26-04-2004 08:43									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

We still haven't defined that term in any meaningful way. So how do you suggest we rely upon it?

	26-04-2004 08:44									#122
	Tired of ads?

Incidentally, a huge pro-choice rally just occurred in the DC mall (the area in front of the capitol). It's estimated that up to 1.1 million were protesting. Previously, the largest rally was against the Viet Nam War in '69, and it was about 600 thousand (or so I've been told).

	26-04-2004 09:59									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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

And that's my point. Loinburger put it well:

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."

And if you are calling for an arbitrary restriction, you have to explain why.

	26-04-2004 15:04									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Elok 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.

Not abandon , but give to an orphanage to take care of , which the Bushy administration so tries to promote as an alternative to abortion .

	26-04-2004 15:22									#125
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by loinburger 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.

I'm quoting from my recent post on CFC .

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm Actually , the fundamental fallacy in the stances of pro and anti-choicers is that they accept the issue as all or nothing , and the pro-choicers weaken their stance by accepting a major part of their opponents' arguments . A foetus or embryo is nto life , it is life in the stages of creation . It becomes non-parasitic human life the minute it has the ability to survive independently of a host organism , in this case , the mother . The foetus or embryo cannot be classified as living or non-living . It is life in the process of being creation . That it's independence grows with thie is accepted . Thus , it is the choice of the creator of this life whether to continue the process or not . Assume that a programmer has unlocked the secret of consciousnes and found a way to put it into a program . He creates the code to generate self-awareness , however , he knows it will take a few days to load and run on his PC , and when it has finished running , the result will be that the PC becomes a fully integrated organism capable of thought , consciousness , and expression in a variety of ways . If , now , in the middle of the loading of this huge program , he decides not to go through with it but to stop in in the middle , I doubt there is anybody loony enough here to argue that he go through with it , just because he is creating life . For this being the creation procedure of a sentient being , be it a program , it must be guven a status equal to that of a human . HE is the creator and HE is the one to decide whether or not to create and if so, then whether or not to stop the process of creation . The same , I think , applies to a human mother .

My assumption is that the developement of a human in the fetal stages is like it's installation on earth - it progresses from 0 % to 100 % . If you want to stop the install , it's your PC/body , you can do what you want with it . The belief is that the creation of human life is not a all-or-nothing process . It's a continuous process , which takes place for nine months , and you have the right to stop the process if you so wish , the said process being executed on/in your property/body .

The christian religious opposition to this is very old . Any pagan religion that advocated the life creative potential of humans was destroyed if it could be . Creation of life was reserved for the big guy at the top , and if he gives life , then you got no right to take it away . And if you did , you were bad , very bad . And if the church thinks youre bad , than youre bad . And if youre bad , then you have to be punished by the church , not the big guy .

	26-04-2004 16:48									#126
	Increase Your PM Length

DNA is not "sacred," no, but it is a pretty reliable fingerprint of identity. You're killing the same thing at an earlier stage, regardless. Again, caterpillar and butterfly, still unanswered.....

	26-04-2004 16:59									#127
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Incidentally, a huge pro-choice rally just occurred in the DC mall (the area in front of the capitol). It's estimated that up to 1.1 million were protesting. Previously, the largest rally was against the Viet Nam War in '69, and it was about 600 thousand (or so I've been told).

Interesting thing I noticed from the pictures I've seen from it is that while the pro-choicers where predominately women, the pro-lifers that showed up where predominately men.

	26-04-2004 17:04									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I don't think anyone argues that women don't have a much bigger stake in this than men, Ludd. But, if there were a proposed "right to fondle little boys," hundreds of creepy old guys with twitchy fingers would show up on the mall, and not a single convicted sex criminal would be on the "Pro-little-boys-not-getting-scarred-for-life" counterprotest. That's the thing about subjectivity.

	26-04-2004 17:09									#129
	Put an end to popups!

quote: It becomes non-parasitic human life the minute it has the ability to survive independently of a host organism , in this case , the mother.

Exactly as I see it. Until the foetus can survive as an independant body, it has no right to life. I think right to life isn't the best way of putting it either. I rather see it as a right not to be killed. If everyone has a right to life, then anyone who is not capable of living without help has a right to be kept alive at the expense of others. I don't see that as a human right, because I don't think your natural right should force someone else to do something. No-one is forced to look after a baby, as the pro-lifers always tell us, since there is adoption. Similarly, no-one is forced to look after elderly relatives, as if they can't on their own, usually the state does.

Looking at a foetus the same, the mother should not be forced to care for it. When it's born, she can put it up for adoption, but before it's born, what can she do so that it isn't feeding of her? That is why my opinion is that she should be allowed to withdraw her services, at any time, and if the foetus can survive outside the womb, the state can look after it, and put it up for adoption. If the foetus cannot survive outside the womb, then it dies. The state can try to look after it all it wants, but forcing the mother to look after it, against her will, is wrong, IMHO.

We know, relatively, the limits of human medicine. Therefore, we know that a foetus will not survive outside the womb if it's born at 10, or 15 weeks. Therefore, the effects are the same if it is born, and dies, or if it is aborted. Exactly the same effect - in one, you leave it to die, in the other, you kill it. After 24 weeks, as is the legal limit in the UK, it is possible, in some cases, for the foetus to survive outside the womb. That is why I don't agree with abortion after this date. If the women wishes to remove the foetus after 24 weeks, then it should be done by inducing birth of a C-section, and looked after by the state, should the state decide to.

I don't see why foetus that cannot survive outside the womb has a right to life. If that has a right to life, then the women is forced to care for it, against her will. The foetus, being an organism invading her body, using her resources against her will, it is a parasite, and parasites do not have a right to life, because they are living at the expense and detriment of a person. That foetus has no right to the women's resources, even if it does have a right to it's own body and life. Banning abortion means saying that foetus has a right to the resources and body of the women, and that that women does not have the full rights to her own body, which, IMHO, is a travesty. Your body belongs to you, whether you're a man, women or child. Nothing has a right to use it against your will.

	26-04-2004 17:14									#130
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Elok I don't think anyone argues that women don't have a much bigger stake in this than men, Ludd. But, if there were a proposed "right to fondle little boys," hundreds of creepy old guys with twitchy fingers would show up on the mall, and not a single convicted sex criminal would be on the "Pro-little-boys-not-getting-scarred-for-life" counterprotest. That's the thing about subjectivity.

Your example is like saying:
"no-one who had had an abortion was on the pro-life march, and many people who had had abortions were on the pro-choice march". That's a lot more subjective than amoutns of women and men on each side.

His argument is like saying:
"If there were a proposed "right to fondle little boys", there would be more women marching pro-right and more men being anti-right."

No-ones saying women aren't more involved, but it's not the level of difference of involvement as sex criminals in a sex criminal bill. To get that involed, Ludd would have had to have made a statement about women who have had abortions in an abortion bill, when he was only amking a statement about women and men.

	26-04-2004 17:15									#131
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Elok I don't think anyone argues that women don't have a much bigger stake in this than men, Ludd. But, if there were a proposed "right to fondle little boys," hundreds of creepy old guys with twitchy fingers would show up on the mall, and not a single convicted sex criminal would be on the "Pro-little-boys-not-getting-scarred-for-life" counterprotest. That's the thing about subjectivity.

...


What?

	26-04-2004 17:35									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

He was trying to say that the fact more women are pro-choice and more men pro-life is because of their relative subjectivity, and didn't matter. I would tend to think that men have less say in it, since it isn't their bodies. But then I think other women shouldn't have a say in what a women does.

An argument given on a program I watched the other day was that if pictures of aborted foetuses are so offensive that they can't be shown in public or on TV (someone was arrested for public offense by holding a big picture of it) then it shouldn't be legal to do it. However the same argument would go for oral sex, or indeed much hardcore porn. It's not legal to show on UK TV, but most would agree the government should have little say on what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults. The fact that someone thinks abortions are offensive and horrific acts, that they're appauled by pictures of it, shouldn't affect other people who aren't appauled by it. If you're offended by abortions, don't have one.

I understand that's just one side argument for a pro-life stance, and not the main one (right to life) but I wanted to address it. Using huge posters to shock and offend people into not having abortions is one thing, and can be classed as education. Using them to shock and offend them into baning others doing it is quite another.

	26-04-2004 17:46									#133
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drogue He was trying to say that the fact more women are pro-choice and more men pro-life is because of their relative subjectivity, and didn't matter.

My 'what?' was more directed at his comparison to child molesters. But yeah, that was kinda my point. Seeing a few men and priests standing next to a million women and telling them that they can't do something is akin to the women's right movement.

I can't say that seeing some fat guy leaning against the wall holding up a pro-life placard as thousands of women march by in opposition really helps his cause.

	27-04-2004 00:08									#134
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I seriously hope that our country has not sunk so low as to decide whether something should be legal based on the appearance of the people presenting it...anyway, I wasn't "comparing" abortion to pederasty, it was analogous. We all agree that feeling up kids is wrong, and nobody says, "How DARE you sit there, never having felt the immense urge to grope minors yourself, and say what these people are doing is wrong?" If abortion is okay, it isn't so because a bunch of people with a potential reason to want to do it approve. When people insult me I feel the urge to kick them in the nuts. If I give into that urge, I can't get all self-righteous when you yell at me, "because he never insulted you and you don't know how it feels."

I assume that's what you were getting at. Or were you reviving the Conspiracy to Oppress Women?

	27-04-2004 00:27									#135
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Elok I seriously hope that our country has not sunk so low as to decide whether something should be legal based on the appearance of the people presenting it...anyway, I wasn't "comparing" abortion to pederasty, it was analogous. We all agree that feeling up kids is wrong, and nobody says, "How DARE you sit there, never having felt the immense urge to grope minors yourself, and say what these people are doing is wrong?" If abortion is okay, it isn't so because a bunch of people with a potential reason to want to do it approve. When people insult me I feel the urge to kick them in the nuts. If I give into that urge, I can't get all self-righteous when you yell at me, "because he never insulted you and you don't know how it feels." I assume that's what you were getting at.

Another stellar comparison - assault!

What I was geting at is that it's a woman's issue and, not suprisingly, there where mostly women there to support it. But what I did find surprising was that it seemed to be mostly men who where there to oppose it.

quote: Or were you reviving the Conspiracy to Oppress Women?

I'm not.

	27-04-2004 17:05									#136
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Grr. It's not a comparison, it's an ANALOGY. I'm using an act we can all agree is Not Okay, plugging it in for the debatable, and seeing how the consequences follow; that is, if the factors in question actually affect the propriety of the action if it is unacceptable for other reasons.

But sorry for jumping the gun. This thread started as a Evil Men Scheming to Take Over Our Ovaries troll, and I pre-empted an attack you weren't going to make, as it turns out.

	27-04-2004 17:34									#137
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Elok You're killing the same thing at an earlier stage, regardless. Again, caterpillar and butterfly, still unanswered.....

Gotcha .

The cessation of existence before the existence of existence is not possible . I cannot be killed before I am born , because before I am born , I am not I , or I do not exist as I . You cant kill the same thing at an earlier stage because at an earlier stage the thing isnt the same thing .

	27-04-2004 23:11									#138
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm Gotcha . The cessation of existence before the existence of existence is not possible . I cannot be killed before I am born , because before I am born , I am not I , or I do not exist as I . You cant kill the same thing at an earlier stage because at an earlier stage the thing isnt the same thing .

So, stomping on the larval stage of an endangered species of butterfly does not, or should not, violate any laws? That's basically the analog of the fetus, is it not? It's not the same thing, except it pretty much is.

	27-04-2004 23:57									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Elok So, stomping on the larval stage of an endangered species of butterfly does not, or should not, violate any laws? That's basically the analog of the fetus, is it not? It's not the same thing, except it pretty much is.

But humans aren't an endangered species. Infact, we could use a culling.

	28-04-2004 00:27									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: But humans aren't an endangered species. Infact, we could use a culling.

Technically we are. Overpopulation, pollution, all sorts of crap, that we are wiping ourselves out with. WAR nukes! I'd say that we produce our own endangerment.

	28-04-2004 00:31									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Which is why a culling is neccisary.

	28-04-2004 00:32									#142
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd But humans aren't an endangered species. Infact, we could use a culling.

You first.

	28-04-2004 01:26									#143
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc You first.

I don't trust you enough to make a suicide pact, sorry.

	28-04-2004 01:47									#144
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Have the courage of your convictions!

	28-04-2004 01:49									#145
	Tired of ads?

I believe in not breeding.

	28-04-2004 02:19									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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

Property damage?

I've suffered property damage from the anti-life people.

(Hey, if we're anti-choice, then they have to be anti-life.)

I wonder what you base your assessment on.

quote: 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.

Assumes that we are only dealing with one body here, the woman. If we have 2, then it is not about 'denying autonomy', but rather, that recognising that the rights of one end where another's begin.

	28-04-2004 02:23									#147
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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 .

Considering that prolifers consider abortion to be murder, they would definitely prefer that you give the child up for adoption rather than aborting.

So not a bad solution.

Reinforce the adoption agencies, and streamline them to make them easier to use in exchange for banning abortions.

Sounds like a win/win situation.

	28-04-2004 02:24									#148
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

Then bump the thread in question.

	28-04-2004 02:28									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: 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.

Again, fails to answer my question about the prolife women. If there are prolife women, then what's in it for them?

Secondly, just because you believe zygotes having rights are ridiculous, does not make it so.

	28-04-2004 02:30									#150
	Got spare money?

quote: 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.

C'mon Loin.

Begging the question here.

If you believe personhood to begin at conception, then abortion results in the death of a person. Since this is premediated, it would seem murder is the best category for abortion.

Not that hard.