Oklahoma passes insane abortion measures over veto

[Liberty]

Let me see if I can clarify what I'm trying to say.

I am NOT "pro-life." I think abortion should be perfectly legal, and much more available than it is today. I am also fine with birth control, which is really the solution to the whole abortion issue. Perhaps you didn't read me writing about my switch from pro-life to pro-choice? Yes, I participated in pro-life walks, pro-life dinners, pro-life political campaigns, even ran a pro-life students' group in college. However, I am pro-choice and have been so for the past three years.

And that's not all. While I was raised a fundamentalist, I am NOT one now, and in case you don't know, my family put me through hell when I left their beliefs, and my relationship with them is forever broken. I had to choose between intellectual freedom and my family, and for those of you who thankfully haven't had to make that choice, it sucks. But I'm glad I decided as I did, and I have gone through hell to win the right to think for myself, so lay off. I'm a pro-choice social-democrat atheist for Christ's sake!

Here is what I am saying: Yes, I know that social conservatives are by and large misogynist. Hell, I was raised by them. Didn't I mention that I was literally taught that I was property, and that I must be submissive to male authority? However:

1. Someone claimed that all pro-lifers are white trash, and I used actual evidence to show that that was false. That was never conceded.

2. While social conservatives have an underlying misogyny and for some (or many) that may influence their pro-life views, current pro-life rhetoric and teaching on its face is actually equal towards men and women (or you could say both anti-man and anti-woman; my point is that it isn't just anti-woman). They teach it is wrong for both men and women to have sex outside of marriage. Now, I agree that it's a problem if women get more of a stigma for this than men do, and while I know that in culture at large this is true, in the subculture in which I was raised, this was not the case. It is seen as shameful and wrong equally for both men and women to have premarital relations. Either sullies the perfection of marital sex, of both being virgins on the wedding night, etc. So while many in culture at large and in the conservative movement are not equal here, in intent and in some cases in actuality, it is equal, rather than just anti-woman.

3. If both men and women could get pregnant, the pro-life movement (at least from what I saw from my participation) would have a problem with either having abortion. Either is murder. What's unfair is that men can't get pregnant. And I don't think that's the pro-lifer's fault.

Again, Duckie, I will concede that you do have a point when you say to look at all of their views together. It is unfortunate that some pro-lifers use their anti-abortion views to push women down intentionally. The point I am trying to make is that this is not the case for everyone, and that many many (most?) pro-lifers literally believe that abortion is murder, and that is why the oppose it. Not because they hate women. And they are genuine. You'd be surprised how many honest, kind, devoted, loving pro-life individuals I have known, and not just the fundamentalists I grew up around (who were really on the border between fundamentalist and evangelical) but also the evangelicals and Catholics I have known since leaving home.

Duckie, if you come up with some real evidence, besides just your assertion, say evidence that pro-lifers wouldn't oppose men having abortions if they could get pregnant, or that pro-lifers don't care if men have extramarital sex, or that pro-lifers say they oppose abortion to shame women for having sex rather than because they believe it is murder...I'm open.

[Anguirus]

Just because they are just as misandrist doesn't make them less misogynist.

How is it meaningful to speak of a movement (or a person) that is misandrist and misogynist? That's a little bit like being "racist against all races."

Further, western culture is disproportionately against female sexuality compared to male sexuality. You can analyse them in a vacuum, but it doesn't make fundamentalist culture occur in one.

This brush tars any Western-derived school of thought you care to name.

I believe that Christianity as an ethical system is at best flawed and at worst horrifying, being anti-sex and often anti-woman. However, Liberty is correct in that it is not sufficient to tar ideas with other ideas that are often associated with them and thus dismiss the first idea out of hand. I've known pro-lifers who aren't Christian at all, they just take an absolutist view of the zygote (which is also at least as good an explanation for opposing RU-486 as misogyny), possibly coupled with a draconian view of personal responsibility.

[Paradox_Fanatic]

Imagine ... one morning you wake up shocked to discover that you are not in your bedroom, but in a hospital room. A doctor informs you that you were drugged to keep you unconscious and were abducted. You have tubes connected from your body to a form on another bed. The doctor explains that your abductors are members of a classical music appreciation society, and that the person in the adjoining bed is the greatest violinist in the world. The doctor informs you that the violinist has a fatal kidney ailment, that you have been found to be the one person in the world who is sufficiently compatible with his system for your kidneys to filter his blood while he recovers from his ailment. His recovery will only take about nine months. You are informed that you do have a choice in the matter. You can choose to have the tubes disconnected and leave the hospital. If you choose to do this, however, the violinist will die. Or you can give up a mere nine months of your life.

Okay, maybe I'm being blind, but this seems like a dishonest analogy to make for abortion. One MAJOR difference, is that there is no choice with regards to being hooked up to the violinist as compared to the choice of a women to have sex (exception for rape). When this is such a key component of pro-life arguments, it seems like more than bit of an omission. From what pro-lifers I've encountered, and the laws that tend to be forced through, rape (which is what this situations is describing), is usually made an exception. Now, whether its logical or not to have an exception for rape is a question in and of itself, but that doesn't make this a good analogy. The other difference is that you are not biologically responsible for the violinist's situation. The violinist was hooked up (to a complete stranger), against your will, using artificial methods. There is also the fact that most of the pro-life movement (as far as I've seen) stops caring about a person after their born. Which means they will have a fundamentally different view of the life of an adult versus that of a fetus with regards to your responsibility for it and its "right to life."
And from my personal perspective, it is a flawed analogy because you have far MORE reason to save the violinist than a fetus and because it is a one-off thing, as opposed to the lengthy process of child-rearing. I would view it as highly unethical to let him die. I also think the people you abducted you and attached you should be thrown into jail for the rest of their natural lives, but it does seem quite a bit more unethical to let the violinist die as opposed to a fetus. I think the analogy would work better if you had the doctor come to your house and present you with the options as opposed to abduction, and if you made it someone who might need future support as opposed to a one-time thing for an adult.

If it works great, but I don't think its a very good analogy.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Okay, maybe I'm being blind, but this seems like a dishonest analogy to make for abortion. One MAJOR difference, is that there is no choice with regards to being hooked up to the violinist as compared to the choice of a women to have sex (exception for rape). When this is such a key component of pro-life arguments, it seems like more than bit of an omission. From what pro-lifers I've encountered, and the laws that tend to be forced through, rape (which is what this situations is describing), is usually made an exception. Now, whether its logical or not to have an exception for rape is a question in and of itself, but that doesn't make this a good analogy. The other difference is that you are not biologically responsible for the violinist's situation. The violinist was hooked up (to a complete stranger), against your will, using artificial methods. There is also the fact that most of the pro-life movement (as far as I've seen) stops caring about a person after their born. Which means they will have a fundamentally different view of the life of an adult versus that of a fetus with regards to your responsibility for it and its "right to life."
And from my personal perspective, it is a flawed analogy because you have far MORE reason to save the violinist than a fetus and because it is a one-off thing, as opposed to the lengthy process of child-rearing. I would view it as highly unethical to let him die. I also think the people you abducted you and attached you should be thrown into jail for the rest of their natural lives, but it does seem quite a bit more unethical to let the violinist die as opposed to a fetus. I think the analogy would work better if you had the doctor come to your house and present you with the options as opposed to abduction, and if you made it someone who might need future support as opposed to a one-time thing for an adult.

If it works great, but I don't think its a very good analogy.

Wow. Did you read the rest of my fucking post?

Protip: go back to primary school.

This analogy pits the right of one individual to live vs the right of another to control their own body. The conclusion of the argument is obvious (to rights ethicists anyway, I admit that as someone who is not a rights theorist at all my using it is disingenuous, but I use it to isolate something else entirely. Namely, their attitude toward women). The violnist has no right to impose on the woman in that fashion and she is ethically OK if she pulls the plug. If a person is not a misogynist, they will backpedal (usually claiming that this situation is more akin to rape... I have a response for that in a second) or switch to non-rights based ethical systems like Kantian Deontology or Virtue Ethics. If they are a misogynist, and they almost always are, they will claim that the woman gave up her right to her body the moment she got into bed with someone. To which I respond that consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy.

I then take the analogy a step further and posit a case where spores enter through open windows in an area with no air conditioning and impregnate women at random. The misogynists will go straight for the bait and say that the woman should have just stuck it out and closed the window if she did not want to get pregnant. This controls for the active consent necessary to voluntarily get into bed with someone. Even then, the woman gives up her rights with a passive action. This indicates that they really do devalue women in this respect, when even performing a mundane action such as opening a window women give up their right to self determination. When, if I were to pose the original violinist analogy outside the context of an abortion argument these same people would be vigorously defending the mans right to pull the plug on said violinist.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Just because they are just as misandrist doesn't make them less misogynist.

How is it meaningful to speak of a movement (or a person) that is misandrist and misogynist? That's a little bit like being "racist against all races."

They can have different reasons for hating/discriminating either gender. There's a catch-all term for people who are both misandrist and misogynist for generally the same reasons: They're misanthropic.

[Darth Wong]

Here is what I am saying: Yes, I know that social conservatives are by and large misogynist. Hell, I was raised by them. Didn't I mention that I was literally taught that I was property, and that I must be submissive to male authority? However:

1. Someone claimed that all pro-lifers are white trash, and I used actual evidence to show that that was false. That was never conceded.

Was that actually intended to be an absolute literal statement, or just an overzealous description of the demographic bulge of right-wing religious attitudes among rural and uneducated voters?

2. While social conservatives have an underlying misogyny and for some (or many) that may influence their pro-life views, current pro-life rhetoric and teaching on its face is actually equal towards men and women (or you could say both anti-man and anti-woman; my point is that it isn't just anti-woman). They teach it is wrong for both men and women to have sex outside of marriage. Now, I agree that it's a problem if women get more of a stigma for this than men do, and while I know that in culture at large this is true, in the subculture in which I was raised, this was not the case. It is seen as shameful and wrong equally for both men and women to have premarital relations. Either sullies the perfection of marital sex, of both being virgins on the wedding night, etc. So while many in culture at large and in the conservative movement are not equal here, in intent and in some cases in actuality, it is equal, rather than just anti-woman.

I would disagree, at least when it comes to the majority of "moderate" anti-abortionists. While there is a hard-line group which is absolutist and brooks no exceptions, the majority of anti-abortionists are more conciliatory in cases of rape. Yet the existence of this exception is itself misogynist! Surely, if one truly believes that abortion is murder, then it would not be acceptable even in cases of rape. You would never allow a rape victim to kill her newborn child, for example. So if one believes that abortion is more acceptable for a rape victim than "as a form of birth control", then his opposition to abortion is NOT really about "fetal rights", but in reality, it's actually about punishing women for sexual promiscuity.

3. If both men and women could get pregnant, the pro-life movement (at least from what I saw from my participation) would have a problem with either having abortion. Either is murder. What's unfair is that men can't get pregnant. And I don't think that's the pro-lifer's fault.

See above. There is a very clear undercurrent of misogyny in the so-called "pro-life" movement, as evidenced by the fact that their moral outrage varies depending on how the baby was conceived. Ironically, however, the extremists are less vulnerable to this accusation than the so-called moderates.

Again, Duckie, I will concede that you do have a point when you say to look at all of their views together. It is unfortunate that some pro-lifers use their anti-abortion views to push women down intentionally. The point I am trying to make is that this is not the case for everyone, and that many many (most?) pro-lifers literally believe that abortion is murder, and that is why the oppose it. Not because they hate women. And they are genuine. You'd be surprised how many honest, kind, devoted, loving pro-life individuals I have known, and not just the fundamentalists I grew up around (who were really on the border between fundamentalist and evangelical) but also the evangelicals and Catholics I have known since leaving home.

Frankly, there is no such thing as an honest "pro-lifer". If a "pro-lifer" was honest, he would call himself what he actually is: an anti-abortionist. The very term "pro-life" is a form of dishonest propaganda. It's even worse when it's used by people who are OK with war and capital punishment.

Duckie, if you come up with some real evidence, besides just your assertion, say evidence that pro-lifers wouldn't oppose men having abortions if they could get pregnant, or that pro-lifers don't care if men have extramarital sex, or that pro-lifers say they oppose abortion to shame women for having sex rather than because they believe it is murder...I'm open.

As I said, any "pro-lifer" who softens or removes his condemnation for rape victims seeking abortion is tacitly admitting that his opposition to abortion is actually about womens' sexual promiscuity rather than whatever "fetal rights" nonsense he blathers on about.

PS. Even abortions in cases of health risk should not be acceptable if one takes that "fetal murder" nonsense seriously. Surely, one would not allow a person to kill another person just to lower his own risk of a health problem. By that logic, if I need a liver, I am justified in killing you to take yours.

[Liberty]

I would disagree, at least when it comes to the majority of "moderate" anti-abortionists. While there is a hard-line group which is absolutist and brooks no exceptions, the majority of anti-abortionists are more conciliatory in cases of rape. Yet the existence of this exception is itself misogynist! Surely, if one truly believes that abortion is murder, then it would not be acceptable even in cases of rape. You would never allow a rape victim to kill her newborn child, for example. So if one believes that abortion is more acceptable for a rape victim than "as a form of birth control", then his opposition to abortion is NOT really about "fetal rights", but in reality, it's actually about punishing women for sexual promiscuity.

3. If both men and women could get pregnant, the pro-life movement (at least from what I saw from my participation) would have a problem with either having abortion. Either is murder. What's unfair is that men can't get pregnant. And I don't think that's the pro-lifer's fault.

See above. There is a very clear undercurrent of misogyny in the so-called "pro-life" movement, as evidenced by the fact that their moral outrage varies depending on how the baby was conceived. Ironically, however, the extremists are less vulnerable to this accusation than the so-called moderates.

Those who make an exception for rape and incest are logically flawed. I don't understand them. I have known hundreds of anti-abortion advocates, and none of them have had an exception for rape or incest. I know stats say a majority of those against abortion do make the exception, and that makes me wonder - have they thought that through? Yes, I have a problem with anti-abortion advocates who make that exception.

However, there are plenty of anti-abortion advocates who don't allow exceptions because of their belief that it is murder. And these ones are equal in their treatment - terminating a fetus is murder and sex outside of marriage is sin. How is that based in misogyny?

Frankly, there is no such thing as an honest "pro-lifer". If a "pro-lifer" was honest, he would call himself what he actually is: an anti-abortionist. The very term "pro-life" is a form of dishonest propaganda. It's even worse when it's used by people who are OK with war and capital punishment.

I am perfectly aware of that, and you will note that in my earlier posts I called them "anti-abortion advocates." However, that takes three times as long to type, so when my posts were longer I reverted to the simpler (though disingenuous) term "pro-lifer." I will revert to the earlier term and suck it up and type it out.

[Channel72]

So if one believes that abortion is more acceptable for a rape victim than "as a form of birth control", then his opposition to abortion is NOT really about "fetal rights", but in reality, it's actually about punishing women for sexual promiscuity.

Your argument here assumes that most anti-abortionists have actually reasoned out their position. I think the evangelical/fundamentalist aversion to abortion is more a result of their overall conviction that human life is always sacred, rather than a desire to punish promiscuity. Consider their bizarre reaction to the Terri Schiavo incident and their stance against euthanasia. The fact that some moderate anti-abortionists concede that abortion is justified for rape victims is merely a reflection of the fact that most human beings don't bother to remain logically consistent in the face of conflicting emotional reactions.

[Mayabird]

Those who make an exception for rape and incest are logically flawed. I don't understand them. I have known hundreds of anti-abortion advocates, and none of them have had an exception for rape or incest. I know stats say a majority of those against abortion do make the exception, and that makes me wonder - have they thought that through? Yes, I have a problem with anti-abortion advocates who make that exception.

Liberty, I already mentioned this, but I'm going to have to up it a bit. Nothing about your childhood was normal, and everything about it was incredibly skewed, and that probably goes for pretty much everything you learned during that time. Most people don't have ten kids and are surrounded by other families that also have ten kids. Most fundamentalists/evangelicals don't crack open their own holy book except maybe to pages they were told to by someone else and then only read the couple lines they were assigned. Most people aren't logically consistent in their views because they never once think about what they actually believe and they truly, truly don't give a shit about doing so. They just don't care. They can have completely contradictory views on the same thing, but the doublethink can work just fine because they never activate their higher processing centers, ever. In my experience they were trained from birth to work very hard at not thinking about anything.

[SirNitram]

After sleep, a clear head, and relaxation, I wish to publically apologize, Liberty. I did jump to assumptions, offensive ones, and I should instead have been glad one more person moving to the idea that a woman's body is her own. I apologize for my offense, and I would hope that you forgive me at some point.

However, I will move to some points I really feel must be observed.

1) An anecdote is better than no data. This is, I suppose, technically true. However, this assumes the Pro-Life movement is a hermetically sealed entity. It isn't. We can walk around or read and find alot about them, ranging from a group which provides consultation on abortion(In the pro-life advocacy alone) and cutting.. And puts them together in a statement. That doesn't inspire much, but this would be a single data point and useless if it were everything. But we also have The Pill Kills(Because apparently pre-zygotes need rights), terrorists like the one that recently killed Tiller, etc.

2) Abortion is murder. Doesn't quite follow with the laws the pro-life movement wants. They want to make the woman see and hear and be restricted and treated like a walking womb before they let it happen, but it's doctor's who are targetted. If Abortion = Murder, then seeking an abortion = hiring a hitman.

[Liberty]

After sleep, a clear head, and relaxation, I wish to publically apologize, Liberty. I did jump to assumptions, offensive ones, and I should instead have been glad one more person moving to the idea that a woman's body is her own. I apologize for my offense, and I would hope that you forgive me at some point.

Done.

However, I will move to some points I really feel must be observed.

1) An anecdote is better than no data. This is, I suppose, technically true. However, this assumes the Pro-Life movement is a hermetically sealed entity. It isn't. We can walk around or read and find alot about them, ranging from a group which provides consultation on abortion(In the pro-life advocacy alone) and cutting.. And puts them together in a statement. That doesn't inspire much, but this would be a single data point and useless if it were everything. But we also have The Pill Kills(Because apparently pre-zygotes need rights), terrorists like the one that recently killed Tiller, etc.

I think this thread is only going in circles, so let me try to clarify what I am saying once again. All I am saying is that the anti-abortion movement does not exist solely as an attempt to shame women. Rather, a subsection of the anti-abortion movement literally believes that all abortion is murder and that all sex outside of marriage is sin, and they act on that. It's not overtly or necessarily anti-woman, and only ends up being repressive to women because only women can get pregnant. In addition, another (admittedly small) subsection of the anti-abortion movement is not even religious (as was mentioned earlier by someone else). Again, not all anti-abortion advocates are anti-woman. That's all I'm trying to say.

2) Abortion is murder. Doesn't quite follow with the laws the pro-life movement wants. They want to make the woman see and hear and be restricted and treated like a walking womb before they let it happen, but it's doctor's who are targetted. If Abortion = Murder, then seeking an abortion = hiring a hitman.

Would you believe that Christian reconstructionists want to stone every woman who has had an abortion as a murderer? I think the main reason anti-abortion advocates target the doctors with their wrath rather than the women (usually) is that they see the women (to some extent) as victims, misled by pro-choicers and the "abortion industry." This is why they want women to see ultrasounds and hear their fetuses described; if these women only realized that their fetuses were people, after all, they wouldn't choose abortion.

Liberty, I already mentioned this, but I'm going to have to up it a bit. Nothing about your childhood was normal, and everything about it was incredibly skewed, and that probably goes for pretty much everything you learned during that time. Most people don't have ten kids and are surrounded by other families that also have ten kids. Most fundamentalists/evangelicals don't crack open their own holy book except maybe to pages they were told to by someone else and then only read the couple lines they were assigned.

I hear you saying that, but I have to wonder, is there then something odd about Indiana? I grew up around hundreds, of people, multiple hundreds, who believed and acted just as my parents did (though most had fewer children; five was the norm). I went away to college, became involved in Campus Crusade for Christ (not my best moment), and met scores of college students who believed and acted as I did. In my research on local homeschoolers for my master's thesis (not in the city where I grew up), I met dozens more families who were just like my parents. Unless something is odd about Indiana, there is a sizable subset of fundamentalists/evangelicals who do believe and act as my parents. While I have eschewed all of their beliefs, I at least understand (from experience) the mentalite of this group.

I think the evangelical/fundamentalist aversion to abortion is more a result of their overall conviction that human life is always sacred, rather than a desire to punish promiscuity. Consider their bizarre reaction to the Terri Schiavo incident and their stance against euthanasia. The fact that some moderate anti-abortionists concede that abortion is justified for rape victims is merely a reflection of the fact that most human beings don't bother to remain logically consistent in the face of conflicting emotional reactions.

I agree, while I would point out that there are also some evangelicals/fundamentalists who are misogynist. Unfortunately, I don't know how you could measure or find stats on what percentage of anti-abortion advocates hold their beliefs based primarily on the belief that fetuses are children verses based primarily on misogyny. And again, it may be that because only women can get pregnant, the anti-abortion movement in result turns out to be inherently misogynist; however, the result is not the same as the intent.

[General Mung Beans]

I support four of the five laws with the exception of the one protecting doctors from lawsuits if they do not talk about the fetus' handicaps. I furthermore think fetuses are human life and thus abortion should be illegal except to the save the life of the mother. At the same time I acknowledge that such a unilateral ban will not work as well as some believe (although it will almost certainly reduce the number of absolute abortions) and thus that social policy should be readied to help mothers and their newborn children and one of the more workable methods include both encouraging morality (ie encouraging married families) and limited expansion of government programs in strategic areas of this. I also think the idea "Pro-Lifers/Anti-Abortionists Are Misogynist" argument is rubbish as if pro-lifers/anti-abortionists were really misogynist they would prefer to allow the fathers of the fetuses to perform abortions if they wish.

[Liberty]

I furthermore think fetuses are human life and thus abortion should be illegal except to the save the life of the mother.

Please define "human life." What is necessary for something to have "human life"?

[Anguirus]

I support four of the five laws

Then your avatar was well-chosen. The law that posts women's information online is not only unlikely to withstand a court challenge under federal law, it's also the most dickishly mean-spirited law in my recent memory.

I furthermore think fetuses are human life and thus abortion should be illegal except to the save the life of the mother.

That's inconsistent with the position that a fetus and a mother are of equal worth. Do you have a justification for your position?

At the same time I acknowledge that such a unilateral ban will not work as well as some believe (although it will almost certainly reduce the number of absolute abortions)

Evidence?

encouraging morality (ie encouraging married families)

I don't suppose you might...rephrase that? My girlfriend and I have no current plans to marry. Current evidence suggests that I'm a better person than you, so I'm not at all sure you should be implying that we are immoral. This just sounds like religious "fornication is a sin" bullshit, so in conclusion die in a fire.

I also think the idea "Pro-Lifers/Anti-Abortionists Are Misogynist" argument is rubbish as if pro-lifers/anti-abortionists were really misogynist they would prefer to allow the fathers of the fetuses to perform abortions if they wish.

A...bizarre idea to be sure. Your grasp of human sexual biology is perhaps even more appealing than your sexual ethics and debating skills. How exactly can a father abort his own fetus? Such a procedure necessarily involves the mother.

Or is this some sort of do-it-yourself abortion clinic, where if you put a baby in there, you can abort it legally as long as you perform the procedure on your partner yourself!

I don't believe in a 1:1 correlation of anti-abortionism and misogyny myself, but all that you have established is that such policies are not OPENLY misogynist.

[Simon_Jester]

I support four of the five laws with the exception of the one protecting doctors from lawsuits if they do not talk about the fetus' handicaps.

Do you favor forcing women to have vaginal sonograms against their will if this is necessary to show the maximum level of detail on their six-week fetus, so that they can be suitably lectured on the fetus's widdle bitty fingers and toes?

The proto-gill slits will, I assume, go unmentioned, as will the tail.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I also think the idea "Pro-Lifers/Anti-Abortionists Are Misogynist" argument is rubbish as if pro-lifers/anti-abortionists were really misogynist they would prefer to allow the fathers of the fetuses to perform abortions if they wish.

Wait, what?

So... if I'm getting this right, you believe that someone cannot be misogynist unless they do or support something completely insane that demonstrates it? Let's apply this logic to other areas, shall we?

You cannot be racist unless you hang a black man in public.
You cannot be a sociopath unless you kill a man in a subway for five dollars.
You cannot be abusive in a relationship unless you hit your significant other in the face with a frying pan.
You cannot be apathetic unless you just sit there and watch while a child drowns in front of you.

[SirNitram]

All I am saying is that the anti-abortion movement does not exist solely as an attempt to shame women.

If anyone on this board honestly said every single person in the movement was out to hate women as filthy sluts or chattle, they deserve a bonk on the head. That being said, one shouldn't need to put disclaimers for such comments.

[Serafina]

I furthermore think fetuses are human life and thus abortion should be illegal except to the save the life of the mother.

They are human life alright - in the same way that your skin cells are human life or your sperm.

A fetus is however in no way comparable to a baby (later during pregnancy or after birth) since it literary is no more intelligent/self-aware/able to feel pain than most insects. The brain and nervous system are just not developed yet (remember, we are talking about early-term abortions here).

So what's your basis for saying "it's human life"?
Genetics? Again, that applies to all cells in your body - should we sue your for killing a "human being" if you accidentally cut yourself?
Cognitive functions? A Fetus doesn't have any (see above)
It's a "potential life"? So is every sperm and egg cell - should we take steps that every one of those is "allowed to grow up"?
A Fetus is no more capable of doing that on it's own than any of those.

Face it - killing a fetus (and yes, of course you kill it) is no more comparable to killing a human being than destroying any cells in your body is.


Let me repeat a question that came up earlier in this thread:
A fertility clinic is on fire.
Inside are:
-a little child (let's say a 12-year old girl)
-a box with 500 fertilised, frozen human egg cells - all of those could grow into a fetus and finally a baby if they are implanted.
You can only safe one of those and no one else is around to help - you have to decide which one you want to safe.
So, which one is it going to be?

[Liberty]

All I am saying is that the anti-abortion movement does not exist solely as an attempt to shame women.

If anyone on this board honestly said every single person in the movement was out to hate women as filthy sluts or chattle, they deserve a bonk on the head. That being said, one shouldn't need to put disclaimers for such comments.

Some people in this thread did say that, though; I've quoted some below:

They dont care about children. Rather, all they want is to punish women for being sluts. Even rape victims. <snip> The slutty little Jezebels must be punished for leading men into sin and then having the audacity to kill an innocent baby who after it is born is under the Lord's Protection, not theirs!

It doesn't make sense if the goal is to protect the fetus, only if the goal is to punish the mother (who is not sinful enough to be punished if it was rape).

As others have said, Deep down what the Anti Abortion movement is really about, is Punishment, Shame and Power.

Regardless of whether the footsoldiers of the movement are aware of it, Anti-abortion is a movement around a philosophy that only makes sense in the context of Slut Shaming.

My point was to show that there are those who oppose abortion based solely on their belief that fetuses are people, rather than based on misogyny. The fact that there are even a (very) few anti-abortion advocates that are not religious shows that the anti-abortion movement does not only make sense in the context of "Slut Shaming." On the contrary, if someone believes that a fetus is fully human, fully a person, their anti-abortion beliefs make perfect sense, no "slut shaming" involved.

Again, I agree that many many (most?) anti-abortion advocates are misogynyst, and that for some of them that may be the reason for their anti-abortion sentiments.

encouraging morality (ie encouraging married families)

I don't suppose you might...rephrase that? My girlfriend and I have no current plans to marry. Current evidence suggests that I'm a better person than you, so I'm not at all sure you should be implying that we are immoral. This just sounds like religious "fornication is a sin" bullshit, so in conclusion die in a fire.

Mung Beans has stated in another thread that he believes that the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God, and that he believes based on faith. He also stated on another thread that he was ultra-conservative politically. My analysis therefore is that he is a fundamentalist. So yes, he is simply spewing the religious "fornication is a sin" bullshit.

I will warn that in the thread where he discussed his religious beliefs (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=141859) he didn't respond to people's questions with more than a "because I believe it," and then he ran away when people kept pushing him to back up what he was saying.

[Darth Wong]

Those who make an exception for rape and incest are logically flawed. I don't understand them. I have known hundreds of anti-abortion advocates, and none of them have had an exception for rape or incest. I know stats say a majority of those against abortion do make the exception, and that makes me wonder - have they thought that through? Yes, I have a problem with anti-abortion advocates who make that exception.

Of course they haven't thought that through. But no religious person has actually logically thought through his position; that is the nature of religion. If you really say down and coldly applied logic to religion, you would be forced to conclude that your religion is no more valid than any goofball foreign belief system you normally make fun of.

However, there are plenty of anti-abortion advocates who don't allow exceptions because of their belief that it is murder. And these ones are equal in their treatment - terminating a fetus is murder and sex outside of marriage is sin. How is that based in misogyny?

It's not based intellectually and rationally in misogyny, but that's a red herring because none of this is based on any kind of intellectual and rational foundation. It's all emotion and faith. Their belief system is drawn from a tribal mentality where they accept all of the claims of the tribe, and that particular tribe happens to be deeply misogynist. You can't separate that attitude from any particular position they hold by pointing out the lack of logical deduction from point A to point B, because none of those positions are based on logical deduction in the first place. They're based on tribal affiliation, and this is a misogynist tribe.

Frankly, anyone who takes the Bible as an "inerrant" source of wisdom and morality and claims not to be misogynist is lying. The Bible itself is deeply misogynist, and since the hard-line anti-abortionists are always fundies, it is a perfectly reasonable statement to declare that they too are misogynists.

That's why I don't think it's unreasonable to declare the anti-abortion movement to be misogynist. The "moderate" anti-abortionists vary their level of outrage depending on the woman's sexual purity, and the extremists are all fundies, and fundies are misogynist by virtue of declaring that a misogynist book represents perfect morality.

[Darth Wong]

I support four of the five laws with the exception of the one protecting doctors from lawsuits if they do not talk about the fetus' handicaps. I furthermore think fetuses are human life and thus abortion should be illegal except to the save the life of the mother. At the same time I acknowledge that such a unilateral ban will not work as well as some believe (although it will almost certainly reduce the number of absolute abortions) and thus that social policy should be readied to help mothers and their newborn children and one of the more workable methods include both encouraging morality (ie encouraging married families) and limited expansion of government programs in strategic areas of this. I also think the idea "Pro-Lifers/Anti-Abortionists Are Misogynist" argument is rubbish as if pro-lifers/anti-abortionists were really misogynist they would prefer to allow the fathers of the fetuses to perform abortions if they wish.

Would you support a woman with a failing liver killing her child for his liver? It seems to me that you're tacitly admitting that you do not consider a fetus truly equivalent to a child, by virtue of making an exception for saving the life of the mother.

PS. Have you ever written an argumentative essay in your life? All you ever do is state your opinion, your belief, your faith, without justifying it at all. How old are you? Have you ever gone to school?

[Paradox_Fanatic]

Wow. Did you read the rest of my fucking post?

Protip: go back to primary school.

This analogy pits the right of one individual to live vs the right of another to control their own body. The conclusion of the argument is obvious (to rights ethicists anyway, I admit that as someone who is not a rights theorist at all my using it is disingenuous, but I use it to isolate something else entirely. Namely, their attitude toward women). The violnist has no right to impose on the woman in that fashion and she is ethically OK if she pulls the plug. If a person is not a misogynist, they will backpedal (usually claiming that this situation is more akin to rape... I have a response for that in a second) or switch to non-rights based ethical systems like Kantian Deontology or Virtue Ethics. If they are a misogynist, and they almost always are, they will claim that the woman gave up her right to her body the moment she got into bed with someone. To which I respond that consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy.

I then take the analogy a step further and posit a case where spores enter through open windows in an area with no air conditioning and impregnate women at random. The misogynists will go straight for the bait and say that the woman should have just stuck it out and closed the window if she did not want to get pregnant. This controls for the active consent necessary to voluntarily get into bed with someone. Even then, the woman gives up her rights with a passive action. This indicates that they really do devalue women in this respect, when even performing a mundane action such as opening a window women give up their right to self determination. When, if I were to pose the original violinist analogy outside the context of an abortion argument these same people would be vigorously defending the mans right to pull the plug on said violinist.

However this analogy only works as an extension if they are extreme misogynists. The logical counter is that being impregnated is not a well-known and predictable side effect of opening the window. Having sex is an action that has the well-known and frequent side effect of pregnancy. This is a terrible analogy UNLESS this is a situation where spores do this all time. In which case it would be an active decision to open the window (though I'm at a loss as to how such ha situation would occur). The fact that stupid opponents say what you want in response doesn't make your analogy a good or accurate one. Nor does this address the issues of rape, stage of life (adult vs fetus), and artificiality that I brought up with regards to your first analogy.

[Darth Wong]

Who cares about these damned analogies? The point is that religious fanatics have precisely jack shit for evidence to support their ridiculous belief that a clump of cells with no brain stem is a person, or that there is such a thing as a "soul" which is injected into it at the moment of conception.

[Paradox_Fanatic]

He said he used this analogy frequently in public debates, and used in this discussion, so I felt I should point out what I feel are flaws in his argument. I dislike it when poor analogies or arguments are used and tolerated simply because people (such as myself) agree with them, and I thought this one was a fairly inaccurate analogy.

That we agree about the nature of a fetus doesn't make it irrelevant (or at least I don't think so).

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

A...bizarre idea to be sure. Your grasp of human sexual biology is perhaps even more appealing than your sexual ethics and debating skills. How exactly can a father abort his own fetus? Such a procedure necessarily involves the mother.

Umm, I feel kinda dirty for being able to think of this, but I'm pretty sure a good, solid kick to the mother's stomach would do the job.

Evil, yes, but if you don't consider women to be people...