24-04-2004 05:28									#91
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: It's religious and cultural. Look at the Promise Keepers, who believe that husbands/fathers should reclaim their "rightful place" as the head of the home. Look at the conservative Xians who've been arguing for thirty years that women should be in the home and not the work place. Who was it who fought the ERA?

And there are no female prolifers? What's in it for them?

	24-04-2004 05:33									#92
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: The Shepards of the Lamb, I think is the name of one such group. They don't come right out and say violence is okay, but they publish the addresses and photos of doctors and their families, where they work, where they attend school,

Shame can be an effective deterrent.

If the abortion doctors really are proud of what they do, why don't they advertise?

I agree, that one should not publicise the address and photos of the doctors and their families, because you don't really need any of that to oppose abortion. It's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I also agree that this is suspicious, but there is still a leap from this to what the prochoice folks have already done, and advocated violence against the prolife folks who come out to this march.

All that does is energize the prolife folks. We say, bring it on! If you want to beat us up in public for just showing signs, then go right ahead.

	24-04-2004 05:36									#93
	Suffering from ads?

quote: It is the responsibility of the state to ensure the well-being of the public, especially when a viable option exists... or at least that's what the socialists tell me... despite moral implications.

And how does abortion help people? Does it heal them from a disease? Does it relieve pain and suffering? No. There are better alternatives to abortion for every situation except for an ectopic pregnancy. Therefore, the common welfare does not come into play.

Secondly, if we see the unborn child as a person, then what does it say about the society, that we are more comfortable with killing people for the common good, then dealing with the real social problems?

	24-04-2004 05:43									#94
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Officially, the anti-women's groups condemn violence, but it frequently seems to be with a nod and a wink.

Nod and wink? Why then do some of the groups constantly refer to the methods of non-violent direct action presented by Dr. King? Why do they admonish any occasion of violence done to an abortion provider? Go look. I can find plenty of examples of both cases, where prolifers extol the virtues of non-violence, and abhor those who insist upon violence.

I'll be honest with you. Folks like Joseph Kopp frighten me. Not so much because I would be the target, or the damage he does to the reputation of other people, but rather, that he may encourage others to follow this route. Those people who are frusterated by the lack of voice that they have in society, by the slowness of change, will face the same question that troubled Malcolm X.

Rather than tarring the prolife organisations with the same brush, you ought to differentiate between the peaceful folks, and the violent ones, for your own interests in keeping the peace.

	24-04-2004 11:46									#95
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

You can't take the rhetoric of some anti-choice advocates at face value.

	24-04-2004 11:48									#96
	Support Apolyton

Just like we are supposed to dismiss all these threats made by the pro-choicers as just rhetoric, eh?

	24-04-2004 11:53									#97
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Yeah -- let's hear it for denying women the right to autonomy over their own bodies.

As an aside, can you legally sell your own organs? Can you legally sell yourself into slavery or prostitution? Do you believe we should... after all, autonomy over our own bodies.

	24-04-2004 11:54									#98
	Got spare money?

Threats? There seems to be more anti-choice advocates resorting to physical violence and/or property violence than there are those who are pro-choice.

And note that the operative word in my last post was "some." SOME anti-choice advocates use the rhetoric of human life as sacred as a facade to their real agenda in dehumanizing women by denying them the right to autonomy over their own body.

	24-04-2004 11:55									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Yeah -- let's hear it for denying women the right to autonomy over their own bodies. As an aside, can you legally sell your own organs? Can you legally sell yourself into slavery or prostitution? Do you believe we should... after all, autonomy over our own bodies.

Nice distortion by using an absolution -- an all or nothing position, which was not the implication of that statement of mine.

	24-04-2004 11:57									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

women shouldn't be in the workplace.

but I disagree about restricting contraception. That is just plain stupid. we still need to restrict the birthrate even more.

	24-04-2004 11:59									#101
	Inflate your Upload Space

I am anxiously waiting for Imran's apology, so we can hug and make amends.

	24-04-2004 12:04									#102
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Nice distortion by using an absolution -- an all or nothing position, which was not the implication of that statement of mine.

Nice try, but you said "let's hear it for denying women the right to autonomy over their own bodies." Obviously you are implying an all or nothing position, ie, a RIGHT to autonomy over your own body.

	24-04-2004 12:48									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Note the topic of the thread -- it relates to abortion and contraceptives and whether or not women should have the right to decide for themselves on these personal issues.

In this topic context, my statement still does not imply an absolute all or nothing position. Don't you read people's posts in the context of the thread's topic??

	24-04-2004 15:49									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

One thing I have found (and I'm pro-choice) is that if you want someone to stop , give them a worse alternative than the one they're tring to stop . A simple solution could be that the women's and pro-choice groups threaten to simply disown any children produced by lack of contraception or unavailibility of abortion , and leave them at the doorsteps of the leaders of the anti-choice movement . Let them handle the mess they might make . Even if we know that such stupid laws for banning contraception shall not be passed , this is one of the effective deterrents not only for the fanatics but also for the state .

Even though the above may be impractical , it is still an effective threat . The group could even "sponsor" a disownment , and help out someone who could not get an abortion in time . Because the disownment and forsaking of these children will cause much more severe repurcussions than the ban on abortion .

	24-04-2004 17:13									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

It's also PR death, genius. "The pro-choice movement knowingly abandons children, and unfairly stigmatizes them for the circumstances of their birth!" Go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot.

Anyway, nobody answered my question, and there are far dumber ones out there: tiger-fetus medicine, OK or not?

	24-04-2004 21:03									#106
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Anyway, nobody answered my question, and there are far dumber ones out there: tiger-fetus medicine, OK or not?

To abort or not to abort that is the question!

Okay, what do you want to hear? I think Tigers should be protected because its a very rare animal already. So if this medicine cannot be produced syntethically I'd say: NOT.

	24-04-2004 21:29									#107
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Note the topic of the thread -- it relates to abortion and contraceptives and whether or not women should have the right to decide for themselves on these personal issues. In this topic context, my statement still does not imply an absolute all or nothing position. Don't you read people's posts in the context of the thread's topic??

So basically you think the 'right' of autonomy of a woman's body ONLY extends to contraception and abortion? Sorry, but autonomy of a body extends well past that.

	24-04-2004 22:41									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Of course it does -- but here we're talking about contraception and abortion.

So just because there are other issues tied to right to autonomy over one's body and it complicates this issue, that means we can justify denying women this right??

	24-04-2004 22:41									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa To abort or not to abort that is the question! Okay, what do you want to hear? I think Tigers should be protected because its a very rare animal already. So if this medicine cannot be produced syntethically I'd say: NOT.

But it's NOT a tiger. Some day, it might eventually BECOME a tiger, but it's just a lump of cells right now. Who are you to deny a thriving third-world industry its livelihood because of your personal beliefs?

	24-04-2004 22:51									#110
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Again, contraception is how prolifers define personhood. To argue against this requires one to argue that the prolifers are wrong on this point, notwithstanding their individual views on contraception.

Some of us have tried to argue with prolifers on this very point, but they have a tendency to abandon the field when it becomes apparent that their position on the matter makes no sense.

	24-04-2004 22:54									#111
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Of course it does -- but here we're talking about contraception and abortion. So just because there are other issues tied to right to autonomy over one's body and it complicates this issue, that means we can justify denying women this right??

It means talking about 'autonomy over one's own body' and having 'a right to do so' is a fallacy. Because you don't really believe those words... only for a very limited group, which isn't 'autonomy over your own body' and isn't a 'right'.

	24-04-2004 23:10									#112
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Elok Okay, Gibsie, we admit it: all pro-lifers are secretly child molesters trying to assure a steady stream of underaged tail for posterity. Your keen reasoning skills triumph again. Oh well. Little fun question: should it be legal to shoot a pregnant tiger with a tranq dart, extract the fetus, and grind it up into medicine for elderly chinese people? It's not like you're killing an endangered animal or anything; it's a "potential tiger."

How you so spectacularly misread what I was saying is beyond me. I was referring to ONE case of ONE nutjob who also happened to be a paedophile, and commented on that particular person's particular hatred for women and children. Unless you also hate abortion to the extent that you would also put a bounty on the head of abortion doctors, then there is no reason for you to assume that I'm calling everyone who is anti-abortion a child-molester. Hell, I didn't even call this guy a child-molester! Your keen reasoning skills fail again and again and again! Sava's post made more sense than yours, you know that?

Should it be legal to grind up a tiger foetus as long as the parent is not killed? It should have the same legal status as removing any additional organs, e.g. one of their kidneys, for the same purpose.

	25-04-2004 08:26									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Of course it does -- but here we're talking about contraception and abortion. So just because there are other issues tied to right to autonomy over one's body and it complicates this issue, that means we can justify denying women this right?? It means talking about 'autonomy over one's own body' and having 'a right to do so' is a fallacy. Because you don't really believe those words... only for a very limited group, which isn't 'autonomy over your own body' and isn't a 'right'.

So because there are some cases where it would obviously be wrong to carry out a bad decision on the premise that you have autonomy over your own body, then there is no right to having this autonomy?

So because it would be wrong to shout fire in the theater, does this mean that people do not have the right to free speech??

	25-04-2004 08:55									#114
	Put an end to popups!

The case of shouting "fire" in a theater is one in which two rights conflict -- free speech and safety. However, there is no conflict in rights in the case of our limiting people's autonomy over their bodies -- there is no "right to not be allowed to sell one of your kidneys." This means that either you're calling for arbitrary restriction in somebody else's "right to autonomy," or else that there is no "right to autonomy."

Regardless, even if there were a "right to autonomy," you would then have to make the case that this trumps the "right to life" of a fetus/embryo/zygote/etc., rather than simply spouting rhetoric about how all pro-lifers hate women and/or liberty, or whatever have you.

	25-04-2004 10:28									#115
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

LOL an embryo or zygote doesn't have a 'right' to anything.

Only actual sentience entails human rights. Otherwise the notion of human rights is nonsensical.

On the 'scheming oppressors' line:

Do you really think that pro-choicers would ever consider supporting something that might even be considered a massacre of millions of human beings? We're not 'evil'. It's just that the notion of 'zygotes's rights' as was mentioned above is so patently ridiculous that we suspect there must be some ulterior motive.

	25-04-2004 10:57									#116
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by loinburger The case of shouting "fire" in a theater is one in which two rights conflict -- free speech and safety. However, there is no conflict in rights in the case of our limiting people's autonomy over their bodies -- there is no "right to not be allowed to sell one of your kidneys." This means that either you're calling for arbitrary restriction in somebody else's "right to autonomy," or else that there is no "right to autonomy." Regardless, even if there were a "right to autonomy," you would then have to make the case that this trumps the "right to life" of a fetus/embryo/zygote/etc., rather than simply spouting rhetoric about how all pro-lifers hate women and/or liberty, or whatever have you.

Since a fetus before later stages of development is not a sentient being, I would say that if the right to autonomy over one's body does legally exist, then this right takes precedence over the non-sentient fetus.


But I guess I was wrong that we have a right to our own bodies, anyway.

	26-04-2004 01:23									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Seeker Only actual sentience entails human rights. Otherwise the notion of human rights is nonsensical.

I agree. However, most pro-lifers disagree (as to why they disagree, well, you'll have to ask them -- I've never gotten a straight answer), and so it's just as schmucky to equate a pro-life stance to a "pro-misogyny" stance as it is to equate a pro-choice stance to a "pro-murder" stance.

	26-04-2004 02:04									#118
	Inflate your Upload Space

I don't think pro-choicers deliberately murder, I just think they deliberately avoid certain questions and concerns so they can do what's convenient for them without any qualms. The motive doesn't seem to be to harm, but to avoid having to deal with unpleasant experiences no matter what it takes. Sorta like people in the Old South once owned slaves just to get cheap labor, not to abuse black people for fun or anything.

And I might as well reiterate that "sentience as human rights" borders on eugenics. We value people because they're human, not because of their thinking ability. Suggesting that someone's right to live is dependent on his/her abilities is sick if you ask me.

Moreover, you are talking about killing a creature that is genetically identical to one you wouldn't kill, that is, the infant form of the fetus. Nobody has ever explained to me how this is any different from stomping on caterpillars and claiming you've never hurt a butterfly.

	26-04-2004 02:16									#119
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Elok And I might as well reiterate that "sentience as human rights" borders on eugenics.

It does not resemble eugenics in any way shape or form. You're coming awfully close to invoking Godwin's Law.

quote: Moreover, you are talking about killing a creature that is genetically identical to one you wouldn't kill, that is, the infant form of the fetus.

That's because DNA is not sacred. Monkey DNA is over 95% identical to human DNA, yet nobody in their right mind would claim that monkeys have a 95% right to life.

Regardless, this might better be taken up in the thread that you and Ben stopped posting in.

	26-04-2004 08:40									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

"We value people because they're human"

Exactly...and the only logical way to define 'humanity' is through sentience, not lumps of cells.