Abortion: This Should Be Fun

[Truthordeal]

In other words, you don't like being in the minority. Cry me a river. Knowledge is power. If you haven't got the power, then shut up. My entire political existence is that of a minority; the only reason I can tango with the best of them is that I've had to spend so much time tangoing with the worst of them. On many forums, your side is the bigger faction, and what willingness you Jesus-smoochers show to allow your opponents to even speak is usually measurable in ANGSTroms per micro-giveshit (ANG/µGS).

I know how this works. When you're in the majority, you're cruel and extreme in your statements. When you're in the minority, you're cautious and try to be moderate, even as you whine that others wash out your arguments with "length" or "rhetoric" or whatever else you can think of. But I can just imagine some of the stuff you say on other forums, forums where your side of the debate is dominant.

Here at the Compendium you get to spout off all you want, as this thread attests. Don't expect to earn many plaudits for your blithering blabbery, but if crapping all over women is what you want to talk about, then talk away. I just hope somebody with spare time and good sense has the energy to put your arguments into the ground whenever you get the itch to make them, because this damn sexist marginalization of the female half of humanity is really getting old, and it's time for it to stop. If steamrolling over the likes of you and this topic creator is the price of that, then I'll pay triple whenever I can, and I hope others will too, because I just haven't got the time or the patience today to re-argue something that already completely played out on this forum just one friggin' month ago!!

I honestly don't know where you're getting most of this. It just seems to me that its a better option to have a separate thread on abortion rather than having the Frustration thread or the Eff Sexism thread get diverted into a debate on abortion every few days.

Now, apparently this topic wasn't completely run through last month, or else you wouldn't have people still arguing over it, would you? And the problem with having this topic run through you, Zeph and Daniel Krispin every time is that we hear the same arguments over and over again from you three.

I myself have avoided putting my actual input on the subject in in this thread. Instead, I've been trying to make sure that the topic remains robust, yet civil and doesn't go of on a religious tangent as most of the others do. Surprisingly, it remained relatively civil until you burst in here decrying the "faerie lord in the sky" argument.

So boo-hoo, cry me a river if you don't think this topic is worth exploring. If it's that much of a bother to you, then don't contribute, and let some other people have a go at the topic.

[Lord J Esq]

How about I debase that entire (misguided) argument by saying that if men could have babies too, I would still be standing where I am.

Quite simply put, this controversy would not exist in its present form if males could have babies too. The human species would be completely different and our civilization would look completely different. There is almost no chance of a parallel controversy, because the controversy arises out of this fundamental disparity between the sexes. For you to say that you'd "still" be against abortion in such a world is a logical fallacy.

Now, apparently this topic wasn't completely run through last month, or else you wouldn't have people still arguing over it, would you?

This topic has run its course and been rerun many times. The only reason it persists is because there's always another flapjack whose mind is made up that pregnant females are the property of society.

And the problem with having this topic run through you, Zeph and Daniel Krispin every time is that we hear the same arguments over and over again from you three.

You picked those names out of thin air. You picked Daniel Krispin as the token anti-choicer and Zephira either as the token female or because you just wanted another name and she came to mind. The real axis of this debate is between you, a couple of other wingers, myself, ZeaLitY, a few assorted hangers-on in rotation, and, until the finger-chopping incident, Daniel.

I myself have avoided putting my actual input on the subject in in this thread. Instead, I've been trying to make sure that the topic remains robust, yet civil and doesn't go of on a religious tangent as most of the others do. Surprisingly, it remained relatively civil until you burst in here decrying the "faerie lord in the sky" argument.

It's not civil for this debate to even exist. It's like debating whether we should commit genocide or reinstitute slavery. This is a fucked up debate and you're on the wrong side of it. It really is that simple. If you're personally against abortion, then fine. Don't have one. End of debate.

This is a non-issue. Every argument the anti-choicers put out has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly or discredited on grounds of illegitimacy, a thousand times in a thousand ways. Don't blame me if you're too stubborn to fold your tent and go home, and don't expect a merit badge for claiming that you're trying to preserve decorum in a debate whose very existence is an obscenity. We know very well why you're here and what you're doing.

So boo-hoo, cry me a river if you don't think this topic is worth exploring.

Do you know anything about history? No, you don't. You don't even know anything about the present day. If you want to "explore" the topic, then don't start with an opinion. Start with humility and curiosity, and go learn something. You will find that all of this abortion nonsense is a ruse perpetrated by religious demagogues and political personalities, and perpetuated masses of easily hoodwinked people who are too beholden to their own faith or dogma to critically evaluate the premises and policies at issue. The controversy wouldn't exist without this dynamic in place, because reproductive rights are so obviously a part of human rights that, absent these entrenched conservative interests, nobody would even think to undertake such a bizarre and offensive and hurtful campaign.

[BROJ]

...or its not cool to perform homosexual activities yet you can sell your daughter into slavery and take gods name in vain.

I'm just curious, what Christians are selling their daughters into slavery?

Any arranged marriages that would be/have been blindly respected via the 5th commandment, I would assume.

]Now, apparently this topic wasn't completely run through last month, or else you wouldn't have people still arguing over it, would you?

For people like you who don't know how to use the search function (let alone the tenacity to digest posts before voraciously looking for some detail therein to rebuke) you would realize otherwise if you actually did. That this even needs to be rediscussed exposes how close-minded you are. Read the fucking manual er... previous topics before posting.

[Truthordeal]

It's not civil for this debate to even exist. It's like debating whether we should commit genocide or reinstitute slavery. This is a fucked up debate and you're on the wrong side of it. It really is that simple. If you're personally against abortion, then fine. Don't have one. End of debate.

This is a non-issue. Every argument the anti-choicers put out has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly or discredited on grounds of illegitimacy, a thousand times in a thousand ways. Don't blame me if you're too stubborn to fold your tent and go home, and don't expect a merit badge for claiming that you're trying to preserve decorum in a debate whose very existence is an obscenity. We know very well why you're here and what you're doing.

And that is why you fail.

Why should any "anti-choicer" be bothered to see any legitimacy in anything you say if you can't grant them that same common courtesy? I myself find the actions and ideas of the KKK and Black Panther Party to be morally repugnant, but I still believe they should be granted a place at the table when discussing race relations, as they play a central role in the matter. At the same time, both the religious and the supremely anti-religious, two extremes of the issue, should be allowed their say.

Furthermore, rather than accept that there are rational people who disagree with you, you choose to denigrate any opposition, either referring to them as a puppet or a demonic king who only wishes to suppress women.

BROJ, I didn't start this topic. I couldn't care less about the merits of abortion at the moment. It was divided off by someone from the Libertarian topic, and since it was, presumably by one of the admins here, apparently it wasn't capable of just being deleted.

[Thought]

Any arranged marriages that would be/have been blindly respected via the 5th commandment, I would assume.

Ah, I could see that, then. Hmm... I wonder, then, if we should be offended by the fact that a lot of wedding ceremonies include the concept of someone "giving away" the bride, as if she were something that could be given.

[ZombieBucky]

i dont think this actually started as its own thread. if i remember right, it was in that really long thread about libertanism. i didnt read through most of it because quite frankly it was too long and too complicated for me. i only posted because of the second post in this topic, regarding an ideal society and that thing about abortion. because i am for a womans choice to have a child or not.
after reading these debates, i feel enlightened somehow. like i just realized how totally right you guys are. how the whole issue of abortion itself can be traced back to sexism. and even if i knew that before, i never saw how it was everywhere. everywhere you look, women are discriminated against. theyre used as objects. and when they start to act like men, people push them down again.
thank you for opening my eyes, you guys. but for now, im going to go back to just reading these things. i honestly just cant keep up.

[Lord J Esq]

Why should any "anti-choicer" be bothered to see any legitimacy in anything you say if you can't grant them that same common courtesy?

That's a stark bit of moral relativism coming from someone who claims to believe in supreme absolutes. It's a pretty sick claim that all sides of this debate are equally valid. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to be right, or to be apportioned half the "rightness" and the rest given to the other side. This is one of those times when there is a clear right and a clear wrong, and the debate between the two is long since over for all reasonable-minded people. What remains is for people like you to realize it.

This wasn't figured out on the Compendium. This was determined before you and I were even born.

[Lord J Esq]

after reading these debates, i feel enlightened somehow. like i just realized how totally right you guys are. how the whole issue of abortion itself can be traced back to sexism. and even if i knew that before, i never saw how it was everywhere. everywhere you look, women are discriminated against. theyre used as objects. and when they start to act like men, people push them down again.
thank you for opening my eyes, you guys. but for now, im going to go back to just reading these things. i honestly just cant keep up.

At least something good came out of this sorry thread, then. I'm glad to see that.

[FaustWolf]

Eh, I can see the justification for this thread on three grounds:

1. The first thread Lord J linked was waaay old (however, covered the topic very in-depth -- for future reference, most proper thing to do would have been to zombie that one and examine extraneous issues that hadn't been covered back then).

2. Second topic was entitled "Oh no. Oh God no." Not the more obvious "Abortion Thread Ex Ultra."

3. While we did go through the abortion debate in the Sexism thread, there are philosophical grounds for separating the ideas of abortion and sexism. Although feminists tend to link the two without exception (and for good reason) there's probably a feminist or two out there who believe a Pro-Life stance is compatible with feminism; the traditional rationale I was able to find on this is that the Uber Pro-Life Stance obliterated the practice of female infanticide, itself a sexist practice. There's also the argument that a Pro-Life stance does not single out the gender of the fetus/child it seeks to protect. Also, there's the issue of the human fetus' personhood or lack thereof, which is a moral consideration separate from the oppression of women by patriarchal laws and norms.

Er, on the other hand, I just did a search on "abortion" and the Abortion Ex Ultra thread was the third or fourth result. Hehehhhehezzz.


So shall we keep this thread separate or merge with the Abortion Ex Ultra thread, to bring greater attention to what's already been discussed and focus the debate without treading old ground?


Thought, on the issue about arm-cutting: yes, by the biological rationale I proposed above, I would have to support a woman's right to cut off her arm if she so pleased. We could probably have an interesting debate over whether arm cutting should be covered by the (now-unfortunately-likely-to-be-nonexistent) public healthcare option as abortions would have been.

As for Roe v. Wade, believe it or not, Norma McCorvey (aka "Jane Roe") released a public statement many years later stating that she was wrong in her decision. Nowadays, she is working to overturn that Supreme Court decision.

Yes, this is a huge fact bolstering the Pro-Life movement: that women "typically" regret having an abortion afterward, exemplified by Roe herself. I read that McCorvey was even one of the people thrown out of the Sotomayor hearings recently for protesting Sotomayor's Pro-Choice stance. However, it would be fallacious of us to generalize Roe's reaction and apply it to all women who undergo an abortion, and it is certainly possible for women to be against women's rights. As Queen Victoria of England once said:

" I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection."
Source: http://www.biographyonline.net/2007/10/quote-of-queen-victoria-on-womens.html

Does anyone know if either Linda Coffee or Sarah Weddington (Roe's attorneys) had undergone an abortion illegally prior to Roe v. Wade? I wanted to point one of them out as an example of a woman who had undergone abortion and continued to appreciated the abortion right, but I don't feel comfortable making that claim without a source because I'm not 100% sure I'm remembering correctly. I thought I read it somewhere.

I find your rationale to be baseless on the grounds that every living person has the right to life, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.  Giving that unborn child an unborn in basically denying them that right  After all, the right to life is one of the most important principles of law within a free republic.  Wouldn't you agree?

The issue of personhood is precisely why Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers don't see eye to eye philosophically. Pro-Choicers simply do not view the fetus as its own person separate from the mother. Otherwise the Pro-Choice/anti-Death Penalty combo would be just as ludicrous (possibly more so) than the Pro-Life/pro-Death Penalty combination.

However, I can't claim to speak on behalf of all who are Pro-Choice, nor would I dare. So what philosophical rationales does everyone else use to deny personhood to the human fetus? Because that's precisely what's at the heart of the matter I think, despite the fact that traditional male dominance of society's legal organs complicates matters by thrusting sexism into the equation.

Another consideration I'd like to get feedback on: the popular moderate position of advocating abortion rights in only cases of incest and rape is also fraught with inconsistency, is it not? What makes a fetus conceived as a result of rape any less of a person than a fetus conceived as a result of the mother's free will?

[Truthordeal]

Another consideration I'd like to get feedback on: the popular moderate position of advocating abortion rights in only cases of incest and rape is also fraught with inconsistency, is it not? What makes a fetus conceived as a result of rape any less of a person than a fetus conceived as a result of the mother's free will?

I'd like to say that there is a certain eugenic quality there. From what I've heard from a geneticist that visited my Criminal Studies class when I was a sophomore, there's evidence that supports the notion that the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree; that is, a lot of behavioral and psychological traits are passed down through and caused by genetics.

More famous examples would be the extra Y-Chromosome in some males, causing excess aggression that has been linked to an inclination towards murder or domestic violence, or the "gay gene" that supposedly determines if someone will grow up to be a homosexual.

With those two in mind, its not a far leap in logic to suggest that the tendency towards rape is caused by something genetic too, and that a fetus conceived through rape will have an inclination to rape when it gets older.

Of course, all of this is merely speculation at this point. The y-chromosome example isn't seen as a justifiable legal defense yet(not that it should be; murder is murder) but as more study into this phenomenon goes on, we may find an answer.

[IAmSerge]

There is almost no chance of a parallel controversy, because the controversy arises out of this fundamental disparity between the sexes.

Prove to me, that I, myself, am pro-life because I have a Vendetta against all things female, and I might believe you.  Until then, leave the conspiracy theories to me.

[Thought]

Thought, on the issue about arm-cutting: yes, by the biological rationale I proposed above, I would have to support a woman's right to cut off her arm if she so pleased. We could probably have an interesting debate over whether arm cutting should be covered by the (now-unfortunately-likely-to-be-nonexistent) public healthcare option as abortions would have been.

The arm cutting was just a stepping stone to the ultimate issue of bodily determinism. If we say that a person's body is theirs to do totally as they wish, then it would seem that euthanasia would fall under that umbrella. Indeed, perhaps if people had less of a fear of death, the abortion issue itself would be less intense. Address death-fears and dualism, and one might well address the underlying objections to abortion.

As a side note, I thought that the idea of "elective amputation" was so ridiculous as to be purely hypothetical in nature. Why oh why must I be proven wrong in these sort of matters? It appears that extreme cases of body dysmorphic disorder might actually lead to a person desiring elective amputation.

[Truthordeal]

Well Thought, if its any consolation I can agree to the psychological administering part of that procedure. In fact, a lot of abortion clinics do something comparable by mandating a waiting period, and some even have some sort of counseling program to take beforehand.

Of course, elective amputation is a bit less...for lack of a better word, normal, than abortion.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Josh, I'm the admin who split this thread from the libertarianism thread. I did so to keep that topic on track, not to bring up settled issues in this one.

Thought, an ideal society thread would be very interesting. Why not start one?

[Lord J Esq]

You?! I can't sternly rebuke you--certainly not for doing this to keep my own topic on track. Way to undermine my wrath. I should sternly rebuke you for that.