The big abortion rant thread.

Remove all ads!

aww...you're SO cute! I love people like you because I used to be the same. Could give it out but couldn't take it etc.

Actually, my views on abortion were the same as yours until I got pregnant. It's funny that we're trading the same, well used, boring comments that I traded with people 7/8 years ago. Nice try though honey xxx

 

Hahaha. You don't like my opinion, so first you imply that I should have been killed in utero, then you patronize me when I rightfully point out that that's a low blow. Bravo.

 

Oh I'll agree that the pro choice movement does their share of dehumanising the fetus. I do so in a way by calling it a fetus instead of a baby since I think a baby is more emotionally loaded and leads to the babykilling nonsense that the pro-life movement goes on about. On an interesting note though I googled just out of curiosity the parasite sentence and to my not-so-great surprise the first hit was a pro-life site using it to demonise the pro-choice people. Also what I find in google does not really interest me, what some indivudal hotheads or trolls ramble about is completely irrelevant, what I'm more interested in is what real feminist organisations have to say about the issue.

NOG, I'll take your word on meeting such people allthough I'll remain sceptical over there being many such people or that feminism would be that much different in US. Considering though that gender equality has gone somewhat further in Finland abortion laws are not even a point of debate anymore really, it can be assumed that some US feminists are taking up for more desperate and harder rethoric to get their voices heard.

There's no need to flame. Since by your own admission the fetus can't possibly be viewed as a parasite by definition then I don't know what you are getting so riled up about, especially since I doubt anyone here wil call it one.

 

You only looked at one site? That's hardly an impressive sample size.

The first site I obtained on Google was indeed a pro-life site, where the author picks apart a number of arguments made by a pro-choicer. The pro-choicer in question equated the fetus to a 'wad of cells' and a 'parasite'.

Rebutting fallicious arguments does not amount to demonising the opposition.

Why are you only concerned with feminist 'organisations'? Many self-proclaimed feminists are not part of any 'organisation'. Their opinions are no less (or more) valuable that feminists who are part of a particular organisation.

Your accusation of flaming is baseless. My manner of posting may be blunt and possibly abrasive, but I'm not on some malicious quest to cause offense.

The truth is that a significant number of pro-choicers do indeed view the fetus as (at worst) a neoplasm or parasite, and (at best) something less than a human being with a right to life. In that case, it's not really that despicable when a man beats a woman so badly that she miscarries. It's just an ordinary assault against an adult. Big deal, assaults happen by the gazillion every day, and nobody expresses such indignation and outrage.

 

Count does bring up an interesting moral question for the pro-choice group: Either the foetus is human and has a human right to live, and thus killing it by beating the woman is murder and a reprehensible action, or the foetus isn't a human and has no human right to live, and doing the same is no worse than beating her and not killing the baby, or beating a woman who isn't even pregnant: not nice, but not so reprehensible as murder.

Logically, they can't have it both ways, yet I have heard many (read in this case a large majority of those I've met) try to.

 

Because they are organized and represent a group of people and therefore carry more weight an individual opinion. There are plenty of individual pro-lifers who are downright bonkers including people who have murdered people who have participated in abortion procedures, using them as an example of pro-lifers would be equally unjustified.

Oh I absolutely agree that it's not murder, however considering the possible psychological damages and effects I consider it to be a lot more damaging than ordinary assault in a similar way that rape is considered worse than assault. This would of course depend also on the development phase of the actual fetus, at the point it's not legal to abort it, it becomes justified to prosecute the man of murder.

I think you'll find that the mods disagree if you look at Beren's post closely. I don't think any other pro-lifers have so far posted any even closely inflammatory posts.

 

But using them as an example of the fringe of a group is justified. I'm pro-life but not on that fringe. But I'm willing to admit that the fringe exists.

As for the whole "de-humanizing" of the baby thing, that's exactly what every pro-choicer does -- there's no way they can go around saying "I think we should kill babies" and expect any moderates to come around to their way of thinking. So they claim that what is being carried by the woman is NOT a baby. They can come up with some pretty good arguments for that too -- it can't survive outside the womb, it doesn't have many traits that we would consider necessaryt o be classified as "human" -- yet, and other such goodies. I can see their point, really I can. I just don't agree with it. I just don't think that killing what is being carried is a justifiable choice unless the mother's physical health is in danger. And if we do permit killing that thing outside of a legitimate threat to the mother, then it should NOT be financed by the rest of society but treated as cosmetic surgery and paid for by the mother or other like minded people. I do not appreciate my tax dollars being used for something I find reprehensible, and if that is happening, it becomes a public matter and I have every bloody right to weigh in with my opinion.

 

Yet individual opinion adds up. The fact is that one feminist organisation is not necessarily representative of general feminist opinion, anymore than the KKK is representative of white nationalist opinion.

But are they the fringe, or the norm? It's a fringe activity for prolifers to murder people for their cause. It's the norm for pro-choicers to dehumanise the fetus in order to rationalise killing it.

What possible psychological damages and effects? The man removed a parasite, a neoplasm, a 'not-human', that was exploiting the woman's body. She should be overjoyed!

Appeal to authority logic fallacy.

 

As fantastic as it sounds, the following is an accurate account.

I personally know a guy who was born into an extremely bad situation. His single mother ran such a chaotic household that by the age of 12 this boy had a tattoo around his wrist of a bracelet with his middle name on it. At the age of eight this boy blew his babysitter's seven year old daughter away with a shotgun. The babysitter's teenage son had shown the boy how to use a shotgun and insisted that he be able to shoot it himself. So, the boy learned how to ready the shotgun to fire using his whole body as he was too little and weak to cock the gun. When he was 14 he raped and impregnated his 12 year old half-sister (also the ward of his single mother). The half-sister delivered the child while she was still 12 and the 12 year old's mother took on the responsibility of raising her daughter's baby...the grandchild is about 18 now and although I don't know for sure what ever became of him I would bet that he is screwed beyond repair.

I don't like abortion and I agree with LKD that those who don't approve of abortion should not be forced to finance it in any fashion. However, I am very pro-mind-my-own-business. I have known a number of children for whom abortion would be a very kind reprieve....and I know that my experiences, even the one I related, are not the worst-case scenarios. As I am not privy to all situations, I will not judge those who choose abortion, maybe they have very good reason.

Countduckula, have you honestly never known a child who would have been better off as a terminated pregnancy? Have you ever considered a pro-mind-your-own-business postion on the subject?

 

Nunsbane, remember that some very good people have come out of some very bad situations like that. There is absolutely no absolute predictor for human behavior, which is why there are no laws on preventative eugenics or the like. The problem with abortion in those situations is that you never know.

 

You have made that rhetorical statement a few times, which is really pointless. Everyone already knows you are just baiting. Here let me give you an example: Of course people suffer "damages" when they are "beaten" (is that a newsflash for you?). Oh, but you ignored the GIRL being beaten. I guess it was just a female that was beaten, so SHE doesn't matter anyway. There are plenty more "breeders" around. Right? Right?!

 

Of course the woman was beaten. Women (and men) have the stuffing beaten out of them every day, all over the world! So why is an assault against a pregnant woman worse than an assault against a non-pregnant woman, given that pro-choicers consider the fetus to be, at best, non-human, and at worse, parasitic?

nunsbane:

No. But I'm sure a scant few exist. And as I stated earlier, if they don't feel like their lives are worth living, then they can commit suicide. No third party should be entitled to deny them their right to life based on conjecture and subjective value judgements. "Oh, your life might not be worth living in ten years, Mr. Cystic Fibrosis sufferer, so let's kill you now to spare you the suffering and pain!"

Have you ever considered a pro-mind-your-own business position on the subjects of pedophilia, rape, murder, theft, and domestic assault? I mean, is it really any of your concern if your next door neighbour is raping his daughter? Come to think of it, why not mind your own business the next time a pregnant woman miscarries because her boyfriend beats the stuffing out of her?

 

And that the woman WANTED to carry the child to term. To me that's murder.

It is worse because it places the most innocent of blood at the greatest of risk. It's reprehensible to beat a woman, it adds a second reprehensible act on top of it if she's with child. In the case of the woman bein beaten to miscarriage, it adds murder on top of the brutal assault.

Agreed, but perhaps for different reasons. According to the Mormon faith, mortal life is an important stage in our spiritual progression. It requires that we are born and experience physical death. How much time you have between birth and death is less relevent. In the case of those that are born with a terminal illness, that time can be very short, but they need to undergo those two events.

 

More baiting? Dude, I was not the one who commented that the woman should be "overjoyed" at being assaulted. That was someone else who laid that "gem" us. Take a look back at the thread.

I did not attempt to ask, nor answer that question. I have no idea why you are directing that at me, other than out of pure disrespect. But, despite your baiting, I will say that an assault is a crime, possibily a felony. In this instance, our criminal under discussion received a criminal record and a prison term to go with it.

 

Chandos, you're baiting him right back. You're posting inflamatory statements and begging for an inflamatory response.

Gnarff, from your post I think you may not have read the entire exchange to date 9a lengthy task, I know), but Count is making his statements from a rhetorical position. He's not actually arguing that the baby is only a parasite, but rather indulging in an arguement some pro-choice people and groups make and carrying it to a (logical) extreme. If the baby is just a parasite, then the woman who's beaten into a miscarriage should only be a standard assault under the law, no added consequences for the loss of child. It's a horrendous idea, but the natural consequence of the pro-choice movement. Additionally, I'd like to make sure everyone is clear on this, this is the natural consequence of the entire pro-choice movement, not just those hate-filled vipers that spew nonsense about parasites. If the mother can terminate at will, then the child has no right to life and no protection under the law. If the child is protected under the law, then it has an inherrant and independant right to life that not even the mother can revoke.

Count, it's time to lay down the extreme rhetorical arguement now. We get the point and the discussion has begun. Doing so further only serves to agrivate people, not to convince or persuade.

 

Precisely.

I'm simply pointing out how absurd and hypocritical it is when pro-choicers express such disgust at a woman being beaten so that she miscarries. If the fetus is indeed a non-entity, then why should the beating of a pregnant woman be treated as any different from an ordinary assault?

*You* get the point.

 

Do you think? Didn't you read the part of my post that remarked that: "this is an example?" Beren had asked for members to treat each other with a little more respect on this thread. Yet, he chose to ignore that and instead continued to bait. The common wisdom is to "not feed the troll." Nevertheless, there is really no longer any point to this thread. The quality of debate on this thread is very poor anyway.

You, NOG, along with Gnarff and countduckula have chosen to turn this thread into a rant about how "pro-lifer's" consider a "fetus to be a parasite." That's just a deflection. I don't know of any member here who has said that or believes that. So the three of you have turned this thread from a debate, to a rant about something that for the rest of us does not exist. It's intellectually dishonest to try an paint the other members of this board in such a fashion. So he "read that on a thread on the internet" somewhere. Gee, big freaking deal. Who gives a rat's ass what some moron posted "somewhere" on the web.

And so the point is?

You don't say? Have you ever had a pregnant wife? My wife has been pregnant three times. How many children do you have? Did you bother to consult with your doctor about your wife's pregnancy? This last time, the doctor spoke to me very specifically, informing me that a pregnant woman is more suseptable to injury because of hormonal changes within her body: for instance bones are more brittle, physical damage requires more time to heal. There are changes which occur within a pregnant woman's body of which you are obviously ignorant. But that is not surprising, given the glaring errors in your comments.

And that's not what you are "simply pointing out," and you know it.

 

So you consider an assault against a pregnant woman far more reprehensible than an assault against a non-pregnant woman because of the added vulnerability? The fact that the fetus is put at risk is a non-issue?

 

In our society it is a general feeling that the more defenseless and vulnerable the victim is, the more cowardly and reprehensible the crime is. Woman are more vulnerable when they are pregnant, as are handi-capped people and old people are more vulnerable as well.