Abortion

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by iambiguous »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:41 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:51 pm No, what abortion is always about is this: a woman [and only a woman] gets pregnant and does not want to be pregnant. For any number of personal reasons rooted in the life that she [and only she] lives. Then the part where squabbles erupt over when human life actually begins. And then the part where there are conflicting reactions to how the pregnancy occurred...defective birth control device, rape, incest. Then the part where things change in the woman's life prompting her to change her mind about the pregnancy. Then the part where to abort or not to abort becomes deeply embedded in the woman's mental health. Or in her physical health.

Then the part where in some states [or in some entire nations] none of that complex "existential stuff" matters. If a woman gets pregnant [whatever the circumstances] she must give birth. Or be charged with first degree premeditated murder.

Reproductive control is obviously an important component of the debate. If the state can seize control of it and force woman to give birth, what does that tell you about the gap between men and women in regard to social, political and economic equality?

In my view, only a fool, a misogynist, or an advocate of patriarchy would not acknowledge the "for all practical purposes" consequences of forcing women to give birth.

As for tubal ligation and vasectomy, I made my arguments above. Others can decide for themselves whether henry addressed my points intelligently...or just wiggled out of responding altogether. Content instead [as always] with sticking to his "your option is to think like I do about these things or you are necessarily wrong" mentality of the hardcore moral and political objectivists.

Again, he can't/won't even recognize the extent to which the "psychology of objectivism" propels his authoritarian dogmas here.

Not only that but he requires the existence of a God, the God in order [ultimately] to anchor his convictions. God created him in order that he "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

Though, again, I suspect that henry will actually dare this God not to follow his own mere mortal dictates!!

His thinking here is so utterly weak, in my view, he requires a "transcending font" in order to anchor his precious Self to something that comforts and consoles him. I knew there was a God in there somewhere! It's just that he's torn between the Deist God and himself as this transcending font.
How did she do that as "a woman and only a woman"?

I've never met a woman "and only a woman" who could "get pregnant" at all. :shock:
Of course, for this fulminating and fanatical objectivist, the transcending font is the Christian God.

In fact, it would be rather interesting to explore an exchange between henry and IC in regard to the consequences of women [and only women] getting pregnant and not wanting to be. With respect to God and religion and..Judgment Day?

But, apparently, this is still all completely "private" between them.

Both seem adamant that women have absolutely no excuse for getting pregnant. Not really. So, it is entirely logical and epistemologically sound that should they have one, the state is justified in arresting them, trying them for first degree premeditated murder and, if convicted, sending them to death row?

Though it is true that while a man can't get pregnant, he can, as a doctor or a back-alley practitioner, perform one. So, in that sense, men too can be found guilty of first degree murder here. Let equality revolve around that instead?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:39 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:41 pm
How did she do that as "a woman and only a woman"?

I've never met a woman "and only a woman" who could "get pregnant" at all. :shock:
Of course, for this fulminating and fanatical objectivist, the transcending font is the Christian God.
:lol: You don't have to be a Christian to know it takes two people to make a baby. You don't have to be an "objectivist." You also don't have to be a biologist.

You can just be somebody who passed basic sex-ed.

So funny! :lol:
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Abortion

Post by henry quirk »

As usual: I -snipped- out your irrelevancies.

Obviously, for you, abortion is about sumthin' other than reproductive control/rights/freedom.
No, what abortion is always about is this: a woman [and only a woman] gets pregnant and does not want to be pregnant.
Ah, I see: you have no interest in women or men exercisin' reproductive control before pregnancy. You have no interest in established methods that prevent unwanted pregnancy. Your only concern is the woman (who could have exercised control before hand) as she struggles with the consequence of not exercisin' reproductive control before hand.

And you think you're doin' women a favor.

I've been watchin' videos of various gatherings and protests: women, very few actually pregnant, carryin' their MY BODY-MY CHOICE placards. And I wonder how many wouldn't be out marchin' if they knew they had a method available to them that would render courts and legislatures moot when it came to their reproductive choices. And I wonder how many of those women, like you, have no interest in neatly side-steppin' courts and legislatures (and all the potential moral/ethical implications embedded in abortion), preferrin', like you, to dismiss reproductive control as sumthin' only of concern when their bellies swell.
As for tubal ligation and vasectomy, I made my arguments above.
Not that I can see. If you like, replicate 'em in your response.

-----
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:41 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:51 pm what abortion is always about is this: a woman [and only a woman] gets pregnant and does not want to be pregnant.
How did she do that as "a woman and only a woman"?

I've never met a woman "and only a woman" who could "get pregnant" at all. :shock:
See, I keep talkin' about reproductive control for women and men (cuz it really does take two to tango) in advance of pregnancy, but biggy, he'll have none of it. It's a woman's burden (never mind that vasectomy can help women to never have to bear that burden). Even more perplexin' is his refusal to consider the prophylaxis of tubal ligation. He's the kind that refuses to buy storm insurance -- won't even listen to anyone who brings it up -- but then bitches and kvetches The State won't bail him out after his home is wiped out by a storm.

-----
Both seem adamant that women have absolutely no excuse for getting pregnant
My position is clear: if MY BODY-MY CHOICE is the issue (and we both know for you, and many others, that ain't the case) women and men have methods available to them thru which they can exercise reproductive autonomy while, at the same time, givin' the finger to The State (but, we can't have that, can we? You like The State, especially when you and yours wield its power).
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 11:42 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:41 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:51 pm what abortion is always about is this: a woman [and only a woman] gets pregnant and does not want to be pregnant.
How did she do that as "a woman and only a woman"?

I've never met a woman "and only a woman" who could "get pregnant" at all. :shock:
See, I keep talkin' about reproductive control for women and men (cuz it really does take two to tango) in advance of pregnancy, but biggy, he'll have none of it. It's a woman's burden (never mind that vasectomy can help women to never have to bear that burden). Even more perplexin' is his refusal to consider the prophylaxis of tubal ligation. He's the kind that refuses to buy storm insurance -- won't even listen to anyone who brings it up -- but then bitches and kvetches The State won't bail him out after his home is wiped out by a storm.
Maybe abortion IS his "insurance."

Maybe he's worried that some woman who he casually impregnated would be able to twist him for alimony, so inducing her to kill the child would get him off the hook. Maybe that's the point...he avoids the snip AND the responsibility for his "contribution."

And along that line, here's something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FC1IRiJ9x0
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Abortion

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 11:51 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 11:42 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:41 pm
How did she do that as "a woman and only a woman"?

I've never met a woman "and only a woman" who could "get pregnant" at all. :shock:
See, I keep talkin' about reproductive control for women and men (cuz it really does take two to tango) in advance of pregnancy, but biggy, he'll have none of it. It's a woman's burden (never mind that vasectomy can help women to never have to bear that burden). Even more perplexin' is his refusal to consider the prophylaxis of tubal ligation. He's the kind that refuses to buy storm insurance -- won't even listen to anyone who brings it up -- but then bitches and kvetches The State won't bail him out after his home is wiped out by a storm.
Maybe abortion IS his "insurance."

Maybe he's worried that some woman who he casually impregnated would be able to twist him for alimony, so inducing her to kill the child would get him off the hook. Maybe that's the point...he avoids the snip AND the responsibility for his "contribution."

And along that line, here's something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FC1IRiJ9x0
Me, I think biggy is all about denigratin' personhood. I don't think he gives a flip about women. He, like a few others here, just want persons ground into the dirt. Oh, and for the record: he ain't no nihilist. He sez I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers and this fractured him. Does he seem fractured in this thread, or does he seem to be as fulminatingly objectvist as anyone?

lagoon monsters

🤣
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 12:14 am does he seem to be as fulminatingly objectvist as anyone?
Beyond a doubt.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Abortion

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 12:44 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 12:14 am does he seem to be as fulminatingly objectvist as anyone?
Beyond a doubt.
Yeah, he sez I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. *I became a feminist. I married a feminist. *I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to **choose. Then he sez I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

*It doesn't seem to me, in this thread, he's abandoned any of that.

**But only after, never before.
Last edited by henry quirk on Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:39 pm Of course, for this fulminating and fanatical objectivist, the transcending font is the Christian God.

In fact, it would be rather interesting to explore an exchange between henry and IC in regard to the consequences of women [and only women] getting pregnant and not wanting to be. With respect to God and religion and..Judgment Day?

But, apparently, this is still all completely "private" between them.

Both seem adamant that women have absolutely no excuse for getting pregnant. Not really. So, it is entirely logical and epistemologically sound that should they have one, the state is justified in arresting them, trying them for first degree premeditated murder and, if convicted, sending them to death row?

Though it is true that while a man can't get pregnant, he can, as a doctor or a back-alley practitioner, perform one. So, in that sense, men too can be found guilty of first degree murder here. Let equality revolve around that instead?
Mr. Snippet wrote:You don't have to be a Christian to know it takes two people to make a baby. You don't have to be an "objectivist." You also don't have to be a biologist.

You can just be somebody who passed basic sex-ed.

So funny! :lol:
As for it taking both a man and a woman to get pregnant, what does that have to with this...
No, what abortion is always about is this: a woman [and only a woman] gets pregnant and does not want to be pregnant. For any number of personal reasons rooted in the life that she [and only she] lives. Then the part where squabbles erupt over when human life actually begins. And then the part where there are conflicting reactions to how the pregnancy occurred...defective birth control device, rape, incest. Then the part where things change in the woman's life prompting her to change her mind about the pregnancy. Then the part where to abort or not to abort becomes deeply embedded in the woman's mental health. Or in her physical health.

Then the part where in some states [or in some entire nations] none of that complex "existential stuff" matters. If a woman gets pregnant [whatever the circumstances] she must give birth. Or be charged with first degree premeditated murder.

Reproductive control is obviously an important component of the debate. If the state can seize control of it and force woman to give birth, what does that tell you about the gap between men and women in regard to social, political and economic equality?

In my view, only a fool, a misogynist, or an advocate of patriarchy would not acknowledge the "for all practical purposes" consequences of forcing women to give birth.
...given that only women have to confront the wrenching reality of being forced to give birth or face being charged with first degree murder if choosing abortion?

And I'll leave it up to Mr. Snippet to speculate on her fate on Judgment Day.

Not to mention the fate of henry quirk if he doesn't shitcan the Deist God and accept Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 11:42 pm As usual: I -snipped- out your irrelevancies.
Translation: "I snipped out the parts I haven't a clue regarding how to respond to intelligently."
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 11:42 pmObviously, for you, abortion is about sumthin' other than reproductive control/rights/freedom.
No, what abortion is always about is this: a woman [and only a woman] gets pregnant and does not want to be pregnant. For any number of personal reasons rooted in the life that she [and only she] lives. Then the part where squabbles erupt over when human life actually begins. And then the part where there are conflicting reactions to how the pregnancy occurred...defective birth control device, rape, incest. Then the part where things change in the woman's life prompting her to change her mind about the pregnancy. Then the part where to abort or not to abort becomes deeply embedded in the woman's mental health. Or in her physical health.

Then the part where in some states [or in some entire nations] none of that complex "existential stuff" matters. If a woman gets pregnant [whatever the circumstances] she must give birth. Or be charged with first degree premeditated murder.

Reproductive control is obviously an important component of the debate. If the state can seize control of it and force woman to give birth, what does that tell you about the gap between men and women in regard to social, political and economic equality?

In my view, only a fool, a misogynist, or an advocate of patriarchy would not acknowledge the "for all practical purposes" consequences of forcing women to give birth.

As for tubal ligation and vasectomy, I made my arguments above. Others can decide for themselves whether henry addressed my points intelligently...or just wiggled out of responding altogether. Content instead [as always] with sticking to his "your option is to think like I do about these things or you are necessarily wrong" mentality of the hardcore moral and political objectivists.

Again, he can't/won't even recognize the extent to which the "psychology of objectivism" propels his authoritarian dogmas here.

Not only that but he requires the existence of a God, the God in order [ultimately] to anchor his convictions. God created him in order that he "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

Though, again, I suspect that henry will actually dare this God not to follow his own mere mortal dictates!!

His thinking here is so utterly weak, in my view, he requires a "transcending font" in order to anchor his precious Self to something that comforts and consoles him. I knew there was a God in there somewhere! It's just that he's torn between the Deist God and himself as this transcending font.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 11:42 pm Ah, I see: you have no interest in women or men exercisin' reproductive control before pregnancy. You have no interest in established methods that prevent unwanted pregnancy. Your only concern is the woman (who could have exercised control before hand) as she struggles with the consequence of not exercisin' reproductive control before hand.
Again, I responded to that above. Yes, she practiced safe sex. But no contraceptive device is 100% effective. And though she wanted to become pregnant then, now something very important has changed in her life and she no longer wants to be. And she hadn't planned on being raped.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 11:42 pm And you think you're doin' women a favor.
More to the point, what do you call "doing for women" when they are forced to give birth by the state/government you so despise or risk being charged with first degree murder?
As for tubal ligation and vasectomy, I made my arguments above.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 11:42 pm Not that I can see. If you like, replicate 'em in your response.
A woman wants to become a mother, but given the circumstances in her life, not now. So, knowing that birth control is not always 100% effective, or the possibility that she might be raped, she should get an operation to prevent a pregnancy. Then, when she wants to become pregnant, get the operation reversed?

Okay, what if during the pregnancy that she does want, circumstances dramatically change in her life and she no longer wants it. Too bad? If she has an abortion then it is perfectly reasonable to charge her with first degree premeditated murder? Or if she has the baby and then decides to hold off on her next child, get the operation again? Repeat as necessary until menopause?
Again, there's how you view this, never, ever having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy re your own body, and how women who can become pregnant view it.

As though that is, what, completely irrelevant because in "following the dictates of Reason and Nature", you know everything that can possibly be known about an unwanted pregnancy?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:33 am As for it taking both a man and a woman to get pregnant, what does that have to with this...

"No, what abortion is always about is this: a woman [and only a woman] gets pregnant and does not want to be pregnant."
It makes that statement obviously, ridiculously false.

Such a thing has never happened in human history. Nor is it even plausible to think it ever will. So you start with an absurdity, and try to build an argument on it?

But basic sex ed will tell you that, and you seem to have missed the course. :lol:
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Abortion

Post by henry quirk »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:03 am
So, at no point will you and me talk about reproductive control before pregnancy, yeah?

Ain't nuthin' on the table worthy of your consideration but continued, wide-rangin', abortion access, right?

All them women out & about today, none pregnant today, all worryin' about what they'll do with themselves if they get pregnant tomorrow, you'd not only leave 'em in the dark about tubal ligation, you'd actively steer 'em away from that option.

But: you're helping.

And vasectomy? A procedure that by definition helps women, well that's not worthy of consideration either.

But: you're helping.

I ain't exactly sure what your game is, or what kinda scam you're runnin', but I'm absolutely sure you don't give a flip about women, and I'm absolutely sure you don't give a flip about reproductive freedom or responsibility.
there's how you view this, never, ever having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy re your own body, and how women who can become pregnant view it.
You're a woman?
she should get an operation to prevent a pregnancy...Repeat as necessary until menopause?
Or she can have an operation to end it, over and over and over (only 8 states have, since RvW was dumped, banned abortion, and, prior to RvW bein' dumped, those states had heavy restrictions in place...the overall picture is not much different today than it was a month ago...but it will shift with states favoring abortion expandin' access and states who disfavor abortion restrictin' or banning it...congress could attempt a fix with legislation...federally-guaranteed abortion access...that's your way forward, cuz RvW is done). The overall risks of both procedures are about the same. Where they differ: one is currently in the control of 50 state legislatures and the other is not; one -- for 50 years -- has been a source of moral/ethical contention while the other has not.

Now, it's your turn: post your script again.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Abortion

Post by popeye1945 »

THE MOTIVATION

https://www.tiktok.com/@analoggirlnadig ... 8496793902

THE ASSHOLES HAVE UNITED!!!


The book to get if you can is, The Birth Dearth. hard to find!
Last edited by popeye1945 on Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Abortion

Post by henry quirk »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:17 am
Is it shocking/informative/amusing?

I keep gettin'...
9A3D71CA-2F2E-4AA5-AAE1-65D996AC5261.png
9A3D71CA-2F2E-4AA5-AAE1-65D996AC5261.png (12.42 KiB) Viewed 1353 times
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Abortion

Post by popeye1945 »

Try it again, it is truly revealing basically racist motivation. The link works for me I have tested it repeatedly.

OR-- GOOGLE JANE ELLIOT --- THE BIRTH DEARTH. IT WON'T DISAPPOINT!
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:33 am As for it taking both a man and a woman to get pregnant, what does that have to with this...

No, what abortion is always about is this: a woman [and only a woman] gets pregnant and does not want to be pregnant. For any number of personal reasons rooted in the life that she [and only she] lives. Then the part where squabbles erupt over when human life actually begins. And then the part where there are conflicting reactions to how the pregnancy occurred...defective birth control device, rape, incest. Then the part where things change in the woman's life prompting her to change her mind about the pregnancy. Then the part where to abort or not to abort becomes deeply embedded in the woman's mental health. Or in her physical health.

Then the part where in some states [or in some entire nations] none of that complex "existential stuff" matters. If a woman gets pregnant [whatever the circumstances] she must give birth. Or be charged with first degree premeditated murder.

Reproductive control is obviously an important component of the debate. If the state can seize control of it and force woman to give birth, what does that tell you about the gap between men and women in regard to social, political and economic equality?

In my view, only a fool, a misogynist, or an advocate of patriarchy would not acknowledge the "for all practical purposes" consequences of forcing women to give birth.
Mr. Snippet IC wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:04 amIt makes that statement obviously, ridiculously false.

Such a thing has never happened in human history. Nor is it even plausible to think it ever will. So you start with an absurdity, and try to build an argument on it?

But basic sex ed will tell you that, and you seem to have missed the course. :lol:
Note to others:

You explain it to me.

Yes, it takes both a man and a woman to have a pregnancy. Basic sex-ed stuff. But, biologically, only the woman actually gets pregnant. So, in regard to aborting the pregnancy, only the woman has to face what is often an agonizing choice. Then the rest of the points I raise that he completely ignores. Again.

Still, what point do you think that he thinks he is making here about both the biology and the morality of pregnancies that result in an abortion.

Let alone the part where the state steps in and arrests the woman, charging her with premeditated murder. This as opposed to or concurrent with God's judgment on Judgment Day, sending the women straight to Hell?
Post Reply