Abortion

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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 »

biggie,

So, I -- again -- snipped out all commentary on my deism (cuz it ain't germane), your existential crisis (cuz I don't care); comments and questions directed at others (cuz, well, they aren't directed to me), your objectivist comments (cuz they ain't germane), comments I've already addressed (cuz they've been addressed), and comments about my property (cuz they ain't germane) and I was left with this...
CEEF6ACF-C432-4F94-9995-531AB97F75F9.jpeg
CEEF6ACF-C432-4F94-9995-531AB97F75F9.jpeg (22.5 KiB) Viewed 1387 times
Might be time to abandon the script, guy.

-----

So...

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:11 pm If reproductive control really is the issue on the table (and not, for example, sacrifices to Moloch, or the denigration of personhood, or just plain old eugenics) then why aren't folks talkin' about tubal ligation and vasectomy?

Both are safe, effective, single event procedures. Both are reversible. Neither is particularly controversial today. Most importantly: if reproductive control is really the issue, both allow women and men to exercise it without, for some, killin' a baby or, for others, havin' a pesky parasite removed.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Iwannaplato »

phyllo wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:23 pm
Babies are born into original sin according to the bible. Apparently that gives a job for the priest.
It seems god is not capable of granting everlasting life unless a priest is involved.
If a Christian believes in original sin, then children have original sin from the beginning. Therefore, they need to be baptized or born again in order to enter heaven. That is the reasoning.

If you throw out original sin, then you can say that children are innocent and they go to heaven. This would apply until they consciously sin.

That's the "feel good" answer.
Though amongst Christians including pastors and reverends and even a lot of priests it is the standard answer. And there is room to believe otherwise even in Catholicism since God has near infinite mercy. There are all sorts of contradictions in religion, or, one could argue, seeming ones. I think in practical terms in the lifes of most Christians a kid who is killed will generally go to heaven, regardless of what logic based on some parts of Christian scripture may or may not necessarily entail. And you can see this with great regularity in the religious services for those children and how the families and friends of the bereaved parent console those parents about where the child is now.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Sat Jul 02, 2022 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Iwannaplato »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:10 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:53 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:51 am Let's say you have a female whom you know and love. She has a daughter she created by choice. But one day, she takes her two-year-old daughter, sticks a pair of scissors in the back of her neck, sucks her brain out with a vaccum, then calmly tears her arms and legs off, then maybe flushes them away, or even allows them to be sold on the organ market.

Her crime is discovered. What penalty do you prescribe?

When you answer, you'll have answered your own question.
Iamb who does not believe in an afterlife would likely be influenced by that in his decision.
But you would not?

So are both infanticide and abortion okay by you, or are both immoral, in your view?

It seems that in either case, you regard them as the same, right?
No, I don't view them the same.
I was pointing out that your implicit argument will be taken differently by theists who believe in an afterlife and others who do not.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Iwannaplato »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:37 pm Statistically, 99% of abortions are requested as a product of consensual sexual relations. Less than 1% are as a result of rape, incest, etc.
In other words, it's used as last-ditch, "contraception" by those who behaved badly or failed to take responsiblity for themselves.
And if you will stipulate that the 99% are evil, then I'll happily talk with you about the 1%.
phyllo wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:25 pmAnd why would I stipulate that 99% are evil? Because they had sex?
Because they create children and then murder them. That would be evil.

But if you don't want to say that the 99% are evil, then your mention of the 1% was not sincere. You were only "interested in their welfare" in order to excuse the 99%. So you weren't really concerned about them at all. You just used them. They were never your real concern.[/quote]If you read your argument it implies that they were evil before they decided to have the abortion. I think he was correct to ask.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Iwannaplato »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:46 pm If reproductive control really is the issue on the table (and not, for example, sacrifices to Moloch, or the denigration of personhood, or just plain old eugenics) then why aren't folks talkin' about tubal ligation and vasectomy?

Both are safe, effective, single event procedures. Both are reversible. Neither is particularly controversial today. Most importantly: if reproductive control is really the issue, both allow women and men to exercise it without, for some, killin' a baby or, for others, havin' a pesky parasite removed.
In tubal ligation 1 or 2 woman will die out of 100,thousand. 2% will have a major complication. You have about a 1% chance of getting pregnant anyway, so you might get a baby anyway and the anti-a group will not think you get to get an abortion because henry quirk suggested it. Condoms are supposed to be 98% effective (if used correctly, a phrase that gives on little hope of knowing how much swingroom one has for error in use) I but obviously pregnancies occur.

Tubal ligations are 45% to 85% reversible. I would call that taking a significant risk of not being able to get pregnant later.
The average cost of a tubal ligation reversal in the United States is $8,685. However, depending on factors such as where you live and what tests you need beforehand, the costs range from $5,000 to $21,000. Insurance doesn’t usually cover the cost of the surgery, but your doctor’s office may offer a payment plan.
You have an increased risk of an ectopic pregnancy after reversal. It's not a huge increase somewhere between 2-4x more likely though the odds are still fairly low.

And you know, I think most of this is cognitive, hallucinated empathy around the idea of the fetus/unborn child. I think there are very few anta-a group people who show much interest in say, babies dying in famine. Of course, that's an act of God and all that. But so few actually squeeze their own economies to help those kids. Or were concerned that nukes if used would lead to dead unborn children, along with their mothers, or that unborn kids get killed in wars, and only when the shit out of a chemical company actually damaged their own kids did they care very much about that or the sorry state of governmental oversight of industry.

The idea that someone in the supermarket checkout line near you might have aborted a baby leads to passion, but dying children out of view very little.

You HQ may be consistant regarding all of this, but the group as a whole, nah.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Iwannaplato »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:57 pm Who's in favour of small and limited governments? Conservatives, Libertarians, Classical liberals...and Christians.
I think you were correct, in general, in relation to iamb's theocracy concern. However I'd just like to point out that as part of the small government approach of convervatives, the FDA and the EPA have become less and less funded, and funded by industry and controlled by industry. And so there is less protection from greed+toxins killing unborn and birthed children.

Conservatives have, yes, generally been for a smaller government, while for some reason not being concerned about how this allowed corporations and financial institutions become as powerful as the governments of many countries. Regions of fascism that are not democratic at all, and use the for their own purposes: that is an oligarchy.
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 »

Iwannaplato,

I could challenge your stats, but won't.

I will point out, however, abortion carries comparable risks (during the procedure, to fertility after the procedure, for cancers, etc) which no one talks about (but, lordy, let someone bring up up alternatives to abortion that, as I say, neatly side-step all the possible moral/ethical violations embedded in abortion, that are safe, effective, single event procedures, reversible, and not particularly controversial, and it's all about the risk).
you know, I think most of this is cognitive, hallucinated empathy
Irrelevant as far as I can tell.

The states now control the issue. This is of great concern to the my body-my choice crowd. Two well established options -- tubal ligation and vasectomy -- exist that undeniably put reproductive control in the hands of individuals and take control away from courts and legislatures...and no one in the my body-my choice camp is much interested (except to point out the risks).

As I say: this makes me think, mebbe, just mebbe, reproductive control really isn't the issue.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Abortion

Post by popeye1945 »

Is an egg a chicken, is it more or less a chicken if served sunnyside up with some strips of fried pork flesh, and is coffee a part of the abortion process, enjoy your breakfast!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:57 pm Who's in favour of small and limited governments? Conservatives, Libertarians, Classical liberals...and Christians.
I think you were correct, in general, in relation to iamb's theocracy concern. However I'd just like to point out that as part of the small government approach of convervatives, the FDA and the EPA have become less and less funded, and funded by industry and controlled by industry. And so there is less protection from greed+toxins killing unborn and birthed children.
I used to think that things like "business" and "industry" meant "conservative." That's an easy mistake, because they run on capital, so that would seem to make them enemies of the Left. But I can see it's not that way anymore. Big business...the biggest, the major corporations...Disney, Amazon, Gillette, Google, and so on...and the big banks...are now totally supporting the Left.

At first, that puzzled me. Then I saw why. The Left and big business have discovered they have a common value: totalitarianism (politically) and monopoly (economically). They've decided they can "win" together. So we now see the reversal. Unions are being sold out by the corporations, and the politicians are helping it happen. In return, the corporations are now all in favour of "climate measures" and the WEC. Both of them are using the major media, who are totally on board with the new program, since they get their slice of the pie, too: information domination. Both the Left and big business have decided that the only size for them is "global." And all the power has to be concentrated in one place: their hands.

So we see an irony here: the Marxists and the monopolists are in bed together now. Total domination is their mutual goal. And Leftist ideology is where they are going to meet.
Conservatives have, yes, generally been for a smaller government, while for some reason not being concerned about how this allowed corporations and financial institutions become as powerful as the governments of many countries. Regions of fascism that are not democratic at all, and use the for their own purposes: that is an oligarchy.
Well, it's a new day. If conservatives were once too trusting of business, it's now the Left that's picked up that cause. And fascism is exactly what they're aiming at...or better, global Marxism, with them left as the new Politburo, the media as the new Pravda, and big business as the new, monopolistic State.

It's the small-government conservatives, who they call "rednecks" and "flyover country dwellers," and "deplorables" who are the ones remaining against this. The unions...the poor old Leftist unions...don't realize they're the next calves into the slaughterhouse. But we're seeing that already: Joe Lunchbucket has no job anymore, can't afford his groceries and gas, and can't pay his bills. But under the Leftist regimes, big business continues to rake in the cash and increase in size.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Iwannaplato »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:40 pm I used to think that things like "business" and "industry" meant "conservative." That's an easy mistake, because they run on capital, so that would seem to make them enemies of the Left. But I can see it's not that way anymore. Big business...the biggest, the major corporations...Disney, Amazon, Gillette, Google, and so on...and the big banks...are now totally supporting the Left.
The right set them free, so they reap as they have sown. Also, those organizations don't give a shit about left or right. They used to support the right (on the surface) and the right supported them and supported taking away restrictions on them and conflated their freedom with the freedom of the little person. Now for complicated reasons they support Leftist social policies, though not leftist ideals in other areas. Deregulation was a watchword on the right. And absolutely part of making government smaller and conservatice idols defunded for example industry oversight and then made it easier for industry to control these parts of government.
At first, that puzzled me. Then I saw why. The Left and big business have discovered they have a common value: totalitarianism (politically) and monopoly (economically).
The New left is pretty blind to what is happening and contributing to it, I agree. But this shit was visible in the 60s through 80s and the right empowered the corporations and the financial institutions. Look upon your creation. Back then the left was extremely skeptical about both government and big business. Now they've fallen into a similar trap to most of the right: they think the real danger is other little people. We are being cleverly played off agasint each other. I do think there are real differences and important ones. But you now have forces that make even those very important differences small, because they hate us all.
They've decided they can "win" together. So we now see the reversal. Unions are being sold out by the corporations, and the politicians are helping it happen. In return, the corporations are now all in favour of "climate measures" and the WEC. Both of them are using the major media, who are totally on board with the new program, since they get their slice of the pie, too: information domination. Both the Left and big business have decided that the only size for them is "global." And all the power has to be concentrated in one place: their hands.
And most conservatives go along with this. But yes, right now the left is more mindfucked about some of this. Now they buy all the media experts.
Well, it's a new day. If conservatives were once too trusting of business, it's now the Left that's picked up that cause.
I agree. I sit and shake my head at the irony. We even had some very hippy-looking participants in the 'insurrection' breaking into government buildings and since no one has any memory this looked a lot like the old left which had a much more anarchistic, government critical edge dressing up and heading for the pentagon and the White House etc. And Russia was defended too much by some of the left - though the left I knew realized how fucked up the USSR was - and now Putin is the enemy and the Left are the hawks. It's like some weird mirror world of the world I grew up in. I get all that.

But those in power used the right to free them from any restraint and oversight. and if they are pissed at the left on how it is now, I agree, but they HAVE TO OWN UP to their role in letting this monster loose or it's just bs.

And fascism is exactly what they're aiming at...or better, global Marxism, with them left as the new Politburo, the media as the new Pravda, and big business as the new, monopolistic State.
In the end communist ussr or china typ government or an extreme fascism end up being pretty much the same, even aesthetically.

i dont think most people on the left realize what is happening, nor most on the right, but more on the right now. Adn I count myself on the left, but I can see this. They have blinders on. They are looking at specific issues - for some reason the rights of transpersons to compete against people they have an unfair advantage over and with a passion that matched white hatred of anti-lynching. They are not noticing how this is being used. Just as the right did not realize what supporting deregulation was going to mean.
It's the small-government conservatives, who they call "rednecks" and "flyover country dwellers," and "deplorables" who are the ones remaining against this. The unions...the poor old Leftist unions...don't realize they're the next calves into the slaughterhouse. But we're seeing that already: Joe Lunchbucket has no job anymore, can't afford his groceries and gas, and can't pay his bills. But under the Leftist regimes, big business continues to rake in the cash and increase in size.
Sure, I think something like the Chinese model is the dream. Utterly unregulated corporations and utterly regulated individuals. I don't think this is what most of the left wants, but I do see them helping it along.

The Neocons did their job, and I would certainly consider Hilary one of the and her old hubby also. And we've been in the next phase for a while.

It's not a coincidence that roe vs wade fell now. You need the left to be as uproared as the right has been. Now everybody has a huge checklist of hate to run through every day, and it won't be focused on people with power.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:40 pm I used to think that things like "business" and "industry" meant "conservative." That's an easy mistake, because they run on capital, so that would seem to make them enemies of the Left. But I can see it's not that way anymore. Big business...the biggest, the major corporations...Disney, Amazon, Gillette, Google, and so on...and the big banks...are now totally supporting the Left.
The right set them free, so they reap as they have sown. Also, those organizations don't give a shit about left or right. They used to support the right (on the surface) and the right supported them and supported taking away restrictions on them and conflated their freedom with the freedom of the little person. Now for complicated reasons they support Leftist social policies, though not leftist ideals in other areas. Deregulation was a watchword on the right. And absolutely part of making government smaller and conservatice idols defunded for example industry oversight and then made it easier for industry to control these parts of government.
You're not wrong on any point here. Too many conservatives trusted business. Business loves Leftism for its own reasons...but they're not complicated reasons. Power, wealth, advantage...very easy to understand. And now the Left is letting itself get used, because they realize they can all win here.

Leftism gets global Communism. Power.
Business gets to pillage unimpeded. Money.
The major media become the only source of information. Audience.

All win. The ones who lose are the ordinary people. But who cares about them, they figure. Isn't the fact that we are rich and powerful proof of our right to pillage them at will?
At first, that puzzled me. Then I saw why. The Left and big business have discovered they have a common value: totalitarianism (politically) and monopoly (economically).
The New left is pretty blind to what is happening and contributing to it, I agree.
I don't think they're "blind to it." I wish they were.

I think they are now being very deliberate in their collusion. But the low-level Marxists, the proles, have no idea what's going on, it's true. The Marxist bigwigs, though...they know....and they're very happy about it.
Back then the left was extremely skeptical about both government and big business.
No, only business. They've always been for centralized government and a monopoly on power.
We are being cleverly played off agasint each other.
No doubt.
... they hate us all.
Marxist ideologues and big business have that in common: fear of the ordinary man, and contempt for him, even while they rattle on about "serving the public."

But Marxists, once they win, immediately establish tight control -- and why? Because the ordinary man was never actually trusted in the first place. :shock: These new autocrats know that the same forces of ground-level revolution they ginned up to win their postion can be mobilized against them; so ruthless, brutal suppression must follow immediately, followed by the tightest controls possible.
They've decided they can "win" together. So we now see the reversal. Unions are being sold out by the corporations, and the politicians are helping it happen. In return, the corporations are now all in favour of "climate measures" and the WEC. Both of them are using the major media, who are totally on board with the new program, since they get their slice of the pie, too: information domination. Both the Left and big business have decided that the only size for them is "global." And all the power has to be concentrated in one place: their hands.
And most conservatives go along with this. [/quote]
Not really, and definitely not anymore. That's why the media rage at the conservatives, calling them deplorable, and stupid, and racist, and red necked, and Trumpist, and backward, and so on. And that's why they're totally silent when the Leftists riot, or an "approved minority" shoots up a school or drives his truck into a crowd of "rednecks" and kills a bunch of old ladies and children.

The Left is starting its suppression with their most obvious current opponents. But once they have power, they're coming for the rest. Count on it.
But those in power used the right to free them from any restraint and oversight.

Not quite. It's true that conservatives were too credulous about big business, but it's the Left that arranged the big buyouts for the major banks, while the conservatives were damned as "Tea-Party radicals." So we now have the bizarre spectacle of the Left protecting big business from its own stupid and venial decisions, and doing it with Joe Lunchbucket's tax money.

So the worm has truly turned.
...they HAVE TO OWN UP to their role in letting this monster loose or it's just bs.
So does the Left.

But does it matter anymore? It seems to me the more important message for both sides is "wake up, and don't let this thing happen." We can waste time on hand-wringing later.
And fascism is exactly what they're aiming at...or better, global Marxism, with them left as the new Politburo, the media as the new Pravda, and big business as the new, monopolistic State.
In the end communist ussr or china typ government or an extreme fascism end up being pretty much the same, even aesthetically.
Absolutely. Gulags aren't a whole lot better than death camps. The net effect is the same...just a little slower. And they're both Socialist, so there's an inherent affinity there. The Nazis didn't disagree with the Communists over things like centralizing power, personality cults, nationalizing industries, military conquest, and rounding up unwanted minorities; they just disagreed over who should run the show. International socialists are no improvement on national socialists.
It's the small-government conservatives, who they call "rednecks" and "flyover country dwellers," and "deplorables" who are the ones remaining against this. The unions...the poor old Leftist unions...don't realize they're the next calves into the slaughterhouse. But we're seeing that already: Joe Lunchbucket has no job anymore, can't afford his groceries and gas, and can't pay his bills. But under the Leftist regimes, big business continues to rake in the cash and increase in size.
Sure, I think something like the Chinese model is the dream. Utterly unregulated corporations and utterly regulated individuals. I don't think this is what most of the left wants, but I do see them helping it along.[/quote]
Yes, something closer to "Red Capitalism" is the new model of Communism.

And the Chinese have paved the way in it, but we're now beyond them, too. Because they never thought to arrange an actual collusion between exploitative businesses and Leftism. They just tried to run it all governmentally, and then discovered they could make more money by dabbling in the market semi-free. But just semi. And the politics, well, they remained very tight. That story's still playing out, but it's not in a good place right now.
The Neocons did their job, and I would certainly consider Hilary one of the and her old hubby also.
The Left now uses a new pejorative: "neo-liberalism." That is, people who believe in classical liberal values like freedom, property, individuality, conscience and choice, and thus are not sufficiently Marxist. So the extreme Left is now working on severing its own moderate arm, and condemning them as "conservative."

The Left always ends up eating its own.
It's not a coincidence that roe vs wade fell now. You need the left to be as uproared as the right has been. Now everybody has a huge checklist of hate to run through every day, and it won't be focused on people with power.
I doubt the Leftists arranged that, but they sure want to capitalize upon it. And yes, they want things as polarized as possible. For Marxism always needs an enemy; lacking any vitality or good ideas of its own, it relies upon hatred and resentment to drive its machine. It thrives in an atmosphere of suspicion and antagonism, and uses it to distract from its own shorcomings...like the fact that it has no particular economic plan, no actual vision of the future or idea of how it can be brought about, no concept of human nature worth spit, and no understanding of motivaton that does not come down to nothing more than power.

Leftism needs opposition in order to continue to remain vital. So there must be new enemies all the time...manufactured, if not real ones, so the State can continually justify its interventions, and so that its visionary bankruptcy doesn't become obvious to the populace on all sides.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by iambiguous »

Sigh...

MY POST ABOVE
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pm I've snipped out all reference to my deism and your existential crisis: with the former, it ain't germane; with the latter, I don't care.
In other words, "given that God Himself provided you with the innate capacity to 'follow the dictates of Reason and Nature', you know that abortion [after the first trimester] is strictly taboo", is not relevant here? That sounds like you're telling us "to hell with Him, I figured out the only rational and virtuous way in which to think about abortions and bazookas all by myself."

And, again, it's not just my existential crisis:

"Trust me: hundreds and hundreds of millions around the globe are trying to connect the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then. IC is preoccupied with both sides while you are content to preach your own objectivist dogmas on this side of the grave."

In other words, not just in regard to abortions and bazookas.
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?
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pmNot should: could, yes. Again, if all this is about reproductive control, tubal ligation and vasectomy are two methods for a woman and man to exercise such control.
Note to all women: that's true. You could do this. See how simple it all becomes when you think like he does and follow the dictates of Reason and Nature.
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?
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:50 amAs I say: I'm no judge or legislator. I have no granted or privileged say over any one. All I can do is exercise the power I have over myself.
And thank your lucky stars -- and the Deist God -- that the "agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" here will never be something that you have to endure.

On the other hand, women will never have to endure an enlarged prostate, will they?

Then this "thing":
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pmThe absent lace climbed up my butt on this very subject many, many moons ago. Like you, she thought becuz I opposed violations of life, liberty, and property, that I was out & about everyday crusadin'. I don't. I, very quietly, live my life exactly as I want to and I leave others to do the same.
As a man. As a man never, ever having to deal with the existential complexities embedded in all of the different sets of circumstances that can result in an unwanted pregnancy.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pm So, yeah, I think abortion is killing a person, and I think most abortions are flat out murder, but I have no time, no resources, and, most importantly, no inclination to police the world(.)
Of course, my point here is that your points are rooted subjectively in the existential parameters of the life that you lived predisposing you to think as you do about abortion and not some other way.

Yeah, yeah, I know: you're sticking with your fulminating fanatic objectivist convictions that you think as you do because all rational and virtuous human beings are obligated to think as you to. Well, if they want to be thought of as "following the dictates of Reason and Nature", anyway.

And then the manner in which you fit the Deist God into that.

One thing for sure. In thinking as you do, it must truly comfort and console you right down to the bone. And such that even though there are many, many others who are just as convinced as you are that there is but One True Path here, it's their path not yours.
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,
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pm Or just keep abortin'. Or refrain from sex. Or use birth control. Or...

She'll have to make up her own mind.
So, she has the option to 1] keep aborting until she is caught and charged with first degree premeditated murder, 2] refrain from sex altogether or 3] use birth control and if the device fails then be forced to give birth or get an abortion and, if caught, be charged with first degree premeditated murder.
And, indeed, if men could be become pregnant there is not a single one of them who would ever have an abortion. They may not have intended to become pregnant. Or becoming pregnant might scramble their education or their employment. Or they might have been raped. Or giving birth might do grievous harm to their mental and physical health. But as for Gloria Steinem's suggestion that, "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament", that's just a bunch of twaddle?

After all, given that God Himself provided you with the innate capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature", you know that abortion is strictly taboo.

On the other hand, oddly enough, you don't know what having the innate capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" has to do with tubal ligation and vasectomy. Did your Deist God provide you with a list of things that is and is not applicable to?
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pm ...they'd be women. Are we gonna talk about what is? Or will you hang from your skyhooks foistin' up intellectual contraptions that are not?
Right, as though no man has ever thanked his own lucky stars that he has never, ever had to deal with that "beyond my control" reality of gender himself.
Probably? Who would have ever suspected that following the dictates of Reason and Nature might only take you to things that are probably true. So, during the first trimester there is a probability that the unborn are just a "clump of cells"? And all those anti-abortionists who insist human life begins at conception are probably wrong?

On the other hand, who among us on this side of the womb ever was born without first having gone through that first trimester?

Indeed, for some that is the tragedy of abortion. They agree that human life begins at conception. And that all abortions are the taking of innocent human life. But they recognize the "rival goods" here. That, if women are forced to give birth, there is no way they can ever truly be the equal of men who can never become pregnant. Men, whose lives can never be adversely changed or even destroyed if forced to give birth.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pm Sure. Fact: the 12 week old fetus has everything in place the materialist or atheist claims are solely responsible for human beings to be human beings. So from the end of the 12 week on, it's probably a good idea to assume he (or she) is a human being. I mean, if we're gonna negotiate and compromise and be moderate, settin' the cut-off at 12 weeks gives everybody sumthin', right?
Come on, henry, you're intelligent enough to know that not a single one of us on this side of the womb ever made it to week 13 without first having been conceived and then made it through the first 12 weeks.

And enough of this "probably" stuff. If you're not certain about everything relating to the morality of abortion, you're admitting to the possibility of other things only being probably true as well. What's next, that in some situations, bazookas probably should not be permitted to be bought and sold?

Or that the "A well regulated Militia" part of the Second Amendment probably doesn't mean that the states can pass laws prohibiting the buying and the selling of bazookas to private citizens?
[/quote]

HIS POST ABOVE IN REBUTTAL:
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:46 pm biggie,

So, I -- again -- snipped out all commentary on my deism (cuz it ain't germane), your existential crisis (cuz I don't care); comments and questions directed at others (cuz, well, they aren't directed to me), your objectivist comments (cuz they ain't germane), comments I've already addressed (cuz they've been addressed), and comments about my property (cuz they ain't germane)
Another fulmionating fanatic objectivist bites the dust... 8)
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 »

Obviously, for you, abortion is about sumthin' other than reproductive control/rights/freedom.
biggy wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:01 pm-snipped-
If reproductive control really was the issue on the table (and not, for example, sacrifices to Moloch, or the denigration of personhood, or just plain old eugenics) then we'd be talkin' about tubal ligation and vasectomy.

Both are safe, effective, single event procedures. Both are reversible. Neither is particularly controversial today. Most importantly: if reproductive control is really the issue, both allow women and men to exercise it without, for some, killin' a baby or, for others, havin' a pesky parasite removed.

As I say: Like it or not, the states now control the issue. This is of great concern to the my body-my choice crowd. Two well established options exist that undeniably put reproductive control in the hands of individuals and take control away from courts and legislatures...and no one in the my body-my choice camp is much interested (except to point out the risks).

As I say: this makes me think, mebbe, just mebbe, reproductive control really isn't the issue.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:12 pm 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. 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.
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 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:
Post Reply