News about the female body

[Asher]

It currently IS legislated according to one group's definition--namely, the pro-choice one. The government (or, at least, some portion thereof) has ruled firmly on one side of the issue, and presenting that as open-minded or inclusive is patently ridiculous.

Why do I care what your government has currently done?

Canada's hasn't. You do realize that the US isn't the only country in the world?

[Asher]

I can't see how Asher can be against circumcision of babies but be in favor of abortion...

JM

Babies are children, fetuses are not. It's easy.

[Elok]

Do we have an individual right to own firearms? Sensible people agree that this is open to individual interpretation, so they leave it up to each individual to decide whether or not s/he is allowed to own a pistol, rifle, or belt-fed machine gun. There's no need to legislate one group's definition when both are free to follow their own conscience.

[Asher]

How are animals and plants human life?

They are life. Which was the question...

Is 'it' human? Science has an answer to that, is 'it' a living organism? Science has an answer to that.

Is 'it' showing all the characteristics of a human... medical science has an answer to that too.

All of these scientific answers point to late stage abortion being murder.

I don't recall using the phrase "late stage abortion" at all. In fact I've personally only mentioned first trimester, haven't I?

[Asher]

Do we have an individual right to own firearms? Sensible people agree that this is open to individual interpretation, so they leave it up to each individual to decide whether or not s/he is allowed to own a pistol, rifle, or belt-fed machine gun. There's no need to legislate one group's definition when both are free to follow their own conscience.

Yes, being able to own an assault rifle is directly comparable to carrying to term a child of rape. Well done.

[Asher]

More seriously, gun control exists because of an issue of public safety.

What a woman does to her own body is her concern, not yours.

The difference is the freedom of an individual to affect themselves and the freedom of an individual to murder others. Your argument is that it's the same because a woman isn't just affecting herself, she's murdering her baby. I don't agree. There is no consensus.

You are most welcome to your opinion, you may indoctrinate your children likewise, and you may force your daughter (until she's of age) to respect your wishes. Enjoy your freedom to do that.

[Jon Miller]

I was pointing out how stupid your comment was.

Canada has legal 3rd trimester abortions (although I note that recently Quebec had no doctors who would perform one), as such when you defend abortion you defend late stage abortion.

If Canada only allowed first trimester abortion, I would not argue against your defense of abortion.

JM

[Elok]

Why do I care what your government has currently done?

Canada's hasn't. You do realize that the US isn't the only country in the world?

Yes, I do. Wiki says Canada has no restrictions on abortion whatever, and this is the result of some sort of legal vacuum on the issue after old laws got struck down. In other words, a situation not too terribly different from our own, so your objection appears moot. As I was saying: there is no totally neutral position on the issue. Either your government allows abortion to some extent--in which case it is at least partially privileging one POV--or it bans it almost entirely, favoring the other. Leaving it up to the individual is not being impartial, but a clear victory for the pro-choice. It's a tribute to your troll-fu that I'm even typing something this obvious.

[Asher]

I was pointing out how stupid your comment was.

Canada has legal 3rd trimester abortions (although I note that recently Quebec had no doctors who would perform one), as such when you defend abortion you defend late stage abortion.

The logic of this makes my head hurt. I didn't proclaim Canada's laws and models to be perfect, nor did I indicate my support for them. I've not once mentioned late stage abortion, and I've specifically mentioned first trimester abortions.

It's not my comment that's stupid.

[Asher]

Yes, I am. Wiki says Canada has no restrictions on abortion whatever, and this is the result of some sort of legal vacuum on the issue after old laws got struck down. In other words, a situation not too terribly different from our own, so your objection appears moot. As I was saying: there is no totally neutral position on the issue. Either your government allows abortion to some extent--in which case it is at least partially privileging one POV--or it bans it almost entirely, favoring the other. Leaving it up to the individual is not being impartial, but a clear victory for the pro-choice. It's a tribute to your troll-fu that I'm even typing something this obvious.

Let's be clear.

There are three positions:

Pro-Abortion: YOU SHOULD ABORT YOUR BABIES!
Pro-Choice: A woman may choose
Pro-Life: YOU WILL LOVE YOUR RAPEBABY OR THE STATE WILL RAISE IT. NEVER ANY ABORTIONS!

There are times in my life, mostly when speaking with the American Religious Right, that I'm firmly in the first category.

Leaving the choice up to the individual, and the lack of a law regulating, isn't a "Victory" for pro choice. It'd a victory for freedom and a defeat for people who believe the government has the right to regulate what you do with your body.

[Jon Miller]

The difference is the freedom of an individual to affect themselves and the freedom of an individual to murder others. Your argument is that it's the same because a woman isn't just affecting herself, she's murdering her baby. I don't agree. There is no consensus.

There is no consensus because it is heavily in some people's interest to be able to murder their babies.

I am not claiming that they think of it as murder. People are very good at lying to themselves (especially when they have a lot of people supporting them in that lie).

It is similar to the continuation of slavery being heavily in some people's interest and no consensus there. Also there, people were good at lying to themselves and many said it was good for the negros and what they needed.

JM

[Jon Miller]

The logic of this makes my head hurt. I didn't proclaim Canada's laws and models to be perfect, nor did I indicate my support for them. I've not once mentioned late stage abortion, and I've specifically mentioned first trimester abortions.

It's not my comment that's stupid.

Your life comment was stupid. You ignored the obvious inference.

If you truly were in favor of only 1st trimester abortions you would be attacking abortion instead of defending it because 3rd trimester abortions are legal in Canada.

I mean, you attack circumcision and that isn't even killing babies!

JM

[Asher]

There is no consensus because it is heavily in some people's interest to be able to murder their babies.

I am not claiming that they think of it as murder. People are very good at lying to themselves (especially when they have a lot of people supporting them in that lie).

It is similar to the continuation of slavery being heavily in some people's interest and no consensus there. Also there, people were good at lying to themselves and many said it was good for the negros and what they needed.

JM

This is surprisingly arrogant, Jon. You're incapable of viewing this issue from any other angle other than "fetus = child; abortion = murder" and you go so far as to insult the mothers who have agonized over the choice by saying that they lied to themselves.

I'm a neutral third party on the issue. I will never get an abortion myself. I will never have my partner in the position of getting an abortion. It is not in my interest either way whether an abortion happens.

So am I lying to myself now, too? Or is it possible we have different opinions on when human life becomes meaningful?

[Jon Miller]

It is scientific fact Asher.

Abortion is an important 'freedom' for your cultural allies, so no, you are not a disinterested third party.

And yes, mother's who agonize over the choice are going to be some of the best at lying to themselves. Those who don't agonize are more likely to not lie to themselves and say 'it was killing a baby, so?'.

JM

[Asher]

Your life comment was stupid. You ignored the obvious inference.

I mean, you attack circumcision and that isn't even killing babies!

JM

To be clear, I'm completely against killing babies.

But we're not talking about killing babies here, we're talking about first trimester abortions.

If you truly were in favor of only 1st trimester abortions you would be attacking abortion instead of defending it because 3rd trimester abortions are legal in Canada.

This is, quite honestly, Ben Kenobi-esque in its level of retardness.

[Asher]

It is scientific fact Asher.

JM

It most certainly is not. You're lying to yourself if you think otherwise.

Humanity is not a scientific concept. Life is, to be sure.

But sperm is life, too.

[Asher]

dp

[Asher]

Abortion is an important 'freedom' for your cultural allies, so no, you are not a disinterested third party.

WTF?

The lefties on this site consider me a rightie and the righties on this site consider me a leftie.

I don't have 'cultural allies'. Nor do I want or need them. I've come to my conclusion not because I'm a slave to dogma (not like you are as a Christian, certainly), but because I look at every aspect independently.

[Jon Miller]

It most certainly is not. You're lying to yourself if you think otherwise.

Humanity is not a scientific concept. Life is, to be sure.

But sperm is life, too.

Medical science has a pretty good understanding of what is human. This is due to studying how to heal and how the human works. Applying a consistent definition used at other times means that 3rd trimester humans are human too.

Sorry, you are either being dishonest, ignorant, or a fool.

JM

[Jon Miller]

WTF?

The lefties on this site consider me a rightie and the righties on this site consider me a leftie.

I don't have 'cultural allies'. Nor do I want or need them. I've come to my conclusion not because I'm a slave to dogma (not like you are as a Christian, certainly), but because I look at every aspect independently.

You are allied culturally with those who support gay rights.

This is not the pro-life group (due to the pro-life group being heavily Catholic due to life at conception issues).

I didn't say anything about left or right.

JM

[Jon Miller]

To be clear, I'm completely against killing babies.

But we're not talking about killing babies here, we're talking about first trimester abortions.


This is, quite honestly, Ben Kenobi-esque in its level of retardness.

Then why aren't you attacking third trimester abortions instead of defending 'abortion'.

Your defense of abortion isn't a defense of first trimester only abortions, rather it is a defense of all abortions. You claim that science can not differentiate something like yourself (or a someone in a coma) and a sperm. That nonsense is an argument for the defense of all abortions. It is this argument which results in my saying that you are being stupid.

So yes, I am still going to argue against you, even though you tack on 'first trimester abortion'.

edit:
I am arguing when I should be going to sleep or focusing on work, goodnight all.

JM

[Asher]

Medical science has a pretty good understanding of what is human. This is due to studying how to heal and how the human works. Applying a consistent definition used at other times means that 3rd trimester humans are human too.

Sorry, you are either being dishonest, ignorant, or a fool.

JM

You're confusing life with humanity.

Humanity includes sentience in my view. And many others'. I'm not dishonest, ignorant, or a fool. I'm a man with a different opinion who resents the fact that you think yours is the only viable opinion.

[Asher]

Then why aren't you attacking third trimester abortions instead of defending 'abortion'.

Because I don't want to get into the nitpicks about where we draw the line, because then it devolves into bickering about at what week do they suddenly become human. And it's a debate with no end.

Your defense of abortion isn't a defense of first trimester only abortions, rather it is a defense of all abortions.

Jon, I'm only going to say this one more time. I only support first trimester abortions. Stop saying I support all abortions.

You claim that science can not differentiate something like yourself (or a someone in a coma) and a sperm. That nonsense is an argument for the defense of all abortions. It is this argument which results in my saying that you are being stupid.

I didn't claim anything of the sort.

Did Ben Kenobi hack your account, or am I seeing the face of true Christianity here?

[Asher]

You are allied culturally with those who support gay rights.

This is not the pro-life group (due to the pro-life group being heavily Catholic due to life at conception issues).

I didn't say anything about left or right.

JM

This is patently absurd.

Gay rights has absolutely nothing to do with abortion rights aside from the fact that people who understand liberty tend to support both.

[DinoDoc]

I guess Claire McCaskill must be tempted to make a donation to Todd Akin's campaign now that he's been cut off from GOP campaign cash.

[Jon Miller]

What evidence do you have that 3rd trimester babies are not sentient?

They show the same signs of sentience that medical science uses to determine if a mind exists.

Shouldn't the assumption be, that if there exists any evidence of sentience that sentience exists unless proven otherwise (among human beings).

And I have ever right as a human being to get upset with those who use nonsensical arguments (if your argument was that you question sentience than say that, don't say the nonsense of the sperm being human or it being the same thing as killing a plant). You were the one who mentioned sperm/etc, not I.

JM

[Jon Miller]

This is patently absurd.

Gay rights has absolutely nothing to do with abortion rights aside from the fact that people who understand liberty tend to support both.

That was my point. Gay rights and abortion rights share a lot of members.

Just like anti-gay rights and pro-life, unfortunately.

JM

[Asher]

What evidence do you have that 3rd trimester babies are not sentient?

You should go to bed, Jon.

I believe 3rd trimester babies are sentient, and this is why I do not support third trimester abortions.

And I have ever right as a human being to get upset with those who use nonsensical arguments (if your argument was that you question sentience than say that, don't say the nonsense of the sperm being human or it being the same thing as killing a plant). You were the one who mentioned sperm/etc, not I.

JM

I didn't say sperm was human, I said it was life. It is a form of life. I didn't say plants were human, I said they were life. They are a form of life.

I'm drawing a distinction between life (which exists outside of humans, if you could believe it!) and humanity (which is not adequately defined by science, but is actually a spiritual or philosophical question). The point is we all do that, but we all do it at different places. To some, it's when sperm touches egg. To me, it's when sentience is obtained.

Who is right and who is wrong? You can't say that, it's not black and white. And because you can't say that, you sure as **** shouldn't legislate it.

[Asher]

Idle curiosity - do all pro life people think it's murder if a family member turns off life support for somebody brain dead?

[Robert Plomp]

So let me get this straight--you think that we shouldn't have abortions, but they are okay for rape? Are children of rape somehow less of a person than other children?

I think that abortion is a wrong and that rape is a wrong.
If there's rape and pregnancy, and a wife can't bear this pregnancy b/c of the rape then a choice has to be made between two wrongs. The first wrong is abortion, the other wrong is forcing the woman (and perhaps her (to be) partner and (to be) kids) to live with the results of the rape forever. (yes, I am perfectly aware that it is very well possible to be very happy with a child born out of rape, just saying that I don't want to force women).

Same if the life of the mother is in danger. It's then again a choice between two wrongs.

This world isn't perfect and I don't have the intention to make it perfect, b/c that's impossible.

In fact it all comes down to myself being pro choice and pro life.
if a woman had a choice, there should be no abortion.
If she could choose to have sex or not, if she could choose to use anti-conception or not.
If the pregnancy is the result of the choices one makes then I think that someone should accept the results of the choices.
A raped woman had no choice.

I'm against forcing anti-abortion laws upon the society b/c I believe that it's impossible in 2012 to establish it. I'd rather wish that people would change their minds about abortion and that the popular opinion will change. Like it did with slavery in the past.