (correct me if I'm wrong) the best method of contraceptive there is ... no?

oh my god...no, condoms are not the best method of contraception.

filtherton said in the post you quoted that 50% of the women who have abortions report using birth control at the time of pregnancy. The document does not break out by method. But the information is at the site IL posted.

[Xerxys]

MM, I read the article in this PDF and you're right. They never broke down the method most used/failed/success etc etc etc. Both my sisters got pregnant on the pill which was the root of my curiosity.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I didn't say pointing out facts was disingenuous. I said that pointing out the fact that men can't get pregnant without also mentioning how women can't get pregnant in the absence of a man was disingenuous, as it attempts to make reference to the biological actuality which suits your argument while ignoring the biological actuality which doesn't suit your argument.

You missed the point of what I said. I don't think anyone for a minute forgot that sperm is necessary for the conception of a child. The point I was making was that men can't carry a pregnancy to term, and that because of this biological fact, there can fundamentally be no "equality" or "fairness" to be found on the subject of male input into a woman's decision to carry a child to term.

So... You're arguing against the meaning of the word "elective", which has an actual medical definition, that of which is an abortion not done to protect the mother's health, or are you taking offense to the word "purely", which is used to distinguish between an elective and therapeutic abortion? Tell me now so I'll know how to respond.

It's not that simple, but I could see why you'd like it to be. "Fetal defects" don't necessarily affect the mother's physical health, so I'm not sure why you'd include those in your definition of "purely elective", since, you know, you're an expert on the medical definition of the term "elective" . Post partum depression can have ridiculously severe effects on a woman's mental and physical health. Does that mean that the prospect of PPD is sufficient to nudge that abortion into the nonelective category?

I'm sure the words "purely elective" mean something, but in the context of what you said, they don't amount to much more than an attempt to sound more authoritative. And in any case, I doubt you'd find a medical professional who used the term with the casual certainty you displayed. I bet more than a couple lawyers have made a pretty penny arguing different sides of the definition of "elective."

Well, please show me where I claimed that any method of birth control was 100% effective? Please show me where I claimed that everyone who gets pregnant wasn't on birth control. In fact, please show me where I made reference to birth control at all, because I'm obviously dumb and can't remember the things I wrote out. Go ahead. Tell me. Show me. Do something.

...But, see, you can't find such a claim because I never made such a claim to begin with. Everyone knows that birth control isn't 100% effective. Everyone. This is why I made no reference to birth control, because no one made any claims regarding the use or non-use of birth control.

God, I hate straw men.

But, since you didn't seem to understand the first time, even though I know I've said this before on other threads on the same subject, I'll say it again. First and most importantly, sex exists as a means by which to propagate the species. Everything else takes the proverbial backseat to this fact. Pleasure is merely the mechanism by which nature "coerces" humans into engaging in sex more often. The more often one has sex, the greater the chance of pregnancy occurring. This is important since, unlike most species, humans do not have a specific mating seasons and are capable of becoming pregnant year-round in rapid succession. Of course, other species also have sex for pleasure, but they are incapable of becoming pregnant year round and in rapid succession, to my knowledge, and have specific mating seasons. We all like the pleasure and closeness involved in sex, but these are not the end all be all reasons for sex existing. Yes, we might like to fool ourselves into believe that we're somehow acting above nature, but we aren't. Much like anything else, we're bound to it.

But, anyway, the point being? Everyone knows that sex can result in pregnancy. Continuously engaging in an action of which you are unwilling to accept the consequences of (Pregnancy) is irresponsible. Extinguishing a human life because it conveniences you is irresponsible. Extinguishing a human life two, three, four, or five times because it conveniences you is grossly irresponsible. If you don't want to become pregnant and can't accept taking care of a child, then you should either stick to oral or anal or give up sex all together. Killing another human simply because you want to be free of the, as most people today would call it, "burden" of caring for it is the epitome of irresponsibility. Personal responsibility seems to be a thing of the past.

Calm down. You didn't directly reference birth control. What you did do is attempt to tie instances of repeat abortion to some sort of nebulously defined notion of "irresponsibility." I'm not sure why, given the fact that you clearly think that all abortions are irresponsible.

I think that you got so caught up in trying to dress your emotional and completely subjective opinion on the irresponsible nature of all abortions in pretty numbers and technical lingo that you forgot that your perspective exists completely independently of anything other than emotionally charged, pedantic notions of human biology.

Your notions of irresponsibility have nothing to do with how many times a person gets an abortion. Clearly, the vast majority, if not all, abortions are irresponsible as far as you're concerned. In light of this fact, I understand how you thought I was straw-manning you.

I guess I was confused by the fact that in your previous post you seemed to try to base this position on statistical data. I responded as if your perspective was based on something other than a completely self-serving, trivial interpretation of the data. Your reference to repeat abortions threw me off, since the only statistic you were actually concerned with was the one confirming that the abortion rate is greater than zero. Mea culpa.

If you really do hate straw men, I suggest that you quit attempting to frame your ideas in disingenuous ways. In doing so, you will make it easier for people to respond to what you actually think.

Obviously, abortion can't be that hard of a decision if there are 1.2M+ of them per year with hundreds of thousands of them being repeat abortions.

I agree. I also think that choosing to remove a loved one from life support obviously can't be that hard a decision to make either, since that occurs with such incredible frequency... Why, I know people who have had to do it twice!!! I bet they laughed the whole time.

[timalkin]

..

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by filtherton

You missed the point of what I said. I don't think anyone for a minute forgot that sperm is necessary for the conception of a child. The point I was making was that men can't carry a pregnancy to term, and that because of this biological fact, there can fundamentally be no "equality" or "fairness" to be found on the subject of male input into a woman's decision to carry a child to term.

It seems to me that even though you said you hadn't forgotten that sperm is necessary for the conception of a child, you did just that. You argue, "Sorry men. Even though you contribute half of the genetic material towards the creation of a child, it's not your body, so you get no say-so regarding its well-being nor do you get a say-so regarding your parental contribution towards the welfare of that future child", instead of "Sorry women. Even though it's your body, you only contribute half of the genetic material towards the creation of a child, therefore you only get half of the say-so regarding its well-being and only your half in the say-so regarding parental contributions towards towards the welfare of that future child".

Please tell me, which of these two situations is more "equatable":

1.) You contribute half of what's required to create to new individual, yet based on your gender you either get unilateral decision making power of which the other gender is legally bound by or you get absolutely no decision making power at all and are forced to go along with whatever the other gender decides. Or

2.) Either you give each gender the ability to make the other forcibly operate against his or her will-- The same way a woman can force a man into fatherhood and taking care of a child he might not want, a man should be able to force a woman into motherhood or taking care of a child she might not want-- Or you make it so that neither gender can forcibly make the other operate against his or her will-- The same way a man can't force a woman into motherhood nor parental responsibilites, a woman can't force a man into fatherhood or parental responsibilities. THAT would be equatable, and far more equatable then the situation you advocate.

And, no, that's not an oversimplification. That's what it is.

It's not that simple, but I could see why you'd like it to be. "Fetal defects" don't necessarily affect the mother's physical health, so I'm not sure why you'd include those in your definition of "purely elective", since, you know, you're an expert on the medical definition of the term "elective".

Because, as I said the first time, a therapeutic abortion is an abortion performed for a medical reason, which include risks to the mother's health and fetal defects, whereas an elective abortion are those abortions performed simply because the mother wants them, to put it mildly.

Post partum depression can have ridiculously severe effects on a woman's mental and physical health. Does that mean that the prospect of PPD is sufficient to nudge that abortion into the nonelective category?

... ... ...


Therapeutic. And "abortions to save the mental health" of the mother are rather dubious distinctions within themselves. Very dubious.

I'm sure the words "purely elective" mean something, but in the context of what you said, they don't amount to much more than an attempt to sound more authoritative. And in any case, I doubt you'd find a medical professional who used the term with the casual certainty you displayed. I bet more than a couple lawyers have made a pretty penny arguing different sides of the definition of "elective."

It means exactly what I said it means: Abortions performed for medical risks, either to the mother or the fetus, are deemd therapeutic abortions. Abortions for any other reason are deemed elective abortions. It's rather simple, really. There's no need for you to try to overcomplicate things for whatever reason.

Calm down. You didn't directly reference birth control. What you did do is attempt to tie instances of repeat abortion to some sort of nebulously defined notion of "irresponsibility." I'm not sure why, given the fact that you clearly think that all abortions are irresponsible.

The notion of responsibility, no matter how much you try to argue otherwise, isn't all that "nebulous".

If I buy a goldfish and later decide that I don't want to take care of it, I doubt there is anyone alive who would call me flushing it down the toilet to be the "responsible" choice. If I buy a cat or a dog, and later decide that I don't want to take care of it, I doubt there is anyone alive who would call me leaving them on the side of the road to be the "responsible" choice. Hell, if I have a kid, and after a month I decide I don't want to take care of it, I doubt there is anyone alive who would call me running out on it to be the "responsible" choice. See where I'm going with this? Abortion rids the person of the object of which-- Under normal circumstances-- They would have a duty to provide for by killing it. That action is fundamentally no different than any of the aforementioned actions and, unless you're going to label them all as "responsible" choices, then the basis upon which you claim abortion to be the "responsible" choice is deeply, deeply, deeply flawed.

But I'd love to see how you're going to construe that as being "responsible". I really would. Go ahead. Amuseth me.

I think that you got so caught up in trying to dress your emotional and completely subjective opinion on the irresponsible nature of all abortions in pretty numbers and technical lingo that you forgot that your perspective exists completely independently of anything other than emotionally charged, pedantic notions of human biology.

There's no "emotional, subjective, technical or pedantic" lingo here.

No matter what way you try to dress it up, the fact of the matter is that you're calling the deliberate killing of another human-- Most often times because the woman doesn't want to take care of it-- To be a "responsible" choice, given the nature of sex. Stop and think about that one for a moment.

...And now that you've stopped to think about that one, rationalize it for me, please.

Your notions of irresponsibility have nothing to do with how many times a person gets an abortion. Clearly, the vast majority, if not all, abortions are irresponsible as far as you're concerned. In light of this fact, I understand how you thought I was straw-manning you.

Clearly, all abortions can't be irresponsible since not all abortions are elective abortions; only the vast majority of them. But, moving on, you will notice that nowhere did I say that the irresponsibility of abortion was tied to how many abortions a woman has, but rather that having an abortion once because it's to her convenience to have one to be irresponsible, and having multiple abortions because it conveniences her to be grossly irresponsible. There's a big difference between that and what you're claiming I wrote out. A very big difference.

I guess I was confused by the fact that in your previous post you seemed to try to base this position on statistical data. I responded as if your perspective was based on something other than a completely self-serving, trivial interpretation of the data. Your reference to repeat abortions threw me off, since the only statistic you were actually concerned with was the one confirming that the abortion rate is greater than zero. Mea culpa.

There was no possible way to be confused and my posts since they were, quite honestly, cut and dry. Even though you'd like to believe so, they were neither "self-serving" nor "trivial"-- Only the most hardened of PC'ers would believe so. It represents, as I said in an earlier post which you ignored, a complete breakdown of the whole "safe, legal and rare" rhetoric, as they are anything but rare (And abortions in the U.S. have been safe for decades pre-RvW, but that's off-topic), being the most common procedure in the United States. There is nothing responsible about killing the product of sex because it conveniences you, nor anything about doing it repeatedly because it conveniences you. Applied anywhere else to anything else, someone continuously doing something of which they're not willing to accept the consequences of would be deemed as irresponsible, and with good reason. It's amazing how many PC'ers try to treat abortion as an exception to the rule, rather than following the rules as everything else.

If you really do hate straw men, I suggest that you quit attempting to frame your ideas in disingenuous ways. In doing so, you will make it easier for people to respond to what you actually think.

I believe I said this before, but there's nothing "disingenuous" about the way I "frame my ideas".

I agree. I also think that choosing to remove a loved one from life support obviously can't be that hard a decision to make either, since that occurs with such incredible frequency... Why, I know people who have had to do it twice!!! I bet they laughed the whole time.

Because removing someone from life support = Having an abortion, right? RIGHT??? Now this is most definitely a straw man.

[cellophanedeity]

Originally Posted by FelixP

The minute a woman opens her legs she has to open her mind to the possibility of getting pregnant.

<snark> The minute a man ejaculates into a woman, he's given her the choice to do what she wants with it. It's not his anymore.</snark>

I tend to believe that in order to properly discuss abortion, you must first discuss what personhood is. I don't value life for life's sake. It's the personhood that creates the value, not the human body.

If you think a collection of human cells makes a person, then I can understand why you'd be against abortion. But, I do not believe this to be the case. I believe that in order for something to be called a person, it must have a story or a concept of self.

I believe a zygote is a collection of cells, not terribly different from individual sperm and eggs. It's beautiful and cosmic and full of potential, but in no way is that tiny bunching of cellular information a person.

The foetus has no connection to "reality" beyond it's mother's womb. It has no memories, no knowledge, no stories, and no perception of self. A feotus is an organism with potential to develop these things, but does not yet have them. Once the feotus hits reality and becomes a baby, it's story has begun. The book is officially titled, and the cover has been cut. That's when it's too late to abort.

The mother has memories and knowledge and story. She has her perception of self, which is drastically altered with the introduction of a new organism developing in her. If the mother decides that a baby would change her personal story in ways she would not like, then she should have the option to abort. Her story is more important than the possibility of stories of a collection of cells.

Just because you'd rather her story go in another direction, doesn't mean that you should have any say. You're writing your own myth and you can do what you want with it.

[Infinite_Loser]

I remember when Canadian law said women weren't persons. And even when U.S. law said slaves weren't legal persons entitled to the same protections under the law. Good times. Good times.

...Or were they?

Anyway, I fail to see what arguing personhood accomplishes, given that you can't accurately define it (As evidenced by the fact that your definition of personhood isn't the definition the law follows). You can only put forth arguments on what you think constitutes a person, which is completely subjective and open to opinion. Laws shouldn't be based on subjective opinions, but rather some manner of objective facts.

And, just for the record, a zygote is considered to be a brand new individual, and not just a "collection of cells".

(And I really wanted to invoke Godwin's Law, too.)

[cellophanedeity]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I remember when Canadian law said women weren't persons. And even when U.S. law said slaves weren't legal persons entitled to the same protections under the law. Good times. Good times.

...Or were they?

Anyway, I fail to see what arguing personhood accomplishes, given that you can't accurately define it (As evidenced by the fact that your definition of personhood isn't the definition the law follows). You can only put forth arguments on what you think constitutes a person, which is completely subjective and open to opinion. Laws shouldn't be based on subjective opinions, but rather some manner of objective facts.

And, just for the record, a zygote is considered to be a brand new individual, and not just a "collection of cells".

(And I really wanted to invoke Godwin's Law, too.)

From the first post: "This is to discuss the ethics (or lack thereof) of abortion."

I attempted to explain how I believe the current laws to be ethical by explaining the way in which I value of existence.

And if you're going to evoke Godwin's Law (which you have, by mentioning that you wanted to mention Godwin's Law. Oh the wonders of passive aggressive conversation!) I'm entirely against one person ending another's story after it's started.

You and I just disagree on when the story begins.

Oh, and I'm not saying that a zygote isn't another individual, I'm just saying that an individual that has no "story" is to be valued as a person.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

It seems to me that even though you said you hadn't forgotten that sperm is necessary for the conception of a child, you did just that. You argue, "Sorry men. Even though you contribute half of the genetic material towards the creation of a child, it's not your body, so you get no say-so regarding its well-being nor do you get a say-so regarding your parental contribution towards the welfare of that future child", instead of "Sorry women. Even though it's your body, you only contribute half of the genetic material towards the creation of a child, therefore you only get half of the say-so regarding its well-being and only your half in the say-so regarding parental contributions towards towards the welfare of that future child".

Please tell me, which of these two situations is more "equatable":

1.) You contribute half of what's required to create to new individual, yet based on your gender you either get unilateral decision making power of which the other gender is legally bound by or you get absolutely no decision making power at all and are forced to go along with whatever the other gender decides. Or

2.) Either you give each gender the ability to make the other forcibly operate against his or her will-- The same way a woman can force a man into fatherhood and taking care of a child he might not want, a man should be able to force a woman into motherhood or taking care of a child she might not want-- Or you make it so that neither gender can forcibly make the other operate against his or her will-- The same way a man can't force a woman into motherhood nor parental responsibilites, a woman can't force a man into fatherhood or parental responsibilities. THAT would be equatable, and far more equatable then the situation you advocate.

And, no, that's not an oversimplification. That's what it is.

Right. Reality is choice number one. Choice number two will always be fantasy. Life isn't fair. Ejaculator beware.

Because, as I said the first time, a therapeutic abortion is an abortion performed for a medical reason, which include risks to the mother's health and fetal defects, whereas an elective abortion are those abortions performed simply because the mother wants them, to put it mildly.

I know what you said. I just don't think you really know what you're talking about with respect to the way medical professionals define different procedures.

Therapeutic. And "abortions to save the mental health" of the mother are rather dubious distinctions within themselves. Very dubious.

They're only dubious if one is completely ignorant of the effects of PPD.

It means exactly what I said it means: Abortions performed for medical risks, either to the mother or the fetus, are deemd therapeutic abortions. Abortions for any other reason are deemed elective abortions. It's rather simple, really. There's no need for you to try to overcomplicate things for whatever reason.

If you think that repeating what you previously said somehow serves as a reasonable response to me explaining why what you previously said is overly simplistic then you are mistaken.

The notion of responsibility, no matter how much you try to argue otherwise, isn't all that "nebulous".

It is completely nebulous, though the fact that you think it isn't is extremely telling. Do you see colors at all in your world?

If I buy a goldfish and later decide that I don't want to take care of it, I doubt there is anyone alive who would call me flushing it down the toilet to be the "responsible" choice. If I buy a cat or a dog, and later decide that I don't want to take care of it, I doubt there is anyone alive who would call me leaving them on the side of the road to be the "responsible" choice. Hell, if I have a kid, and after a month I decide I don't want to take care of it, I doubt there is anyone alive who would call me running out on it to be the "responsible" choice. See where I'm going with this? Abortion rids the person of the object of which-- Under normal circumstances-- They would have a duty to provide for by killing it. That action is fundamentally no different than any of the aforementioned actions and, unless you're going to label them all as "responsible" choices, then the basis upon which you claim abortion to be the "responsible" choice is deeply, deeply, deeply flawed.

But I'd love to see how you're going to construe that as being "responsible". I really would. Go ahead. Amuseth me.

Right. But the belief that an unborn child deserves the same consideration as a born child isn't universal. There are plenty of people who have no problem with the idea that abortions can be responsible. The fact that you don't feel this way is irrelevant.

Furthermore, it is useless to argue this point, since it results from a fundamental disagreement.

There's no "emotional, subjective, technical or pedantic" lingo here.

Keep telling yourself that.

No matter what way you try to dress it up, the fact of the matter is that you're calling the deliberate killing of another human-- Most often times because the woman doesn't want to take care of it-- To be a "responsible" choice, given the nature of sex. Stop and think about that one for a moment.

I've thought about it extensively. I don't agree that one can always equate abortion with the killing of a human being.

...And now that you've stopped to think about that one, rationalize it for me, please.

Sure. We have a fundamental disagreement about the point at which an unborn child should be given human privileges. I await your self-righteous dismissal.

But, moving on, you will notice that nowhere did I say that the irresponsibility of abortion was tied to how many abortions a woman has, but rather that having an abortion once because it's to her convenience to have one to be irresponsible, and having multiple abortions because it conveniences her to be grossly irresponsible. There's a big difference between that and what you're claiming I wrote out. A very big difference.

You're kidding, right? Do you know that paragraphs are generally structured so that they contain one sentence that expresses the general idea of the paragraph, and that the other sentences are typically used to support the topic sentence?

So for instance, when someone reads

Originally Posted by Infinite Loser

47% of abortions done yearly are repeat abortions. Broken down, 29% of abortions performed per year are done on those women who had one prior abortion; 11.8% on women who had two abortions prior; and 7.3% on those women who had three or more prior abortions. Or, stated another way, given 1.2M abortions in 2008 (Approximately), 348,000 abortions were performed on women who had one prior; 141,600 on women who had two prior; and 87,600 on women who had three or more prior. If that doesn't scream "Irresponsibility", I don't know what does.

They assume that the red sentence, the one that ties every other sentence together, is the topic sentence, since without it the rest of the paragraph would be just a listing of statistical facts. Despite your claim, there is no reference at all here to "convenience" abortions. Sure, the paragraph above the one I quoted mentions convenience abortions, but it is not referenced at all in the material I quoted. What the careful reader is left with, is the impression that you think that the number of abortions a person has is somehow tied in with the extent to which those abortions are irresponsible.

This is what you wrote. If you misspoke or left out a few clarifying sentences by all means say so. Otherwise, stop being so full of shit.

There was no possible way to be confused and my posts since they were, quite honestly, cut and dry.

Maybe they were in your head as you wrote them. There was something lost in the translation, though.

Even though you'd like to believe so, they were neither "self-serving" nor "trivial"-- Only the most hardened of PC'ers would believe so. It represents, as I said in an earlier post which you ignored, a complete breakdown of the whole "safe, legal and rare" rhetoric, as they are anything but rare (And abortions in the U.S. have been safe for decades pre-RvW, but that's off-topic), being the most common procedure in the United States. There is nothing responsible about killing the product of sex because it conveniences you, nor anything about doing it repeatedly because it conveniences you. Applied anywhere else to anything else, someone continuously doing something of which they're not willing to accept the consequences of would be deemed as irresponsible, and with good reason. It's amazing how many PC'ers try to treat abortion as an exception to the rule, rather than following the rules as everything else.

Sure. I just hope you're getting your kicks out of this conversation, because I am willing to bet large sums of fake internet money that you've never actually done anything tangible to "save" the life of an unborn child. I readily admit that I don't know shit about you.

I believe I said this before, but there's nothing "disingenuous" about the way I "frame my ideas".

Clearly, you've come under the impression that repeating yourself is an effective way to respond to people who are critical of the things you've said.

Because removing someone from life support = Having an abortion, right? RIGHT??? Now this is most definitely a straw man.

No, it's not a straw man at all. Here's what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Infinite Loser

Obviously, abortion can't be that hard of a decision if there are 1.2M+ of them per year with hundreds of thousands of them being repeat abortions.

It is fairly obvious that the person who wrote this was under the impression that the level of difficulty associated with making a particular medical decision is inversely related to both the number of times that decision is made in a year and the number of times that decision is made by the same person.

It's not a straw man. My statement was an honest response to a statement that was clearly made with only the most minimal thought by someone who is completely out of touch with how reality functions.

In any case, I think it is absolutely fucking ridiculous that I have to actually explain basic grammar to you because you won't acknowledge the reality of the things you've said. Furthermore, regardless of how you dress up your perspective, our disagreement will always come down to the fundamental difference between the points where we choose to ascribe human rights to unborn children. So aside from the satisfaction I get out of picking apart flawed arguments, this discussion has been, as are all abortion discussions between strangers on the internet, completely useless with respect to the subject at hand.

Good luck though, I'm sure you'll have a lot of success winning women over to your perspective by trivializing their emotions and telling them that they shouldn't have the right to control what happens in their own bodies.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by filtherton

Right. Reality is choice number one. Choice number two will always be fantasy. Life isn't fair. Ejaculator beware.

Well, that's an evasion/dismissal if I ever did read one.

1.) Thanks for pointing out the obvious fact that situation #1 is "reality". I'm sure none of us realized that.

2.) You've provided no reason why #2 shouldn't be the law, since it's far more equatable than #1 and it doesn't involve trampling over the "right to bodily autonomy" (Whatever that means). It, in essence, grants the same "rights" to men that women currently enjoy. So what's so bad about that? The answer? Nothing. Which I'm sure you realize, which is why you evaded it all together.

I know what you said. I just don't think you really know what you're talking about with respect to the way medical professionals define different procedures.

And I know for a fact you don't really know what it is you're disagreeing with, because if you did you wouldn't be disagreeing, as there's nothing to disagree with.

They're only dubious if one is completely ignorant of the effects of PPD.

I never said PPD was dubious. I said allowing abortions for "mental health" reasons was dubious, as "mental health" has been interpreted as encompassing just about anything, and is indeed the reason why a woman can legally have an abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

If you think that repeating what you previously said somehow serves as a reasonable response to me explaining why what you previously said is overly simplistic then you are mistaken.

Except, and I'm getting rather tired of saying this, it's not "overly simplistic".

It is completely nebulous, though the fact that you think it isn't is extremely telling. Do you see colors at all in your world?

And, once again, there's nothing nebulous about the notion of "responsibility" nor "personal responsibility". Nothing at all.

Right. But the belief that an unborn child deserves the same consideration as a born child isn't universal. There are plenty of people who have no problem with the idea that abortions can be responsible. The fact that you don't feel this way is irrelevant.

So, if I believe that a child under, say, five years old doesn't deserve the same consideration as one who is over the age of five, does that mean that running out on that child-- Or even killing it-- Because I don't feel like taking care of it any longer would be deemed as the "responsible" choice? Or, better yet, does it mean that just because I think I'm being "responsible" mean that I'm actually being responsible? This is basically just a re-posting of the question(s) I asked you before (Questions which you just flat out ignored, mind you). If you're going to argue yes, then there sure are a lot of people who shouldn't be paying child support nor be in jail right now because, in their minds, they were making the "responsible" choice.

This is why your position is indefensible. It assumes that "responsibility" is solely in the proverbial "eye of the beholder". Unluckily for you, though, the logic by which you deem abortion "responsible" will not, and cannot in good faith, be applied anywhere else, as when it would be deemed to be grossly irresponsible. Assuming you have one, if you buy your child a goldfish, of which he flushes down the toilet because he doesn't feel like taking care of it, are you going to tell him how "responsible" a choice that was? Assuming you have one, if you buy your child a cat or a dog, and he leaves them on the side of the road without food or water because he doesn't feel like taking care of them, are you going to tell him how "responsible" a choice that was? When you read about women who have children and leave them in a trash can, do you think to yourself how "responsible" of a choice that was?

I'm going to assume the answer to all of these questions is an emphatic "Hell no". You're not going to take into account what value they assign to the things they throw away are, because it's irrelevant. Just because someone deems an action as "responsible", doesn't make it such. Unless you're going to call the preceding actions "responsible", then you have absolutely no basis under which to call abortion "responsible", either, as none of the above stated actions are fundamentally different then aborting a ZEF because you don't want to take care of it. None.

Furthermore, it is useless to argue this point, since it results from a fundamental disagreement.

It's only "useless" to argue this point, because you have no point to argue, aside from sticking your finger in your ear.

Keep telling yourself that.

I will.

I've thought about it extensively. I don't agree that one can always equate abortion with the killing of a human being.

Except it is the killing of a human being. There's no way around this fact and you disagree with it won't make it less so. A zygote is considered to be the simplest, for lack of a better word, form of a human being.

...Of course, this is based on purely science.

Sure. We have a fundamental disagreement about the point at which an unborn child should be given human privileges. I await your self-righteous dismissal.

A ZEF is always human. Why shouldn't a human be given human "privileges" (I think you mean rights). If I, as you say, self-righteously dismiss your arguments, it's because your arguments make little sense.

You're kidding, right? Do you know that paragraphs are generally structured so that they contain one sentence that expresses the general idea of the paragraph, and that the other sentences are typically used to support the topic sentence?

No, I'm not kidding and, yes, I know how the English language, or language in general, works.

So for instance, when someone reads:

*snip quote*

They assume that the red sentence, the one that ties every other sentence together, is the topic sentence, since without it the rest of the paragraph would be just a listing of statistical facts. Despite your claim, there is no reference at all here to "convenience" abortions. Sure, the paragraph above the one I quoted mentions convenience abortions, but it is not referenced at all in the material I quoted. What the careful reader is left with, is the impression that you think that the number of abortions a person has is somehow tied in with the extent to which those abortions are irresponsible.

This is what you wrote. If you misspoke or left out a few clarifying sentences by all means say so. Otherwise, stop being so full of shit.

...I love it when people tell me what I meant by what I wrote out, even though what they claim I wrote out can't be found anywhere. If I was tying the "responsibility" to the number of abortions obtained, then I would inherently be deeming women who have one abortion more responsible than those who have two; those who have two more "responsible" than those who have three; those who have three more "responsible" than those who have four, etc., which would be a rather odd distinction to make given my argument, dontcha' think? Of course, this is completely ignoring the fact that #2 and #3 aren't stand alone responses, but I won't point that out. So, once again, I ask you to find where I made the claim you said I made. The fact is that you won't find it, because it's a claim I didn't make. It's a claim you think I made, yet won't find anywhere. So I'll be accepting your apology now. Thank you.

Maybe they were in your head as you wrote them. There was something lost in the translation, though.

More than likely something on your end.

Sure. I just hope you're getting your kicks out of this conversation, because I am willing to bet large sums of fake internet money that you've never actually done anything tangible to "save" the life of an unborn child. I readily admit that I don't know shit about you.

Oh, I am. And what do I do? I sit at home all day arguing with people on the internet about abortion. To your knowledge, anyway. And I think I'll keep it like that :P

...But, anyway, will you be responding to what I wrote out now, or are you going to pretend as if you didn't see it?

Clearly, you've come under the impression that repeating yourself is an effective way to respond to people who are critical of the things you've said.

I only repeat things when you ignore them the first, second or even third time I write them out, as it gives the impression of having not seen what I wrote out the first time.

No, it's not a straw man at all. Here's what you wrote:

Sorry, but it is and I know what I wrote.

It is fairly obvious that the person who wrote this was under the impression that the level of difficulty associated with making a particular medical decision is inversely related to both the number of times that decision is made in a year and the number of times that decision is made by the same person.

It's fairly obvious that the person who wrote the above can't understand the fact that I was talking about a specific medical decision (Having an abortion), done for specific reasons unrelated to either the well-being of the individual in question or another (Most often times socio-economic reasons).

It's not a straw man.

Yes, it was.

My statement was an honest response to a statement that was clearly made with only the most minimal thought by someone who is completely out of touch with how reality functions.

No, it wasn't and, no, I'm not. But thanks for trying.

In any case, I think it is absolutely fucking ridiculous that I have to actually explain basic grammar to you because you won't acknowledge the reality of the things you've said.

You don't have to explain anything. Maybe you need to spend a bit more time actually understanding what it is people write out and what they say and less time trying to explain to them what it is you think they said. It'll save us both the trouble in the future.

Furthermore, regardless of how you dress up your perspective, our disagreement will always come down to the fundamental difference between the points where we choose to ascribe human rights to unborn children.

It's not dressing anything up. You, as per our conversations here:

1.) Believe that an inequtable situation is better than an inequtable one, whilst ignoring the fact that the equatable situation is easily remedied by conferring upon men the same "rights" conferred upon women (The ability to "opt out" of parenthood during pregnancy). In fact, you just responded with a "Life isn't fair", which is purely evasion.

2.) Believe that the "responsibility" of an action is tied to the worth someone views the object they are disposing of, even though this logic is not followed nor applied elsewhere.

3.) Refuse to grant, as you put it, "human rights" to unborn children, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE HUMAN (Does that make sense to you?).

4.) Ignored points #1 through #3.

So aside from the satisfaction I get out of picking apart flawed arguments, this discussion has been, as are all abortion discussions between strangers on the internet, completely useless with respect to the subject at hand.

If by picking apart you mean completely ignoring then, yes, you totally picked apart "flawed arguments".

Good luck though, I'm sure you'll have a lot of success winning women over to your perspective by trivializing their emotions and telling them that they shouldn't have the right to control what happens in their own bodies.

A woman who has an abortion isn't dealing with "her body", nor is she impacting "herself". I find it funny how you talk about "trivializing" women, while simultaneously doing the exact same thing to not only the man, but the ZEF as well. Can you say irony? I know I can.

*phew*

[inBOIL]

Originally Posted by cellophanedeity

Once the feotus hits reality and becomes a baby, it's story has begun. The book is officially titled, and the cover has been cut. That's when it's too late to abort.

I'm curious, when would you say this happens, what is it about that event/moment that defines that transition?

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by cellophanedeity

From the first post: "This is to discuss the ethics (or lack thereof) of abortion."

I attempted to explain how I believe the current laws to be ethical by explaining the way in which I value of existence.

And if you're going to evoke Godwin's Law (which you have, by mentioning that you wanted to mention Godwin's Law. Oh the wonders of passive aggressive conversation!) I'm entirely against one person ending another's story after it's started.

You and I just disagree on when the story begins.

Oh, and I'm not saying that a zygote isn't another individual, I'm just saying that an individual that has no "story" is to be valued as a person.

I was merely pointing out the problem with debating personhood. It's a philosophical concept and, as a result, has no real meaning. If you asked a hundred people to define what constitutes a person you'd probably get twenty or thirty answers. Since there is no consensus as to what defines a person, it seems rather silly trying to base whether or not a ZEF is granted the same protections as everyone else is based on it.

And what do you mean by "story"?

[settie]

I voted for the dependence on circumstances because I believe some (albeit few) cases of abortion are done for selfish, vain, inhumane reasons.

I believe in a greater connectedness of things, as opposed to singularity. Earth, matter, minus human interference, works in an ever-changing plan for evolution. Instead of believing in god, I believe in the truth of evolution. I won't live long, nor have a significant impact on this earth, but I am a part of evolution, which is pretty damn cool. Evolution, however is not certain or predictable. And I'm grateful for that. Life would be so damn boring for all that lives, wouldn't it? :P

But I defer.

Abortion should always be an option to those pregnant with a reasonable, justified cause.

There should be simple, straightforward deadlines that must be met, along with psych counsels and evaluations. But I also feel that such should be conducted if choosing to become pregnant, or keep a child. If parenting were treated more like a responsible job in itself, I think there would be a greater consistency in healthy parent/child relationships. But hey, that's me dreaming of a utopia, eh?

There should most definitely be a time frame within which an abortion is allowed. What that time frame might be, I don't know. I don't care enough about pregnancy to know the stages and what they consist of.

I think my view on abortion is strongly influenced by personal circumstances and thoughts, and less on society.

For example, when I read that question within the poll, I asked myself "if my boyfriend and I were to have protected sex and get me pregnant, would I be ok with abortion?" And my answer is absolutely yes for this portion in my life. I would have a solid answer within a short time frame, and be certain for my reasoning. I am 22, with a shitty part time job, a rather fucked-up mentality from stress and death, and a dream to work as a researcher, instead of raising a child. And I am absolutely NOT comfortable with carrying to birth a child, and giving it to someone else. If I have a child, I want it to be with me. No exceptions.

Some of you might say "if you're so afraid of getting pregnant, you're not responsible enough for sex." Well, that's your opinion. But I learn from doing in all aspects of life. My mistakes are what really teach me. I guess I need a good knock to my ego, or to my head to get the point across. Well, that works for me. And I'm grateful I can at least admit to that. I'd hope you would at least repect me for admitting that.

Then I thought about the slight possibility of being raped and becoming pregnant. should that happen, I could never carry that child to term. I feel that the trauma of the incident would haunt me, and inflict a negative energy around the pregnancy. I can only see it ending badly, to be frank.

Well, my answers are extremely personal, because that is all I can base my answer off: personal experience. I hope you can respect that at least.

[inBOIL]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I was merely pointing out the problem with debating personhood. It's a philosophical concept and, as a result, has no real meaning. If you asked a hundred people to define what constitutes a person you'd probably get twenty or thirty answers. Since there is no consensus as to what defines a person, it seems rather silly trying to base whether or not a ZEF is granted the same protections as everyone else is based on it.

As you pointed out yourself, the law defines personhood, and in the past has done so in a manner which excluded individuals we now consider to be persons. Clearly this has meaning, at least to the extent that it affects how laws are enforced. If how we define personhood had no meaning, then it wouldn't matter whether we decide to ascribe personhood to a fetus, and by extention, whether or not abortion is right or wrong (inasmuch as it affects the fetus). It's true that people won't all agree on what constitutes a person, but someone's opinion is going to end up defining legality. I see no reason why we shouldn't strive for a logically and ethically robust definition of personhood, even if we can't quite reach it.

[filtherton]

Infinite Loser

What is the point of having a text based discussion with someone who is both unable to write clearly and unable to acknowledge that his/her unclear writing doesn't reflect what s/he actually thinks?

Because I get the impression that your standard response to being questioned is to just impotently repeat your original statement as if that is a useful response to anyone but yourself.

[Latenter]

I'm not getting involved in this discussion anymore, as I've stated my opinions, but I saw this a few days ago and thought it was interesting. Both sides can discuss the issue frankly, without attacking each other or going to extremes.

There are 3 parts, starts here:
Huckabee and Stewart on Abortion, Part 1
Part 2
Part 3