PDA

View Full Version : Abortion thread #92384284, phuckphace edition


phuckphace
November 2nd, 2016, 12:31 PM
before we start, I'd like to emphasize that I'm wanting to approach this (very overdone and banal) topic from a different angle. if you can manage to do so, please avoid posting boring vanilla "I'm for/against it and here's why" remarks that add nothing useful to the discussion that we haven't already seen before. also, let's not turn this into a religion vs. secularism war.

****

how is my angle different, you ask? well I think that too often, the subject of abortion is approached in isolation, as are a lot of other issues, and this leads to both the opposing and supportive sides making dumb arguments that don't quite align with reality. I like to approach everything by looking at the whole enchilada - how do external conditions (economic, etc.) effect the behavior and choices of individuals in a given scenario? how do individuals respond to positive conditions, or disadvantageous ones? these are vital questions that never get asked.

in the previous thread, Flapjack shared the following macro:

http://s18.postimg.org/v8jvlyouh/CNDZCp_UUEAAJ3_Kd.jpg

I will readily admit that, despite this being somewhat of a cheap-shot, there is more truth to it than the anti-abortion crew cares to admit. pseudo-conservatives have a serious problem with viewing all issues in isolation (i.e., they often don't recognize that their pet social ills are not a constant across time, but vary according to the relevant conditions at a given moment). the pseudo-conservative sees the action as completely detached from its actors, and there is zero curiosity as to what drives the action other than some muddled concept of "we legalized abortion in 1973 and have been indwelt by Satan ever since." their prescriptions basically amount to "just stop sinning, duh!" which is kind of like suggesting we end natural disasters by changing the channel when the weatherman comes on.

the liberal line that conservatives only care about children until they're born, while exaggerated by bias, is still somewhat true, in the sense that pseudocons aren't concerned with the collective well-being of society and cannot grasp how collective well-being influences the decisions that individuals make. this useless stance on society came dangerously close to destroying the Republican party, ever since its donors realized that they can use abortion as a distractionary issue - a carrot on a stick - to redirect the hoi polloi's attention away from their betrayal of the country to Big Business and mass immigration.

not only did the Republican party cynically exploit the abortion issue for votes, but pushed stances that allowed conditions to deteriorate further, thus ensuring that abortion is here to stay. mass immigration from the Third World such as the 16 year old Mexican father who has sired several live births and several more terminated pregnancies ("they're natural conservatives," says Jeb Bush as his half-Mexican cokehead son snorts a few lines off a hooker's ass) - poors tend to cluster permanently at the bottom of the socioeconomic strata, and poverty is of course a huge inducement to seek abortions. oops!

the funniest line I've heard from the anti-abortion crew goes something like, "Margaret Sanger believed in eugenics JUST LIKE HITLER!"

tl;dr - abortion is bad, but the GOP is worse.

Living For Love
November 2nd, 2016, 03:07 PM
Do you have any statistics that show abortion is primarily sought by poor people? Also, is it free in the USA to carry out an abortion?

If, in your perspective, the problem with Republicans is that they see abortion as an isolated issue, the problem with liberals, in my perspective, is that they relate abortion to things that are totally and completely different, such as female empowerment (whatever that is) and free-will. Women can have all the rights in the world except denying rights to others. If I wanted to father a child and my partner didn't want to, why does her opinion has to be considered more valuable than mine if both of us contributed equally to the conception of the yet-to-be-born child? Why do women have the right to decide the fate of the child based on the assumption that they have the right of self-determination if they chose not to care about possible outcomes when having unprotected sex (or sex altogether) in the first place?

Vlerchan
November 2nd, 2016, 03:26 PM
Hispanic women have abortion at twice the rate white women do. Considering that statistics isn't being deflated with their relative socioeconomic status I imagine there's some truth to the claim to the claim being disparaged in the OP. Though - it's unfortunate that we don't have statistics about immigrants there long-term and recent arrivals.

For reference: Black women have abortions at five times the rate of white women.

If I wanted to father a child and my partner didn't want to, why does her opinion has to be considered more valuable than mine if both of us contributed equally to the conception of the yet-to-be-born child?
Because both don't contribute equally to the birth of the yet-to-be-born child.

Because borrowing - at gunpoint: or the direction of the law - a women's body for 9 months completely removes any suggestion of moral agency.

Etc.

That women might make poor decisions in utilisation of this right is irrelevant to the point of women having this right itself - insofar as one believes women possess this right (which I do).

PlasmaHam
November 2nd, 2016, 04:42 PM
Do you have any statistics that show abortion is primarily sought by poor people? Also, is it free in the USA to carry out an abortion?

One of the biggest issues currently in many states in whether tax money should go towards making abortion very cheap or even free. So overall, I will not say abortion is free in the USA, but it is surely heading that way.
If, in your perspective, the problem with Republicans is that they see abortion as an isolated issue, the problem with liberals, in my perspective, is that they relate abortion to things that are totally and completely different, such as female empowerment (whatever that is) and free-will. Vlerchan showed how many people speak of abortion in his earlier post, as a right. I know Vlerchan isn't one of these, but many people both in this forum and in the real world see abortion as nothing but a woman's right issue, regardless of the scientific evidence or moral implications. In their eyes, those pesky conservatives who want to get rid of abortion are only doing it because they are sexist and want to oppress women. That is a big reason why pro-life organizations have shifted their message from "Women who have abortions should be a jailed and they will burn in Hell!" to "Women need to be educated on the consequences of abortion and shown other options like adoption or government support."
Why do women have the right to decide the fate of the child based on the assumption that they have the right of self-determination if they chose not to care about possible outcomes when having unprotected sex (or sex altogether) in the first place? Exactly, I really don't see how you can justify that unless they want to make up some random "right to have sex with no regrets" law:P. Less than 1% of abortions are rape*, incest, etc, so the other 99% of aborted babies are entirely because the mother choose to have sex.

*(Yes, I am aware that not all rape victims who have an abortion admit the baby was from rape, however, when the reported cases are less than 1% of all abortion, unreported rape abortions are still unlikely to boost that number past 3%, if unreported rape abortions happen at the same percentage of unreported overall rapes.)

phuckphace
November 2nd, 2016, 05:00 PM
another example of how approaching the issue in isolation is detrimental to the stated goals of the anti-abortion movement, is the seemly unrelated obesity epidemic. it's been established that obesity makes birth control pills more likely to fail. I didn't know that until pretty recently, but I read this and immediately began to connect the dots. American obesity rates are high in the aggregate, but then you break them down by race and socioeconomic status aaaandddd...

For reference: Black women have abortions at five times the rate of white women.

...BAM! this naturally goes hand-in-hand with the black obesity rate, which is n times higher than that of whites (I'm too lazy to Google).

so now we have a clear and unmistakable pattern of interconnected conditions that useless pseudocons cannot see for whatever reason. naturally, once you've made these connections, the needed prescriptions seem like a no-brainer:

we know that obesity is linked to poor diet, which itself is associated with a) stress and b) a broken system of welfare payments that allows Shaniqua (age 23, 400lbs) to stock up on junk food for zero dollars. the stress is of course linked to the fact that you live paycheck to paycheck at your McDonald's job and had the price of your labor slashed by a horde of invading Third Worlders (in former times, our black underclass filled most of the jobs that are increasingly being taken over by vanfuls of cholos).

in short, instead of wasting time trying to reverse Roe vs. Wade, we Make America Great Again and abortion rates will sink.

Do you have any statistics that show abortion is primarily sought by poor people? Also, is it free in the USA to carry out an abortion?

I believe Vlerchan can dig up the relevant paper (it's been posted before, I believe) but to me the correlation seems self-evident in a "do dogs bark more often than cats?" sort of way.

as for the costs, I'm aware of both free and paid abortions but not exactly sure how it works, or if Planned Parenthood distributes "FREE KFC BUCKET WITH PURCHASE OF (1) ABORTION" coupons in the ghetto or not.

Living For Love
November 2nd, 2016, 07:42 PM
Because both don't contribute equally to the birth of the yet-to-be-born child.

Because borrowing - at gunpoint: or the direction of the law - a women's body for 9 months completely removes any suggestion of moral agency.
So your issue is that women shouldn't be forced to put up with stuff like morning sickness, gestational diabetes and other pregnancy symptoms/complications because males don't suffer from them as well? I'm not borrowing a woman's body if both of us willingly decide to have a sexual relationship that culminates in the conception of a child inside her uterus. What I'm saying, basically, is that the father should also have the right to express his opinion on the issue (except on particular cases, such as when there's confirmed rape).

That women might make poor decisions in utilisation of this right is irrelevant to the point of women having this right itself - insofar as one believes women possess this right (which I do).
I could agree with that if her poor decision only affected her, which is not the case.

Exactly, I really don't see how you can justify that unless they want to make up some random "right to have sex with no regrets" law:P.
I wouldn't be impressed if that became a thing, actually.

another example of how approaching the issue in isolation is detrimental to the stated goals of the anti-abortion movement, is the seemly unrelated obesity epidemic. it's been established that obesity makes birth control pills more likely to fail. I didn't know that until pretty recently, but I read this and immediately began to connect the dots. American obesity rates are high in the aggregate, but then you break them down by race and socioeconomic status aaaandddd...

...BAM! this naturally goes hand-in-hand with the black obesity rate, which is n times higher than that of whites (I'm too lazy to Google).

so now we have a clear and unmistakable pattern of interconnected conditions that useless pseudocons cannot see for whatever reason. naturally, once you've made these connections, the needed prescriptions seem like a no-brainer:

we know that obesity is linked to poor diet, which itself is associated with a) stress and b) a broken system of welfare payments that allows Shaniqua (age 23, 400lbs) to stock up on junk food for zero dollars. the stress is of course linked to the fact that you live paycheck to paycheck at your McDonald's job and had the price of your labor slashed by a horde of invading Third Worlders (in former times, our black underclass filled most of the jobs that are increasingly being taken over by vanfuls of cholos).

in short, instead of wasting time trying to reverse Roe vs. Wade, we Make America Great Again and abortion rates will sink.
Would you agree, then, that fighting obesity and precarious work could contribute to lower abortion rates among black women?

You've somehow managed to link abortion to McDonald's yet we're still leaving males out of the equation.

phuckphace
November 2nd, 2016, 08:32 PM
Would you agree, then, that fighting obesity and precarious work could contribute to lower abortion rates among black women?

those are a couple of examples out of many of what I was referring to when I said "disadvantageous/negative [economic] conditions", so, yes.

the anti-abortion crew, by which I mean the activists who organize protests and lobby Congress, think they can stop abortion by tweaking legislation or something. kind of like how banning cannabis prevented me from acquiring this sack of ganja that's sitting here on my desk in a Rubbermaid container.

You've somehow managed to link abortion to McDonald's yet we're still leaving males out of the equation.

studies confirm that men seek 0% of abortions due to lack of a uterus (Vlerchan, 2016). the only way I can see males being relevant here is if we wanted to examine how improving economic conditions for the household would decrease the number of couples who jointly agree to seek abortions for unwanted pregnancies.

ThisBougieLife
November 2nd, 2016, 10:04 PM
Ultimately I agree: the goal of the anti-abortion crowd should be to reduce the factors that lead to people deciding to have abortions in the first place, not placing a blanket ban on them that does nothing to address these deeper issues (and wouldn't stop them entirely anyway).

PlasmaHam
November 2nd, 2016, 11:14 PM
I wouldn't be impressed if that became a thing, actually. Yea, I actually realized while writing that example that legally mandating the right to regretless sex isn't too far from actual politics from many on the left. Scary:(
Ultimately I agree: the goal of the anti-abortion crowd should be to reduce the factors that lead to people deciding to have abortions in the first place, not placing a blanket ban on them that does nothing to address these deeper issues (and wouldn't stop them entirely anyway).

While I do believe there should be a 'blanket ban' on abortion, the pro-life crowd would get much more done if they focused less on changing the legal status of abortion and more upon the societal and moral status. This is coming from someone who is very pro-life. Less Roe vs. Wade and more education of women on abortion alternatives and consequences. If you manage to convince society than abortion is wrong, then a law will easily follow. If you force a law without societal support, then you are just asking for it to be overturned.

Uniquemind
November 3rd, 2016, 12:30 AM
Yea, I actually realized while writing that example that legally mandating the right to regretless sex isn't too far from actual politics from many on the left. Scary:(


While I do believe there should be a 'blanket ban' on abortion, the pro-life crowd would get much more done if they focused less on changing the legal status of abortion and more upon the societal and moral status. This is coming from someone who is very pro-life. Less Roe vs. Wade and more education of women on abortion alternatives and consequences. If you manage to convince society than abortion is wrong, then a law will easily follow. If you force a law without societal support, then you are just asking for it to be overturned.


I don't think abortion is something that should be declared banned or illegal ever just because the law is time consuming and it becomes hard to argue exceptional circumstances.

It always tends to hurt the little people who can't afford lawyers about why such a legal ban doesn't apply to their case, while also having a 4 month window to obtain an abortion.

But agreed I am pro-life in a way in the sense that I think addressing the underlying factors that cause people to choose abortion is the way to go.

Vlerchan
November 3rd, 2016, 04:48 AM
So your issue is that women shouldn't be forced to put up with stuff like morning sickness, gestational diabetes and other pregnancy symptoms/complications because males don't suffer from them as well?
It has nothing to do with the specifics. The man, at most, can claim to be equally invested in the fetus - hold equal ownership of it. It is an entirely separate claim that he might exact use of the women's uterus for any stretch of time. That he is storing something in there doesn't distract from the fact that ownership rests with the women - this is because, pregnant women don't become the property of men, on becoming pregnant.

In other words, his role in conception is irrelevant to the claims of the women's body.

The women terminating the pregnancy - legalistically - consists of her retracting the right of use of her body. It tends to be in-acted in terms of abortion - feticide - but that seems more humane than extracting it from her body and exposing it to real-world conditions, where it will die.

I'm not borrowing a woman's body if both of us willingly decide to have a sexual relationship that culminates in the conception of a child inside her uterus.
You will need to explain to me how a women allowing you to use her body in one instance, grants you the right to use it in another.

Even if we attempt to establish the man's ownership of the child - I fail to see why that ownership allows him to continue to make use of her body.

What I'm saying, basically, is that the father should also have the right to express his opinion on the issue (except on particular cases, such as when there's confirmed rape).
You realise - regardless - that the outcome of this is that this will just increase the number of women who desire abortions getting them in secret - reporting at the time of surgery that they are unaware of the father's identity. It will probably do more harm than anything insofar as it reduces any social support network for women in relationships.

I could agree with that if her poor decision only affected her, which is not the case.
This decision affects both the women and the violinist, should the women be allowed to disconnect herself?
You end up waking up in the morning and find yourself in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

It is also the - further - case that scores of homeless people die of exposure each year. It is possible for people to open their doors for them - and their unwillingness to do this affects the homeless person just as much, if not more, than it affects themselves. Should, on this argument, people be forced to open up their homes - which, just like their bodies, happens to be their property - to homeless people?

[...] is the seemly unrelated obesity epidemic. it's been established that obesity makes birth control pills more likely to fail.
I'm quite skeptical that the causal impact of obesity on rates of abortion is in any way significant. Obviously that doesn't reduce the public harm of obesity but, in this case, it might not be too relevant.

Here's also the evidence that poorer people have abortions at higher rates:

Women of lower socioeconomic status and women of color in the United States have higher rates of abortion than women of higher socioeconomic status and White women.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23948010

The exact statistics are probably inside. I haven't read the article.

[...] (Vlerchan, 2016) [...]
Good paper. Can recommend.

I know Vlerchan isn't one of these, but many people both in this forum and in the real world see abortion as nothing but a woman's right issue, regardless of the scientific evidence or moral implications.
It is probably worth nothing that I don't see abortion as specifically a women's issue, but as rather one relating to our broader sense of individuality. Any right to abortion is necessarily ancillary to one's right to bodily-autonomy.

There are also a number of good pro-life arguments from a Feminist stance that approach it as specifically a women's issue. Most of them are probably to philosophically high-tech to ever gain ground with the broader public, though outlets like the American Conservative, have publicized them as of late.

It always tends to hurt the little people who can't afford lawyers about why such a legal ban doesn't apply to their case, while also having a 4 month window to obtain an abortion.
I had to cover the law relating to abortion - a big issue in Ireland - as part of my degree, and the conduct in courts towards a lot of women was rather chilling. There's on in particular about a refugee who was subject to war-rape and tried to escape to England - and risk being deported - and then preceded to attempt suicide - The outcome in the end, was she applied for a cesarean-section on her 25th week or so.

---

Oh, and reducing the number of situations where women want to get abortions is obviously desirable.

Living For Love
November 3rd, 2016, 01:32 PM
the anti-abortion crew, by which I mean the activists who organize protests and lobby Congress, think they can stop abortion by tweaking legislation or something. kind of like how banning cannabis prevented me from acquiring this sack of ganja that's sitting here on my desk in a Rubbermaid container.
I'm pretty sure it's easier to acquire a certain drug illegally than carrying out an abortion illegally.

You will need to explain to me how a women allowing you to use her body in one instance, grants you the right to use it in another.
Because there's the possibility of that outcome (pregnancy and the creation of a fetus), which the women is surely aware of.

Even if we attempt to establish the man's ownership of the child - I fail to see why that ownership allows him to continue to make use of her body.
Because the fetus is also his and is in the body of the woman.

You realise - regardless - that the outcome of this is that this will just increase the number of women who desire abortions getting them in secret - reporting at the time of surgery that they are unaware of the father's identity. It will probably do more harm than anything insofar as it reduces any social support network for women in relationships.
Picture this scenario, then: a woman has a one-night stand with a random man whom, after the encounter, she will never hear about anymore. She eventually finds out she's pregnant. Consider she has absolutely no way of contacting the man who impregnated her. Even if I consider the man has the right to interfere in her decision of whether she wants to keep the baby or not, there's no way of knowing what his stance on the issue his, because there's no way of identifying him. If the women wants to abort, I'd be more inclined to offer her the help of social workers and help her realise the advantages and disadvantages of abortion. That way we could have some social support assured. Why do you think not being necessary to consider the man's opinion would not deter women of getting secret abortions anyway? Basically, if his stance is irrelevant, why would she tell him anyway?

This decision affects both the women and the violinist, should the women be allowed to disconnect herself?
You end up waking up in the morning and find yourself in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

It is also the - further - case that scores of homeless people die of exposure each year. It is possible for people to open their doors for them - and their unwillingness to do this affects the homeless person just as much, if not more, than it affects themselves. Should, on this argument, people be forced to open up their homes - which, just like their bodies, happens to be their property - to homeless people?
The woman should be allowed to disconnect herself (if she wishes so) because nobody asked her previously if she wanted to take part in that "experiment". The fault resides in the people who kidnapped her and forced her to participate. Women do choose, though, to have sex.

People shouldn't be forced to open up their homes to homeless people because, since it's their property, nobody should tell them what to do with it. Fetuses, however, are also the man's property.

Flapjack
November 3rd, 2016, 01:38 PM
I'm pretty sure it's easier to acquire a certain drug illegally than carrying out an abortion illegally.
That's the problem, and that is why everyone women should have the right to s safe hygenic legal abortion. The alternative is coat hangers and drugs to force a miscarriage. Both cause more distress and are more of a risk to the women.

Living For Love
November 3rd, 2016, 01:51 PM
That's the problem, and that is why everyone women should have the right to s safe hygenic legal abortion. The alternative is coat hangers and drugs to force a miscarriage. Both cause more distress and are more of a risk to the women.
I don't really care about the woman's safety/well-being in this case, honestly.

Flapjack
November 3rd, 2016, 02:04 PM
I don't really care about the woman's safety/well-being in this case, honestly.
If you don't care about women they why care about what they do with their own body?

Living For Love
November 3rd, 2016, 02:13 PM
If you don't care about women they why care about what they do with their own body?
Because I don't support the idea of having a women denying another entity his right to be born and live, nor denying the father his right to father the child if he wants, under the assumption that women's right of self-determination is above the other rights I stated.

Flapjack
November 3rd, 2016, 02:26 PM
Because I don't support the idea of having a women denying another entity his right to be born and live, nor denying the father his right to father the child if he wants, under the assumption that women's right of self-determination is above the other rights I stated.
A zygote has no right to be born and live and a father has no right to force a women to carry a baby and risk her health and her life doing so.

Even if you don't support abortion surely you know women that want an abortion would still get one? As I have previously stated.

Texas making it harder to get abortions has already lead to an increase in illegal abortions. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/thousands-texas-women-are-trying-self-induce-abortions)

Living For Love
November 3rd, 2016, 02:48 PM
A zygote has no right to be born and live and a father has no right to force a women to carry a baby and risk her health and her life doing so.
It's not zygotes, it's embryos and fetuses we're talking about most of the times. The father has the right to father the child because the woman allowed him to create the child.

Even if you don't support abortion surely you know women that want an abortion would still get one? As I have previously stated.

Texas making it harder to get abortions has already lead to an increase in illegal abortions. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/thousands-texas-women-are-trying-self-induce-abortions)
I know, but nothing can be done to prevent illegal abortions.

Flapjack
November 3rd, 2016, 03:08 PM
It's not zygotes, it's embryos and fetuses we're talking about most of the times. The father has the right to father the child because the woman allowed him to create the child.
The women allowing a man into her body once does not give him future rights over it.

I know, but nothing can be done to prevent illegal abortions.
Aside from making abortion easy safe and legal?

PlasmaHam
November 3rd, 2016, 04:24 PM
The women allowing a man into her body once does not give him future rights over it. The man does not want control over the woman's body, because the fetus is not part of the woman's body. The fetus depends on the mother, sure, but it is an entirely separate entity formed by consensual sex between the man and woman. While the woman does have to take responsiblity, often too does the man, atleast once the baby is born. If your position of mother's only choice depends on personal hardships from her, then why can't the Father demand an abortion if the future baby or pregant mother's medical bills will be too much of a hardship on him? The father often takes a lot of responsiblity here, and it seems like he should have a choice too.

I suggest you reform your arguement

Flapjack
November 3rd, 2016, 04:57 PM
The man does not want control over the woman's body
But when the man tells the women that she cannot have an abortion that is exactly what he is doing... controlling what she does with her own body.
because the fetus is not part of the woman's body.
You say fetus, are you against late abortions or all abortions?
formed by consensual sex between the man and woman.
Would you be okay with rape victims getting an abortion then?
While the woman does have to take responsiblity, often too does the man, atleast once the baby is born.
'Often' no the man always must xD I seriously hate men that walk out on women they got pregnant, even if you just had casual sex, it is your baby care for it!

Also I was referring to how a women is forced by the man to keep the pregnancy, putting her health and life at risk.
f your position of mother's only choice depends on personal hardships from her,
I don't understand what you mean buddy?
why can't the Father demand an abortion if the future baby or pregant mother's medical bills will be too much of a hardship on him?
It's not a difficult thing to understand xD What a women does with her body is her decision. Not the mans xD The man cannot forbid or force an abortion.

The father often takes a lot of responsiblity here, and it seems like he should have a choice too.
That is just how nature made us buddy xD It would be awesome if sex didn't make babies and both parents must actively choose to create a baby but nope we're not like that.

Porpoise101
November 3rd, 2016, 05:51 PM
another example of how approaching the issue in isolation is detrimental to the stated goals of the anti-abortion movement, is the seemly unrelated obesity epidemic. it's been established that obesity makes birth control pills more likely to fail. I didn't know that until pretty recently, but I read this and immediately began to connect the dots. American obesity rates are high in the aggregate, but then you break them down by race and socioeconomic status aaaandddd...

...BAM! this naturally goes hand-in-hand with the black obesity rate, which is n times higher than that of whites (I'm too lazy to Google).

so now we have a clear and unmistakable pattern of interconnected conditions that useless pseudocons cannot see for whatever reason. naturally, once you've made these connections, the needed prescriptions seem like a no-brainer:

we know that obesity is linked to poor diet, which itself is associated with a) stress and b) a broken system of welfare payments that allows Shaniqua (age 23, 400lbs) to stock up on junk food for zero dollars. the stress is of course linked to the fact that you live paycheck to paycheck at your McDonald's job and had the price of your labor slashed by a horde of invading Third Worlders (in former times, our black underclass filled most of the jobs that are increasingly being taken over by vanfuls of cholos).

in short, instead of wasting time trying to reverse Roe vs. Wade, we Make America Great Again and abortion rates will sink.



I believe Vlerchan can dig up the relevant paper (it's been posted before, I believe) but to me the correlation seems self-evident in a "do dogs bark more often than cats?" sort of way.

as for the costs, I'm aware of both free and paid abortions but not exactly sure how it works, or if Planned Parenthood distributes "FREE KFC BUCKET WITH PURCHASE OF (1) ABORTION" coupons in the ghetto or not.
Let's use PhuckThink(tm) to see the issue...

Poor Diet
Racial Minorities
Poor People

Obviously the issue is the obesity rate in this country! Not the culture of impoverished areas or the struggles that come with them!

In non sarcastic language, perhaps the reason that abortion is more popular among the poor (which skews Hispanic and black) is that pills/birth are often hard to access and that tends to lead to reactionary tactics (meaning: abortion) when they get unlucky (to clarify: in their view) and are confronted with the burden of raising a child. Long story short: Preventative medicine/health practices are now easier for the rich and more difficult for the poor.

Living For Love
November 3rd, 2016, 05:56 PM
The women allowing a man into her body once does not give him future rights over it.
I'm not talking about her body.

Aside from making abortion easy safe and legal?
Making rape legal would also end illegal rape, I presume.

While the woman does have to take responsiblity, often too does the man, atleast once the baby is born.

'Often' no the man always must xD I seriously hate men that walk out on women they got pregnant, even if you just had casual sex, it is your baby care for it!
Those are actually interesting perspectives I had never given much thought to. Why do men have to take responsibility after the child is born but can't express their opinion on whether they want to father the yet-to-be-born child or not? Basically, what pro-abortion people think is that, before the child is born, men can't get involved in abortion because it's the woman's body and she can do with it whatever she wants to, but immediately after the baby is born, men are, right after that moment, responsible for the child because they conceived it. Thus, the "he conceived it" argument is not valid before the birth, only after it. Misandrist much?

In non sarcastic language, perhaps the reason that abortion is more popular among the poor (which skews Hispanic and black) is that pills/birth are often hard to access and that tends to lead to reactionary tactics (meaning: abortion) when they get unlucky (to clarify: in their view) and are confronted with the burden of raising a child. Long story short: Preventative medicine/health practices are now easier for the rich and more difficult for the poor.
I kind of just remembered something: aren't Black and Hispanic families in the USA characterised by having lots of kids because they don't have an easy access to condoms as White families have?

phuckphace
November 3rd, 2016, 08:33 PM
Let's use PhuckThink(tm) to see the issue...

Poor Diet
Racial Minorities
Poor People

Obviously the issue is the obesity rate in this country! Not the culture of impoverished areas or the struggles that come with them!

http://i.imgur.com/Ci6vdDb.png

what about the issue of making unneeded snarkposts in reply to sincere effortposts that were given only a perfunctory skimming for trigger-words?

at the risk of belaboring my earlier points (irritating) I brought up obesity as being one of several - or many, if you will - social factors that contribute to the abortion rate, as part of a broader point that there are many factors which play off one another rather than the issue existing in isolation.

Long story short: Preventative medicine/health practices are now easier for the rich and more difficult for the poor.

a story which, if published, would be sold in the Fiction section at Barnes & Noble

THANKS OBAMA! (http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-birth-control/)

Porpoise101
November 4th, 2016, 04:30 PM
a story which, if published, would be sold in the Fiction section at Barnes & Noble

THANKS OBAMA! (http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-birth-control/)
Sure, it's easy(er) to get meds and birth control. But first you have to get to a store/doctors office. To do that, you need to get some sort of transport. Some cities have a functioning public transit system for those without cars. Others *cough*Detroit*cough* have no reliable public transit at all. So even getting to places is difficult if you want the reduced/cut price without having a car. Healthy practices isn't just medicine either, it's living a healthy life. This anti-hunger lobbying group I found compiled a list (http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/why-are-low-income-and-food-insecure-people-vulnerable-to-obesity/) of factors which limit the healthiness of the poor in general.

Something I haven't looked into is the effect mental health has on abortion. I'd imagine if you were going through a more emotionally/psychologically unstable period in life, you would be more willing to need/undergo an abortion.

Vlerchan
November 4th, 2016, 04:31 PM
abortion response, fun analogies edition.

Because there's the possibility of that outcome (pregnancy and the creation of a fetus), which the women is surely aware of.
There is a possibility that when I plant a seed inside a flower-pot that the seed will blossom into a beautiful flower. In fact, it is a probability. If I don't own the flower-pot before we begin, that my flower is blossoming within it, does not grant me ownership.

Would you not agree?

Because the fetus is also his and is in the body of the woman.
Because his possession is on the women's property (i.e. her body) he gets free use of the women's body?

Is it not trespassing still if I was to kick a ball onto a neighbor's roof and precede to climb it - with as little or as much care - in order to retrieve the ball?

Why do you think not being necessary to consider the man's opinion would not deter women of getting secret abortions anyway? Basically, if his stance is irrelevant, why would she tell him anyway?
Wait - I could have been misunderstanding prior to this. I am fine with the women asking for the man's opinion and making a decision in consideration of it. What I have a problem with is a man holding the legal right to force a women to bring his child to term.

Because you are correct and there is nothing to stop women just claiming they have no idea who the father is with anyway.

The woman should be allowed to disconnect herself (if she wishes so) because nobody asked her previously if she wanted to take part in that "experiment". The fault resides in the people who kidnapped her and forced her to participate. Women do choose, though, to have sex.
Please note that the post I was responding to claimed that a woman shouldn't be allowed to take a poor decision that would affect other people. Thus - that she caused the situation to happen to her or not is entirely irrelevant.

The fundamental question is whether or not people should be allowed to make 'poor' decisions - such as killing the Violinist - with their own bodies.

People shouldn't be forced to open up their homes to homeless people because, since it's their property, nobody should tell them what to do with it. Fetuses, however, are also the man's property.
I would argue in turn that because it is the women's body no-one should tell her what to do with it. Remember, I am arguing she has the sole right to do what she wants with her own body and not that she has the sole right to do whatever she wants to do to the fetus.

That the man is affected - loss of property - as a result of the women's legitimate use of her own body seems irrelevant. Just like it is irrelevant that the homeless man is harmed through the use of someone using their own property in the example I have just offered.

Why do men have to take responsibility after the child is born but can't express their opinion on whether they want to father the yet-to-be-born child or not? Basically, what pro-abortion people think is that, before the child is born, men can't get involved in abortion because it's the woman's body and she can do with it whatever she wants to, but immediately after the baby is born, men are, right after that moment, responsible for the child because they conceived it. Thus, the "he conceived it" argument is not valid before the birth, only after it. Misandrist much?
I believe it should be legal for men to be able to refuse the legal rights they have to the child. It might not be ethically correct - just like I don't necessarily believe abortion is - but one should have the legal right to engage in it.

The man does not want control over the woman's body, because the fetus is not part of the woman's body.
In such a case - would you have an issue with the women surgically removing the fetus from her body and granting rights to the father to go and purchase the other womb? (if the fetus doesn't die during the procedure).

Otherwise it would seem the man is controlling the woman's body - Even if he does not want it.

Uniquemind
November 5th, 2016, 11:19 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion[/indent]


I had to cover the law relating to abortion - a big issue in Ireland - as part of my degree, and the conduct in courts towards a lot of women was rather chilling. There's on in particular about a refugee who was subject to war-rape and tried to escape to England - and risk being deported - and then preceded to attempt suicide - The outcome in the end, was she applied for a cesarean-section on her 25th week or so.

---

Oh, and reducing the number of situations where women want to get abortions is obviously desirable.


Yeah 25th week is pushing it even for me even in cases of rape and incest morally. She knew what she needed medically she shouldn't have been stalled by the law so long to get her procedure done.

We watched a documentary in history class and one woman interviews in Germany happened to be the daughter of a nazi, and upon her interview in the context of Germany beginning to lose, she told her horrific tale of being gang-raped for a month by angry Russian men who had their wives and children raped and murdered during WII nazi assaults on Russia.

Although and extreme situation, Abortion laws would burden situations like these.

Vlerchan
November 5th, 2016, 12:29 PM
phuckphace

If abortion creates a shortage of cheap and disposable workers would it not be in the interests of a globalist-right (D: .) to ban it?

Living For Love
November 5th, 2016, 02:42 PM
There is a possibility that when I plant a seed inside a flower-pot that the seed will blossom into a beautiful flower. In fact, it is a probability. If I don't own the flower-pot before we begin, that my flower is blossoming within it, does not grant me ownership.

Would you not agree?
I would agree in case you haven't previously asked permission to plant the seed to the owner of the flower-pot.

Because his possession is on the women's property (i.e. her body) he gets free use of the women's body?
Yes, because she let him in the first place.

Wait - I could have been misunderstanding prior to this. I am fine with the women asking for the man's opinion and making a decision in consideration of it. What I have a problem with is a man holding the legal right to force a women to bring his child to term.

Because you are correct and there is nothing to stop women just claiming they have no idea who the father is with anyway.
In the case I described, the man's opinion can't be considered because there's no way of finding out who he is. But imagine if a married couple decides to have a baby, and the woman gets pregnant and finds out it's a boy, and wants a girl instead, and decides to have an abortion (legally). In this case, since we know who the father is, it would make sense, in my opinion, to consult the father's opinion, this is, the need to have the consent of both of them.

I would argue in turn that because it is the women's body no-one should tell her what to do with it. Remember, I am arguing she has the sole right to do what she wants with her own body and not that she has the sole right to do whatever she wants to do to the fetus.
But the fetus, not being her body, is in her body, meaning whatever she does with her body, she will also do to the fetus.

That the man is affected - loss of property - as a result of the women's legitimate use of her own body seems irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant?

PlasmaHam
November 5th, 2016, 04:09 PM
That the man is affected - loss of property - as a result of the women's legitimate use of her own body seems irrelevant. !? You hear abortion advocates all the time justify abortions because the baby would be too great a financial burden on the mother. You may not see that as moral, but that is significant reason for abortions. Now, why should the mother have the choice to have an abortion because the end result would be too great a financial burden for herself, yet a fully supportive father shouldn't have that same right?

Let imagine your girlfriend gets pregnant with your baby. You love her extremely, and as such you fully financially support her and have no intentions of abandoning her. However, you realize that if your girlfriend has her baby you are going to suffer severe financial ruin, as you are already in debt. You don't want to sacrifice some creature comforts to support the baby. Now, your girlfriend wants the baby, and doesn't care about her bodily strain. Yet because of your financial greed you slip an abortion pill in her drink and the fetus dies, to your girlfriend's horror.

That sounded pretty awful, didn't it? You are probably thinking that such is totally wrong and should be illegal. But let us think.

Now, imagine your girlfriend gets pregnant with your baby. You love her extremely, and as such you fully financially support her and have no intentions of abandoning her. However, your girlfriend realizes that if she has the baby then she will be forced into financial ruin, as you are already in debt. She doesn't want to sacrifice her selfish lifestyle and nice creature comforts to support a baby. Now, you are fully in support of keeping the baby, you don't care about the financial burden. Yet the girlfriend decides to sneak behind your back and get an abortion, not for bodily or mental strain, but just greed. You are horrified.

No matter what way you come up to justify the mother's actions here, there are no justifications. She took an action to end the baby's life because the baby would be an inconvenience to her life once born. In the earlier example, the father took an action to end the baby's life because it would be an inconvenience to your lifestyle once born. Do you not see the exact same moral wrong here? Yet you justify one and condemn the other because of the unrelated matter of who carried the baby in the womb, which is in your words, irrelevant.

phuckphace
November 5th, 2016, 11:38 PM
lol at the usual suspects pulling up the rails and sending this thread flying off into the river, oh well, I have no one to blame but myself for this one

...globalist-right...

my good friend the Christian-atheist-anarcho-totalitarian says "maybe."

Vlerchan
November 6th, 2016, 07:10 AM
I would agree in case you haven't previously asked permission to plant the seed to the owner of the flower-pot.
You believe that because I have been given permission to begin something on someone else's property I have a right to finish it?

This doesn't sit in accordance with any imagining of property rights in any state I know - by the way - but of course that in itself doesn't undermine the argument.

Yes, because she let him in the first place.
But you don't believe this - Or else you could also capably argue that it is also in the man's right to return and take sex as he wanted it.

But imagine if a married couple decides to have a baby, and the woman gets pregnant and finds out it's a boy, and wants a girl instead, and decides to have an abortion (legally). In this case, since we know who the father is, it would make sense, in my opinion, to consult the father's opinion, this is, the need to have the consent of both of them.
1. Women don't have to offer a reason when they apply for abortions.

2. You're only working to irreparably destroy their marraige and externalize the damage of such a break-up on the to-be-born child. So even if I didn't believe that the women should have full control over her own body the solution being presented is net welfare reducing.

But the fetus, not being her body, is in her body, meaning whatever she does with her body, she will also do to the fetus.
Yes. Of course. Like I said - the fetus is being removed as consequence of her using her body. Fact remains the entire operation is steeped in the use of her own body rights.

Why is it irrelevant?
Because the concentration is on the women's legitimate use of her own body rights.

In a case where someone file for bankruptcy on a house they were renting out - the renters might be at a significant loss but that's irrelevant when we are concerning ourselves with whether the owner of the house engaged in the legitimate use of their own property rights.

Now, why should the mother have the choice to have an abortion because the end result would be too great a financial burden for herself, yet a fully supportive father shouldn't have that same right?
One should note that I am fine with the father absolving himself of any rights and duties he has to the child and walking away from such a relationship. The reason I am against him having the right to file for an abortion is that it involves making use of the women's body.

Like said, for me this is an issue of individual body rights.

Do you not see the exact same moral wrong here?
In a case where a shop owner nails to his front window, "no dogs, no Irish, no blacks" - whilst immoral - I do believe it should be in his own rights to operate his property that way.

However, in the case that his employee raises his hand at an approaching black or Irish individual and refuses to serve them - and this is not store policy - then that is both immoral and an illegitimate use of someone else's property rights.

In both cases - the consequence is the same. The intent too. But this is an issue of rights and I am of the opinion that the rights of the worst scoundrel need to be protected with the same intensity as the most honorable gentleman if only to secure the running of a free and orderly society for the rest of us.

Yet you justify one and condemn the other because of the unrelated matter of who carried the baby in the womb, which is in your words, irrelevant.
I'm not sure where I called this irrelevant.

Nevertheless I feel it is fully relevant because where the rights to abortion are ancillary to rights to ones own body - which can only be activated if the fetus is contained within one's own body.

lol at the usual suspects pulling up the rails and sending this thread flying off into the river, oh well, I have no one to blame but myself for this one
Oops.

phuckphace
November 16th, 2016, 12:46 PM
bumpity bump!

now that we're well on our way to Making America Great Again™, this thread is even more relevant now.

firstly I need to Correct The Record a bit: when I mentioned blacks in my previous posts, it seems that my sentiment was misinterpreted by some posters who assumed that I was laying all the blame at the feet of gross brown people. not true.

while my Hitlerian side would like to see a purge of the prison population currently incarcerated for violent crimes (regardless of race), I'm also interested in bettering the condition of American blacks who haven't committed any serious crimes. despite my views on race, I see black people as fellow citizens who share our history and culture, and this is deserving of much better than the misery and alienation that was foisted on them by the Left.

when I noted that our black underclass is being displaced by immigration, I meant this sympathetically - there's nothing wrong or shameful about working menial labor jobs and this is a useful and vital segment of the economy that can provide gainful employment for those who lack the skills and temperament needed for white collar jobs. were we to reverse the neoliberal trend of suppressing wages with immigration, low-income blacks (and proles in general) could be paid enough to stay off welfare. the general trend of corporations treating their workers as costs to be minimized has done a lot to worsen the condition of not only the lower class but is also responsible for the hollowing-out of the middle class - and when the middle class shrinks, the lower class begins to enlarge rapidly.

while it's true that some sectors were automated (this is another trend that could also be reversed with legislation and fines - cue gasps of horror from techno-capitalists) there remain many menial jobs that could be easily filled by natives without the "need" to take in a single immigrant.

my own job is packed out with Mexicans and Central American immigrants that, infuriatingly, were issued work visas by our government, despite speaking barely any English and the fact that their jobs are lowest-skill and could easily be filled by any high-schooler or young adult living just down the street. there's a separate argument for skilled immigration that belongs in another topic, but unskilled immigration to our country of several hundred million natives is absolutely inexcusable.

Porpoise101
November 16th, 2016, 05:47 PM
There's a separate argument for skilled immigration that belongs in another topic, but unskilled immigration to our country of several hundred million natives is absolutely inexcusable.

I suppose I can agree with this at least. The only time unskilled workers should be coming is either if there is a labor shortage or if they are refugees in my view.

I also have to wonder what will happen to abortions in the US with the new Supreme Court Donald has mapped out.

Uniquemind
November 16th, 2016, 05:54 PM
I suppose I can agree with this at least. The only time unskilled workers should be coming is either if there is a labor shortage or if they are refugees in my view.

I also have to wonder what will happen to abortions in the US with the new Supreme Court Donald has mapped out.

Roe v. Wade goes away is what may happen.

It'll be an interesting political and judicial season.

Porpoise101
November 16th, 2016, 09:24 PM
Roe v. Wade goes away is what may happen.

It'll be an interesting political and judicial season.
I agree. Not just the Supreme Court is up for grabs; many lower federal courts need judges to be confirmed.

PlasmaHam
December 8th, 2016, 02:56 PM
This is a continuation of sorts from the death penalty thread, but I feel it belongs better here. To give some context, there is a major argument coming from many that want to abolish the death penalty. Nicknamed, the "Chance" argument by myself, it basically says that we shouldn't risk killing someone if there was even the slightest chance they weren't deserving of it. Most of those people also defend abortion as a "woman's right." Here is my rebuttal which will focus on the abortion aspect of their argument, but can also be used in undermining the anti-death penalty argument.

To you who support abortion but are against the death penalty. You use that tiny sliver of doubt to say that the death penalty shouldn't be used, because there is a chance an innocent could die. Is there not a chance that an innocent dies from abortion? Is there not a chance that abortion is murder? Is there not a chance that abortion undermines the value of human life? Is there not a chance that an aborted baby could have grown up and develop a cure for cancer? Is there not a chance that abortion is immoral? Was there not a chance that you could have been aborted because your mom was too lazy to take care of you?

But nope, despite the scientific and moral evidence you would rather choose "chance" to defend mass murderers than those who can't even defend themselves. This sickens me.

Paraxiom
December 8th, 2016, 04:27 PM
So I'm randomly creeping into this thread, don't mind me (too much).

Is there not a chance that an innocent dies from abortion?

Abortion has a different degree of destruction on the to-be-born, which greatly depends on what developmental stage it is in. There's a wide difference between zygotes to fetuses and babies.

I don't hold a view that there is a self formed in the mind of a human brain until it is 3-4 years of age, but of course I hold a view that there's significant consciousness strongly suggested to feel pain for many weeks before birth (around 22).

Anyhow, 'an innocent' presumes a self, and there isn't one before birth.

No, there is no chance.


Is there not a chance that abortion is murder?

No. You cannot kill someone who is not there 'yet'.

I harm being done? Yes (but only if around 22 weeks before presumptive birth), but no murder is being done.


Is there not a chance that abortion undermines the value of human life?

The value of human life increases in magnitude in a relation to the degree of actual and potential development that's around. I do not see it all of a sudden being present from soon after the fusion of an egg and sperm cell onward.

There's not much of a value in a human life if there is nothing for it to be instantiated in yet.

Is there not a chance that an aborted baby could have grown up and develop a cure for cancer?

Oh please. I could say in response that a hypothetical someone on death row was a psychopathic maniac of a biomedical scientist who could have developed a cure for cancer in 5 years' time if he wasn't killed.

Everything that we do 'prevents' what could have happened otherwise, which easily could include many sexual intercourses given the chaotic dynamics of the world we are in.

You're focusing on the destruction of a to-be-born human body though, but if there is no person there yet then there is no future you can rob from it.

A future cannot be taken away from something that does not even have a meaningful past or present.


Is there not a chance that abortion is immoral?

It's not a matter of chance here, rather a matter of justification given a moral system.


Was there not a chance that you could have been aborted because your mom was too lazy to take care of you?

Leaving aside the loaded part of abortion being done with the motivation of laziness to parent in the future, I would not be feeling bad if I did not exist, would I? How can a nonexistent person suffer?

Or, if you would prefer, how can a nonexistent persons' suffering (IF we take that as a given) be of any quality akin to existent suffering such that a legal or moral system (only applicable in the existent world we know) can do justice upon it?



But nope, despite the scientific and moral evidence[...]

Cite such scientific evidence please.

What does 'moral evidence' mean? I don't think morality is empirical, at least not to any critical functional level that science is.


[...]you would rather choose "chance" to defend mass murderers than those who can't even defend themselves. This sickens me.

You have this view that if someone opposes a death penalty for certain criminals, it means that the person is defending these criminals.

Have you considered that opposition to a death penalty could take a different form, such as (for example) realising that killing someone frees them from any possible harm you can inflict on them as punishment?

Porpoise101
December 8th, 2016, 05:56 PM
moral evidence
lol

Please elaborate upon why a woman killing a collection of tissue with lesser significance than your liver is worse than potentially killing someone wrongfully convicted in a time without modern CSI technology. And make sure to use some of that moral evidence in your justification.

What sickens me is the fact that you mixed up 'mass murderers', 'innocents', and 'fetuses' all in one post somehow as if they are all the same value.

PlasmaHam
December 8th, 2016, 06:11 PM
lol

Please elaborate upon why a woman killing a collection of tissue with lesser significance than your liver... So, a woman can kill a 9 month old fetus? After all, it is less significant than her liver. Actually, your life is worth less to me than my liver, so I guess I can kill you too. Ah, the fun of justifying murder, you've gotten rather good at it.

Porpoise101
December 8th, 2016, 06:34 PM
So, a woman can kill a 9 month old fetus? After all, it is less significant than her liver. Actually, your life is worth less to me than my liver, so I guess I can kill you too. Ah, the fun of justifying murder, you've gotten rather good at it.

What does murder mean to you?

Periphery
December 9th, 2016, 07:30 AM
So, a woman can kill a 9 month old fetus? After all, it is less significant than her liver. Actually, your life is worth less to me than my liver, so I guess I can kill you too. Ah, the fun of justifying murder, you've gotten rather good at it.

So a woman who is unable to take care of a child/has to have it taken away for medical reasons can't do it, yet taking a criminal (they may even be innocent), leaving them completely helpless tied down and sending electricity through their body is fine. Ah, the fun of justifying murder, you've gotten rather good at it.