Opinions on abortion?

Post Reply New Topic

More bigoted strawman fluff.

If you're incapable of respecting other posters sufficiently to address their actual arguments and positions, might I suggest you both follow kara's earlier inclination and opt out of posting? There was a degree of constructive and thought-provoking discussion taking place before the trolling began.

I am 100% pro choice. It doesn't matter the reason, the only thing that matters is that the woman whose pregnancy it is, doesn't want to carry it to terms. Her body, her choice.

Rights start at birth, not conception.

Yeah it never ceases to amaze me how important human life is to antiabortionists.... until it is born. Interesting how they are never speaking up for single moms or other mothers/ would-be-mothers who can't afford kids or barely get by. Personally I don't think people should have kids if they can't afford them, it shouldn't be society's task to pay for other people's frivolous behavior. But you'd think the well-being of the born kid would be a concern to those who call themselves pro-life.

I'm also quite "touched" how preoccupied the antiabortionists are with the numerous kids in foster care.

You'd think they'd be in the forefront in all things concerning improving kids' living standards, no? For that matter, they should be concerned with the well being of anyone independent of age if they are so pro life

Those who think abortion shouldn't be forced on them including taxes... well if they are gonna cherry pick what their taxes go to, I will too. No atheist should pay for anything concerning churches or other parts of religion, no asexuals should pay for anything concerning sexual activities, no cautious people should pay for injuries to those who are reckless, and the list goes on and on and on....

To clarify: I never said I would stop posting, just that I refused to directly speak with certain people whose style of argumentation I don't see as a genuine attempt to exchange ideas but who rather use internet debate as their mode of choice for attempting to bully people. The type of people who like that behaviour really seem to dislike it when you refuse to participate in their bullying attempts, which is why I refuse. I will however keep posting wherever I like and participating in online discussion how I choose and with those who genuinely want to talk with others. Just like I get to choose what happens to my body, I get to choose what conversations I participate in. Equal rights, yo!

You're not obliged to respond to anyone but to belittle an entire group of people and then play the innocent victim when they retaliate is dishonest and hypocritical.

I'm pro-extinction. So abortion is OK with me.

Anti-natalist?

You post troll responses then claim to be the victim of "bullies" who you term so based purely on the fact that they don't share your ideological positions or rhetorical style? That's the forum equivalent of punching a sibling in the face then crying to mom and pop that they struck you. Did you learn nothing from the Cathy Newman debacle?

Rather than making vague accusations of wrongdoing, I urge you to report the relevant posts to the mods so that they can deal with these "bullies" in the appropriate manner.



Quite so.



I don't see how talking about in general terms about a vaguely defined political or lobbying group - none of whom are here to defend their position - in any way, shape or form advances the discussion. Even if we accept the premise that such a group of people can be identified using your parameters - anti-abortion, uncaring about people who are alive, etc - I don't see how it's relevant.

As someone who has volunteered my time to various charitable causes, raising money and awareness, who has offered advice, time and support to all kinds of people (including single mothers) and so much more, I fail to see how my opinion on the subject of abortion matters more than someone who has done none of the above. Such endeavours do not inform my position on abortion as they in no way impact the principles which my position is based upon.

Anti-abortion activism has stereotypical ties to Christian churches who, despite my being an atheist, I am obliged to admit are typically some of the most community-minded members of society. Whether this is due to their perceived obligation to a deity or because they're simply decent people is immaterial. There's arguably an element of the self-serving in most charitable acts.

Be careful about mentioning christians. They have quite a large negative stereotype perpetuated that really is not very true, withthe exception of some extremists. These types of people are more common in america, propably because the founders where religious extremidts in their own right.
Regardless, despite the fact most are decent human beings, too many people associate normal christians with the type hpwho go out and assualt gays, attempt to force their beleifs, and slander others.

Well if I get pregnant I am going to abort ASAP, for anyone who disagrees...trust me, you don't want me to try and play mother, seriously I can barely take care of myself.

I'm not trying to change your mind on abortion, but if a person opposes abortion and funding abortion under their belief in the 10 commandments, shouldn't they also oppose war and funding the military? One might argue that the military might not intend to kill innocent people, but by and large, it does. More innocent people die in war than combatants.

If I controlled a government, comprehensive sex education, including contraception methods, would be taught in schools and attendance would be mandatory, and contraception would be free and easily available.

The demand for abortions would significantly decrease.

As an Antinatalist I am pro abortion no one ever chooses to be born, no parent can guarantee that their child will have a good life, the government cannot realistically regulate parental behaviour and children are de facto slaves the property of their parents.

I agree and I'd be in favour of such programs, I think that it would be a good thing.

Sincere apologies, I seem to have fallen off the planet again.

Okay, individual life (in the sense of a genetic code distinct from that of either parent) begins when the parents' genetic material mingles. I assume we can dispense with the question of implantation, since we have little control over it, at least with regard to making it happen more often. Tangentially, there was an interesting study I was reading about from 2014 regarding why so many fertilized eggs fail to implant, relating to the production of a chemical called trypsin. The theory was that sub-par, damaged, or essentially less-viable eggs failed to produce enough of this chemical, which signals the uterine lining to be ready for implantation. It seems to be a sort of quality-control system whereby "bad" eggs get flushed. And now I'm thinking of Willy Wonka. Sigh. Numbers range anywhere from 50% to 80% on fertilized eggs failing to implant, but I think only wacky zealots would consider that in the same light as abortion.

You've said you're not conflicted on the topic of birth control. May I ask some questions regarding that? There are different sorts, certainly.

1. Physical and chemical barriers to prevent the egg and sperm meeting (condoms, diaphragms, sponges, spermicidal gels, combinations of the above) of course function to prevent conception occurring, and I'll just say I'm a huge fan of these being inexpensive, readily available, and free of judgement. Women who don't want to be pregnant should have easy access to methods for preventing pregnancy.

2. Chemical methods to prevent ovulation (birth control pills). I'm less of a fan...they're pretty effective, but the associated health risks are scary. Nonetheless, for women who want to use them, I'll still say they should be inexpensive, readily available, and free of judgement. Hobby Lobby can kiss the darkest part of my lily-white posterior - my birth control choices are not an employer's business, and I don't give a pickle what their religious views are. So far as I know, there aren't any commercially-available medications to prevent sperm production in men, and if there were I suspect men wouldn't be interested in the probable side effects anyway.

3. A bit more controversially, the IUD (as I understand it) has a dual function. Copper varieties release, unsurprisingly, copper into the uterus, which impairs sperm motility and hinders their ability to swim up the Fallopian tubes for conception. Hormonal IUDs release hormones which thicken secretions and likewise make it more difficult for sperm to reach the eggs. Both of them, however, also hinder the monthly creation of the uterine lining that makes it possible for a fertilized egg to implant...resulting in that fertilized egg being flushed away in the normal course of uterine function.

4. Emergency contraception also has different functions, either preventing or delaying ovulation. Some people will argue that it also irritates the uterine lining, making implantation after fertilization less likely, and thus it's causing an abortion. I'm unclear on the science here.

5. Lastly, the actual "abortion pill", which I often suspect people confuse with emergency contraception or so-called morning after pills. The abortion pill is effective for up to 10 weeks after conception and induces miscarriage of an implanted pregnancy, while the morning-after pills do not - implantation, and the beginning of pregnancy, occurs on average 7-10 days after conception.

I welcome corrections and clarifications, and would be interested to know your (anyone's) opinions on the various methods. I will add that prior to implantation, I don't consider a woman to be pregnant. You're free to disagree and explain why.

This came up in the other threads too. The "natural abortion" of many fertilised eggs has little bearing on the argument as far as I can tell. As I said back then:

Just because we know with hindsight that a fertilised egg did not have a future beyond 2 or 3 days, until implantation fails, until the wheels of fate turn, we must consider it a human, granted a very short lived one.

You and I both know that pregnancy is a crap shoot on the best of days. The thing is, until recently so was childhood. Even today not all 3 year olds make it to 4. We wouldn't apply the "a few more won't matter" rule to 3 year olds. If a human is a human in the first trimester, then we cannot apply it here either. Even if 1 in 4 fertilised eggs don't implant successfully, and those that do have a good chance of not making it further, interfering negatively with that process is ending a human life prematurely.

In short: anything that prevents the fusion of sperm and egg is not a problem for me, Catholics and others might want to go down the road of sanctity and demanding protection for sperm and eggs, but it's a road I struggle to follow. Any drug or method that acts after that fusion to prevent implantation/pregnancy is logically equivalent, in my mind, to a surgical abortion a few weeks later.

Agreed. Only post fusion is abortion. Everything before is fine.