The Prenatal Holocaust

[hey]

Where is the subjective gray area? Killing an under-developed human is murder. Seems pretty simple to me. Also, how do you know that souls don't exist?

Uh, it could be murder. Depends on why you do it. If you kill it just for the lulz, then sure, that's murder. If you do it to get rid of a parasite infesting your body, then it's basically self defense, and thus not murder.

[Indeed]

I'm talking about the potential for that to expand to become a serious threat to pretty much everyone, everywhere. Right now it's a minor problem compared to what it would be if we doubled the current population of the earth.

[hey]

Personally, I fully support limiting the number of children one can have and restricting who is allowed to procreate -- even if that means that I personally fall into the group that isn't allowed to procreate. There is a point where you have to consider the fact that creating more people actually does affect everyone else in a real way. It's not something that can be shrugged off forever. With the population of the world continuing to grow exponentially, at some point, we will have to cull the population. We can either let shit get totally fucking out of hand because it's somehow more acceptable in the eyes of God and moralists to die of starvation, exposure, war, whatever.; or we can accept the responsibility of limiting ourselves in the very same way that we regulate other populations on earth to prevent them from destroying habitats and other species. It's really that simple. Everything on earth isn't infinite, but our ability to fuck and conceive is. At some point, we will answer for that.

I don't think we're at the point where we need to decide who is allowed to procreate yet, but limiting the amount of children people are allowed to have should probably have already been done.

[Indeed]

I don't think we're at the point where we need to decide who is allowed to procreate yet, but limiting the amount of children people are allowed to have should probably have already been done.

I agree. I'm simply saying that eventually, if the world's population continues to grow unchecked, there will come a time when we will have to act, and this whole argument about keeping every single baby and every life having infinite value and sanctity will be unmasked as the bullshit it is.

[Kohan]

Where is the subjective gray area? Killing an under-developed human is murder. Seems pretty simple to me. Also, how do you know that souls don't exist?

Oh, you're back—or at least, you've started responding when it's easy for you to do so, since you're utterly incapable of challenging the intellectuals on this forum, not to mention greater minds residing within the halls of your own religion. It must be soul-crushing to be so terrible at everything.

You know, though, even backwater sons of bitches who crawl back after having their asses handed to them should know what good food tastes like. So when you cook up a baby, what kind of BBQ sauce would you eat it with: Kansas City style, the Carolinas style, or another one?

I don't know if the aforementioned penis cuttings turned pork cracklings would be too much for a side dish, but I suppose that we could whip up some interesting form of potato salad using fetus remains. It's like potato salad with bacon bits, but with crispy baby pieces instead.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Age of "viability" wouldn't matter at all if dudes had to push babies out of their peeholes.

Stop uttering this nonsense. Abortion isn't an issue where all women are of unanimous agreement, nor one where men are unanimously opposed. My wife and sisters are far, far more vehemently anti-abortion than I am. By contrast, my brother-in-law is vehemently pro-choice. It's not an issue of people hate women and want them controlled. It's a matter of they believe that it's a human life at conception, and that human life is sacred. There are, without question, people who are pro-life because they are misogynists. There are also people who are pro-choice because they really fracking hate the human race and the more people who are killed, in their eyes, the better, and they don't give one wit about your right to control your body-- they would just as happily force abortions on more people.

You can feel free to disagree with their perspective, but stop trying to define it for them in misogynist terms. Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is a hateful bigot.

[ronin sparthos]

Condoms are hard to get? news to me.

Edit:
It think right now there is enough material for anyone to know about proper sexual education, there is an over exposure of sexual stuff in the media sure, but there is enough material in civilized areas, its people that is lazy.

And of course, can't do shit about secluded tribes/villages/etc, but then again those places seem to control their population better than the 'civilized' world.

Current sex ed classes are a huge subject of contention in the states, education amongst teens is pathetic to say the least and the problem isn't laziness moreso obstructionist adults who try their hardest to keep their children ignorant as fuck in order to keep them in line with their value system. Your chances of being knowledgeable on the subject of sex boils down to a dice roll involving schools, your parents and personal experiences and personal information searches.

To say that teen pregnancy is simply laziness is just not fair given the failure to streamline education across the US.

[Kohan]

Abortion isn't an issue where all women are of unanimous agreement, nor one where men are unanimously opposed.

Unfortunately, this is true. A large percentage of women support outlawing abortion. The fact that men are often responsible for passing bills related to these things isn't because they're being outright misogynist (though they very well may be), but because the majority of political positions are populated by men, making them responsible by default.

I don't think anyone supports outlawing barbeque, though, male or female. What do you say about our all making peace over a baby on a spit?

[Sera]

You can feel free to disagree with their perspective, but stop trying to define it for them in misogynist terms. Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is a hateful bigot.

You're right -- but I'd be willing to bet most of the ones making laws about it are.
Edit: I should say, trying to make laws against it.

Oh, you're back—or at least, you've started responding when it's easy for you to do so, since you're utterly incapable of challenging the intellectuals on this forum, not to mention greater minds residing within the halls of your own religion. It must be soul-crushing to be so terrible at everything.

I kind of find it amusing. He's not been man enough to come at any of my points even once.

Maybe he doesn't talk to murderers! ha.

[Indeed]

Stop uttering this nonsense. Abortion isn't an issue where all women are of unanimous agreement, nor one where men are unanimously opposed. My wife and sisters are far, far more vehemently anti-abortion than I am. By contrast, my brother-in-law is vehemently pro-choice. It's not an issue of people hate women and want them controlled. It's a matter of they believe that it's a human life at conception, and that human life is sacred. There are, without question, people who are pro-life because they are misogynists. There are also people who are pro-choice because they really fracking hate the human race and the more people who are killed, in their eyes, the better, and they don't give one wit about your right to control your body-- they would just as happily force abortions on more people.

You can feel free to disagree with their perspective, but stop trying to define it for them in misogynist terms. Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is a hateful bigot.

Have to disagree with you there. I believe that most people who believe both that life begins at conception AND that all human lives are totally sacred, are either religious or have had religious influences that shaped their perception of morality. I don't know what else believes that human life is more sacred than other forms of life, or why. Religion is decidedly anti-woman, or at the very least anti-autonomous woman, and this is a theme among many religious beliefs throughout history, dating back to even Greek mythology. I truly believe that women are encouraged through these channels to surrender their rights to make decisions and live as autonomous human beings, to men. I feel truly sorry for anyone who doesn't have the capability to recognize that for themselves. Anyone who says differently is simply cherry-picking the parts of religion that they like, and is probably not even entirely aware that they've been influenced by a greatly misogynist force. The beliefs that life is sacred still springs from a belief that seeks to oppress women in other ways; who is to say this is not also a construct simply designed to control?

[Greatguardian]

What do you say about our all making peace over a baby on a spit?

Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: Of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: Of using neither clothes, nor household furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture: Of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury: Of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idleness, and gaming in our women: Of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance: Of learning to love our country, wherein we differ even from Laplanders, and the inhabitants of Topinamboo: Of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews, who were murdering one another at the very moment their city was taken: Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing: Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants. Lastly, of putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shop-keepers, who, if a resolution could now be taken to buy only our native goods, would immediately unite to cheat and exact upon us in the price, the measure, and the goodness, nor could ever yet be brought to make one fair proposal of just dealing, though often and earnestly invited to it. Therefore I repeat, let no man talk to me of these and the like expedients, 'till he hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.

[Yugl]

Religion is decidedly anti-woman, or at the very least anti-autonomous woman

Western religion *

You're simply wrong if you include any religion. In fact, it's arguable that western culture rather than religion is the real cause.

[Kohan]

Indeed has touched on the greater scope of things, but I can't say that such an approach will be effective, as it seems to simply confuse the opposition. Implying that there's much more to the situation than what a limited vision can explain is often too much for the other side to handle.

You're right -- but I'd be willing to bet most of the ones making laws about it are.

They're probably fat, too. A good ol' plate of infant flambé should satisfy them.

[Ksandra]

Stop uttering this nonsense. Abortion isn't an issue where all women are of unanimous agreement, nor one where men are unanimously opposed. My wife and sisters are far, far more vehemently anti-abortion than I am. By contrast, my brother-in-law is vehemently pro-choice. It's not an issue of people hate women and want them controlled. It's a matter of they believe that it's a human life at conception, and that human life is sacred. There are, without question, people who are pro-life because they are misogynists. There are also people who are pro-choice because they really fracking hate the human race and the more people who are killed, in their eyes, the better, and they don't give one wit about your right to control your body-- they would just as happily force abortions on more people.

You can feel free to disagree with their perspective, but stop trying to define it for them in misogynist terms. Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is a hateful bigot.

Have to disagree with you there. I believe that most people who believe both that life begins at conception AND that all human lives are totally sacred, are either religious or have had religious influences that shaped their perception of morality. I don't know what else believes that human life is more sacred than other forms of life, or why. Religion is decidedly anti-woman, or at the very least anti-autonomous woman, and this is a theme among many religious beliefs throughout history, dating back to even Greek mythology. I truly believe that women are encouraged through these channels to surrender their rights to make decisions and live as autonomous human beings, to men. I feel truly sorry for anyone who doesn't have the capability to recognize that for themselves. Anyone who says differently is simply cherry-picking the parts of religion that they like, and is probably not even entirely aware that they've been influenced by a greatly misogynist force. The beliefs that life is sacred still springs from a belief that seeks to oppress women in other ways; who is to say this is not also a construct simply designed to control?

I have to correct something in this instance where sera isn't simply talking about life at contraception (as you two are in a disagreement over), but life of viability. Which are two very very completely different stages.

[Sera]

I have to correct something in this instance where sera isn't simply talking about life at contraception (as you two are in a disagreement over), but life of viability. Which are two very very completely different stages.

erm... I'm assuming you mean conception.

And correct, I don't care about that. I care about protecting the medical autonomy of the adult female, first and foremost.

Maroowhatever -- I agree that making absolute statements about people's behavior is wrong. There are exceptions to every rule. But Indeed took the words out of my mouth, and Yugl has my support with his slight modification. Western religion does tend to oppress the woman.

[ronin sparthos]

Stop uttering this nonsense. Abortion isn't an issue where all women are of unanimous agreement, nor one where men are unanimously opposed. My wife and sisters are far, far more vehemently anti-abortion than I am. By contrast, my brother-in-law is vehemently pro-choice. It's not an issue of people hate women and want them controlled. It's a matter of they believe that it's a human life at conception, and that human life is sacred. There are, without question, people who are pro-life because they are misogynists. There are also people who are pro-choice because they really fracking hate the human race and the more people who are killed, in their eyes, the better, and they don't give one wit about your right to control your body-- they would just as happily force abortions on more people.

You can feel free to disagree with their perspective, but stop trying to define it for them in misogynist terms. Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is a hateful bigot.

Yet when someone who is pro-life demands that abortion become illegal they have overstepped their bounds and are attempting to dictate morality (often hooked into religious belief) across a varied and situational populace. This is what really annoys me because it completely ignores the individual situations that may lead a woman to an abortion all because someone feels that life is sacred and that all babies are gifts.

How about leaving abortion up to the individual instead of what someone feels is best for an individual? If you don't believe in abortion fine - have no abortions but perhaps the 17 year old who got knocked up feels that she cannot handle the baby and her parents aren't going to assist in supporting it. Should her life become a punishment because a sperm met an egg and decided to fertilize? Are rape babies gifts? Who will financially support all these children born in a mythical world where no abortions exist? We're already trying to gut public assistance yet we have many of the very same people demanding every baby must be born. None of it makes a lick of sense.

If abortion is such a heartbreaking, emotional issue why are the pro-lifers not supportive of sex education to prevent abortions? Why the blindfold upon our children on the subject of sex altogether? You'd think that with education you'd prevent unwanted pregnancies, sex would still be accessible and both sides would benefit from such practices but this just is not the case. Opponents of abortion want to gut any education, gut public assistance, gut the entire system of family planning and replace it with fundamentalist lunacy.

[Indeed]

Western religion *

You're simply wrong if you include any religion. In fact, it's arguable that western culture rather than religion is the real cause.

I don't know everything about every religion out there, so I don't have the authority to sit here and make a list of everything that is included or excluded. If there are some religions to which this does not apply, that's fantastic, but it's not a predominant influence here in America. Also, I'm not sure that those other religions also meet the requirement of holding human life in higher regard than all other forms of life, so perhaps the statement didn't apply to those. Please don't shit this up with semantics when it's plain what I actually meant.

I know that there have been a significant number of religions over time that paint women as the origin of evil, and that makes it very difficult for me to not look at anything included in such a religion as tainted by that kind of belief. That's all I'm saying.

[Marootsoobutsu]

You're right -- but I'd be willing to bet most of the ones making laws about it are.

I would not necessarily disagree with this statement (I have a terribly low opinion of politicians of all stripes, and tend to believe that power breeds contempt), but I would be willing to bet that most common people who are opposed to abortion see the issue simply as "You're killing an innocent human life," and it really is as simple as that for them. It's not even that they are unsympathetic with concerns over women's control over their bodies, it's just that they believe that the sacredness of human life trumps it, and they believe that that sacredness begins at conception. Purely anecdotal, and take it for what you will, but at least in my experience moderate Christian women are more likely to adopt this perspective than moderate Christian men are... the men are more likely to preclude themselves on ground they don't face the dilemma. Re-emphasize: anecdotal, moderate.

[Greatguardian]

I don't know everything about every religion out there, so I don't have the authority to sit here and make a list of everything that is included or excluded. If there are some religions to which this does not apply, that's fantastic, but it's not a predominant influence here in America. Also, I'm not sure that those other religions also meet the requirement of holding human life in higher regard than all other forms of life, so perhaps the statement didn't apply to those. Please don't shit this up with semantics when it's plain what I actually meant.

I know that there have been a significant number of religions over time that paint women as the origin of evil, and that makes it very difficult for me to not look at anything included in such a religion as tainted by that kind of belief. That's all I'm saying.

It's not semantics. It's pointing out an ethnocentric misconception. You're better off just admitting you don't know anything about Eastern culture/religion and leaving it at that.

In a similar vein, it's his last sentence which is most important. Religion doesn't just spring out of nowhere. It is generally based upon pre-existing cultural practices. If Western culture is patriarchal, then religion which is generated from and thrives in Western culture is going to be similarly patriarchal. In this case, it is more correct to say that Western religion is responsible for a portion of the clinging to Western cultural values in a globalized world.

[Yugl]

Yet when someone who is pro-life demands that abortion become illegal they have overstepped their bounds and are attempting to dictate morality (often hooked into religious belief) across a varied and situational populace. This is what really annoys me because it completely ignores the individual situations that may lead a woman to an abortion all because someone feels that life is sacred and that all babies are gifts.

Taking any social position is often dictating morality. Even if the position is individual autonomy, you dictate that it is immoral for people to intervene in an individual's decision. If that annoys you, you should abstain from participating in any debate.

I don't know everything about every religion out there, so I don't have the authority to sit here and make a list of everything that is included or excluded. If there are some religions to which this does not apply, that's fantastic, but it's not a predominant influence here in America. Also, I'm not sure that those other religions also meet the requirement of holding human life in higher regard than all other forms of life, so perhaps the statement didn't apply to those. Please don't shit this up with semantics when it's plain what I actually meant.

I know that there have been a significant number of religions over time that paint women as the origin of evil, and that makes it very difficult for me to not look at anything included in such a religion as tainted by that kind of belief. That's all I'm saying.

GG got to it before me, but he's right. It's not semantics because we're not arguing over definitions. We're discussing facts about the world. Please don't use "it's just semantics" when you find you misrepresented your view and are wrong about what you did say.