Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Aneristic Illusions => Topic started by: PoFP on April 17, 2017, 07:41:31 pm

Title: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 17, 2017, 07:41:31 pm
For quite awhile now, I'd been seeing the abortion debate as a fight that shouldn't involve me. I was under the understanding that abortion was simply not a topic a male should be able to comment on. Any time the topic was brought up, I opted out because I thought that I had no right to talk about it because I couldn't carry a baby inside me.

Nowadays, I'm very pro abortion. But only because I developed a better understanding of the arguments made by people who aren't. I've recently realized that the "Abortion is the killing of babies" argument is a valid argument that should be confronted. That does not mean, in any way, that I think that that argument is correct. I just think it's something that shouldn't be blown off as a non-argument.

I think one of the reasons why the left fails in many aspects is due to laziness in the development and presentation of their arguments and I see this specifically in the abortion debate. And I want you to let me know if you all see the problem I see here:

>Women have legal, early term abortions for valid reasons.
>Conservatives accuse these women of having their babies killed.
>Women claim that it is their body, and their right to have an abortion, and it doesn't involve anyone else.

This argument is an automatic loss for the women. Not because they're incorrect, but because they've made the wrong argument. This sounds like women are defending the killing of babies because it's their body that the pregnancy is affecting. The problem is that they've not made the argument that it's not a baby that's being removed. I mean, last I checked, "Muh women's rights" is not a valid reason to kill babies. So, before you can make the argument that it's a women's rights issue, you must first make the argument that babies aren't being killed. And yet, in every single abortion debate that I see, that fact is completely skipped. We'll get into the science of why a fetus is not a baby, later. It seems like most of the people that explain do so lazily, and leave out a considerable amount of important, and religiously convincing information.

Not only is the debate being fought wrong, but the debate is blown off completely quite often. We have to consider the importance that a rather large portion of the population thinks that the left is committing mass genocide of infants. And if I thought that people were killing massive numbers of infants, I would be up in arms, too. That's not an immoral position to be in, simply an uneducated one. And yet, because the left often jumps to the "Rights" argument, it often paints that position as immoral. This is another reason why the left constantly loses in these fights.



One of the other things that made me jump into the debate was the complete understanding of why a fetus is not considered living. This understanding was developed in part due to my recent study of Autocatalysis. Now, I understand that when all you have in your hand is a hammer at the time, everything else starts to look like a nail. But it just so happens that Autocatalysis has been connected to the basis of life in previous scientific literature.

A chemical reaction is considered autocatalytic when one or more of the chemical reaction's products, make up one or more of that same reaction's reactants. In a sense, the reaction "Catalyses" itself. This chemical property and possibility is what makes life possible.

All life forms are what you'd call "collectively autocatalytic systems." This means that as long as food molecules, in the form of required reactants, and energy are provided to the life form, it can sustain itself by sustaining its complexly intertwined autocatalytic reactions. Autocatalytic systems, in order to reach the equilibrium that all systems pursue, require very orderly transportation and communication. If you were religious, you could say that autocatalysis is method by which God created us. Everything in our bodies, from our digestive system, to our DNA replication is somehow autocatalytic.

Here is where we define the difference between a baby, and a fetus. A baby, being a living organism, is collectively autocatalytic. Even if one is realistically, prematurely born, its internal systems are still developed enough to maintain the autocatalytic equilibrium that extends its growth and development. Before that point (And this is why we have the legal cutoff for late term abortions) of internal system development, we have a fetus. Its systems are incapable of maintaining themselves with food molecules and energy because not all of the organs and systems that make up the fetus are developed enough to be autocatalytic. They are very complex, and require a lot of time to be built.

During the time that the fetus is still developing, information in the form of chemical triggers and nutrients necessary for that infrastructure of autocatalysis is being transferred directly by the mother. During this time, the fetus is simply a project, a creation, an extension of the mother's body.

At this, one may argue that the increase in order inside of the fetus is exemplary of the autocatalysis that makes life. And it is, in a way. But not in the way that makes it living.

Technically, each of the organs, or sections of tissue within the body are autocatalytic. Each of them may require different amounts of energy and different types of food molecules, but as long as those food molecules and energy are provided, even if they are removed from the body and given some other vessel from which to retrieve that energy and in which to maintain its chemical equilibrium, they can still survive for a time (Hence, we grow ass tissue for burn victims, or liver chunks for liver transplants). What needs to be understood here, however, is that all life forms are autocatalytic, whereas not all autocatalytic systems are living. A living system is made up of many autocatalytic systems. You can't call one single autocatalytic system living unless it fits with all the other aspects of a living organism.

In other words, a fetus is like an organ, since it cannot sustain its autocatalytic subsystems with energy and food on its own. It requires a vessel.

Now that we've scientifically described why legal, early term abortions are not killing babies, we can make the argument that it's a women's rights issue, since the fetus is an extension of the mother.

I understand that most of you knew part or all of this information already. I understand that you guys in particular are pro abortion for the right reasons. But I think this was mostly aimed at those who ignore the importance and instability of this issue, and who are not pro abortion for the right reasons. I think we need to focus on the arguments we're making and who we're making them to if we want to win in the end. This topic is not necessarily the most pressing, by any means, but it is a good starting point for reconciliation with the other half of the population. I understand that there will be those that will reject abortion regardless, and that's expected. But I feel like many people are anti-abortion now that weren't before, and that many people who would normally be pro abortion are against it due to witnessing only awful arguments in its support.

We can't win by making sure only the best, most morally upstanding people are on our side. That's not how Democracy/Republic works. We do need the support of people we don't like. And the only way to gain that support sometimes is to make sure our arguments make sense to us, and them.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on April 17, 2017, 08:05:05 pm
Well... no.

The argument that fetuses are not babies is of course made all the time. The "life begins at conception" and such ridiculousness is the anti-choice camp's counter to this argument. There will never be any successful attempt to convince them that fetuses are not babies, because anything that is sure to become a thing is as good as having become it already, at least whenever a person is inclined to believe that, which they are in this case. As far as any anti-choice person's ability to reason, there is no meaningful distinction between a fertilized egg and a baby. Even if physically they are as different as an elephant is from a ant, there is no difference morally, and that's all that matters.

Focusing the argument on the bodily autonomy of women, logically, is all that is left to the pro-choice arguer. It's unfortunate that this is one of the many, many exceptions to the conservative's crusade for "less government interference", but it is what it is. We are effectively faced with a situation where half of the country wants to rob women of their own bodily autonomy. Making it a question of bodily autonomy may not be the most effective way to settle the argument, but it's better than trying to drive some impossible wedge between "baby" and "fetus", which has been tried and proven to be completely useless.

Of course, the debate over abortion is not actually a debate over abortion. If saving lives was really the aim of anti-choice "activists", they wouldn't condemn all manner of not-fetuses to death at the slightest provocation in other areas. Their wailing over "dead babies" is just a charade they use because people are easily swayed by the idea of violence against defenseless children. There are many proven ways to materially decrease the rates of both abortion and of unwanted or underage pregnancy in general -- and if these people actually cared about eliminating abortion, they would champion these methods instead of simply calling for prohibition and punishment of abortion. But they don't like those methods, because while they are effective, they strike at the real motives behind the anti-choice crusade: they empower women, rather than constrain them to obedience and "modesty".

So I have to disagree with your assessment that the reason the abortion debate rages on is because the defenders of women's choice are doing it wrong. It rages on because there are theocratic monsters among us who are allowed to push their oppressive agenda as some kind of antidote to all the evils of the modern, liberated world. And as long as they exist, they will find ways to hate anyone who is too free for their liking, no matter what arguments are used against them.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on April 17, 2017, 08:51:42 pm
Everything Vex said.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 17, 2017, 09:56:23 pm
Well... no.

The argument that said fetuses are not babies is of course made all the time. The "life begins at conception" and such ridiculousness is the anti-choice camp's counter to this argument. There will never be any successful attempt to convince them that fetuses are not babies, because anything that is sure to become a thing is as good as having become it already, at least whenever a person is inclined to believe that, which they are in this case. As far as any anti-choice person's ability to reason, there is no meaningful distinction between a fertilized egg and a baby. Even if physically they are as different as an elephant is from a ant, there is no difference morally, and that's all that matters.

Focusing the argument on the bodily autonomy of women, logically, all that is left to the argument. It's unfortunate that this is one of the many, many exceptions to the conservative's crusade for "less government interference", but it is what it is. We are effectively faced with a situation where half of the country wants to rob women of their own bodily autonomy. Making it a question of bodily autonomy may not be the most effective way to settle the argument, but it's better than trying to drive some impossible wedge between "baby" and "fetus", which has been tried and proven to be completely useless.

Of course, the debate over abortion is not actually a debate over abortion. If saving lives was really the aim of anti-choice "activists", they wouldn't condemn all manner of not-fetuses to death at the slightest provocation in other areas. Their wailing over "dead babies" is just a charade they use because people are easily swayed by the idea of violence against defenseless children. There are many proven ways to materially decrease the rates of both abortion and of unwanted or underage pregnancy in general -- and if these people actually cared about eliminating abortion, they would champion these methods instead of simply calling for prohibition and punishment of abortion. But they don't like those methods, because while they are effective, they strike at the real motives behind the anti-choice crusade: they empower women, rather than constrain them to obedience and "modesty".

So I have to disagree with your assessment that the reason the abortion rages on is because the defenders of women's choice are doing it wrong. It rages on because there are theocratic monsters among us who are allowed to push their oppressive agenda as some kind of antidote to all the evils of the modern, liberated world. And as long as they exist, they will find ways to hate anyone who is too free for their liking, no matter what arguments are used against them.

These people were covered in my post, and don't represent the majority of the people making these arguments. At least, not in my experience.

Re:Focusing the argument...:

My point, as well as the conservatives'  point is that bodily autonomy is irrelevant in this debate until "a wedge is driven between fetus and baby." Again, having a vagina doesn't give someone the right to kill babies. Making only the "Muh women's rights" argument is like justifying the killing of toddlers because picking them up hurts your back. The fetus is a part of the female body. That's where the autonomy argument came from in the first place.

Re: Of course...:

I'm not referring to the few people who are actively trying to squash Women's rights. These are the type of people you referred to earlier that were covered early on in my post. There are few of these types of people.

Then there are the others, that are simply ignorant and will never change their mind. These people are usually irrelevant because they're not even getting in these debates in the first place. They would just tell you their side if you asked them. Inactive, non-debaters are meaningless in the scope of things because they don't affect anything.

I'm referring to the people who argue at the dinner table, or over a Facebook post, who are in college or going to be, or whom are actively involved in politics (As much as someone would be in this age, AKA votes and talks shit about the other side.) and arguing against abortion. Being someone who lives in Ohio, even in the liberal college areas there are still a large number of actual, real debates going on between people who want to learn more, but don't want to just trust what someone says because "Muh scientists." The whole point of the post was to point out that where the left would normally get these people right out of the gate, they are losing them to the religious nuts instead. I remember like 5 years ago when most people who were even Christian were either undecided and or indifferent to abortion, and were generally moderate about social issues. But since the poor development of the arguments of the left, and the increase in activity of the extreme conservatives, the left has lost the social advocacy of the general population. Now everyone's either pro abortion or thinks people who support abortion are genocidal maniacs. Radicalism is the new fad.

Also, it's not valid to blanket label an entire group as sexist for being against abortion for a non-sexist reason. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that what they say is not what they mean, and that a large percentage of the population is practically conspiring against women. Which is simply not true. If you hold people accountable for what they say individually, and critique people on what they say, you will get to the bottom of what they think. And as someone who's been doing this for awhile now, it appears to me that most people support women's rights, life, choice, and everything good in between. And those who see the fetus as a baby, simply don't have the scientific background, and need a mix of science and religion to convince them.

Autocatalysis as God's method of creation of life is the best argument you could have to gain support from religious people. You give these people a bit more information, and a bit more room for their own faith to expand in the direction we want it to.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on April 17, 2017, 10:28:54 pm
You seem to be missing many of my points.

First of all, the thought leaders you dismiss as irrelevant or meaningless are the sources of the slogans slung back and forth at dinner tables. People who engage in this debate draw their conclusions by the shorthand of "Person X believes this way, and I like person X, so therefore I believe this way." They are not active participants in the formation of their own beliefs. They did not arrive at the conclusion that abortion is wrong for any reason other than because they have been conditioned to adopt that conclusion by some external force. The people who have something to say about it at the dinner table are, nearly invariable, just spitting out what they heard on Fox News or at church last Sunday.

In order to change such minds, it is pointless to rely on a competing ideology on the opposite side of the debate. You will not convince someone who believes fetuses are babies that fetuses are not actually babies no matter how airtight your argument is. Because every ironclad dogmatic religious pillar of identity includes a trigger to protect against undermining it, every attempt to directly confront the religious proclamation that "Fetuses are children" will not only fail, but it will have the ultimate effect of strengthening that proclamation in the mind of its believer. Besides, trying to argue a moral point -- even if you see it as a scientific one, they see it as a moral one -- against someone self-assured of their own moral righteousness is utterly futile.

The way past this argument is not through insisting that they draw a distinction between baby and fetus. Like I said: they're not going to. They just aren't. Drop it. Give up. That way lies madness, etc.

The way forward is in bringing their attention to the fact that if you want to actually decrease abortion, rather than just whinging about it forever while it goes on all the same whether legal or illegal, then put your investment in effective sex education, ubiquitously available birth control for everyone, and set serious penalties for rape - both social and criminal.

This line of reasoning has the benefit of removing the opponent's insistence on the stupid "crime and punishment" approach to abortion AND removing your own need to alter your opponent's moral framework. Let them go on believing that fetuses are babies. Let them think abortion is some kind of abomination before God. Who cares what they think? The point is they're no longer out for the blood of people who end up needing abortions for whatever reason, and as much as they might hate and spit and curse, they lose their momentum toward prohibition.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: MithridatesXXIII on April 17, 2017, 11:48:02 pm
"Abortion is killing babies"

And if you are pro-choice and also believe that you are willfully ending a life, then what?
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: LuciferX on April 18, 2017, 12:37:20 am
If every fertilized egg is already a fully-formed human, then every human life has also already become death.  Therefore, every human is already an abortion.

[not my finest hour in thought ]
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: rong on April 18, 2017, 02:10:09 am
to help push the argument along:

1) abortion should be allowed until the fetus has achieved 18 yrs of age

2) fathers should be allowed to request an abortion - if the mother chooses to have the child anyway, the father should not have to pay child support

3) black fetuses are aborted at 3 to 5 times* the rate as white fetuses.

*sources vary
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 18, 2017, 02:12:37 am

2) fathers should be allowed to request an abortion - if the mother chooses to have the child anyway, the father should not have to pay child support


Your trilby is crooked.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: East Coast Hustle on April 18, 2017, 07:01:37 am
I clicked on this thread expecting it to immediately turn into a barrel of ridiculous stupidity.

I was not even remotely disappointed.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: LuciferX on April 18, 2017, 10:32:48 am
Life starts at conception like death at fertilization.





Cause I can't get no...  Satisfaction.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: LMNO on April 18, 2017, 12:56:56 pm

2) fathers should be allowed to request an abortion - if the mother chooses to have the child anyway, the father should not have to pay child support


Your trilby is crooked.

Thank you for referencing the correct style of hat.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: LMNO on April 18, 2017, 01:02:39 pm
And, for FoFP, I offer this hypothetical example:

READY

10 PRINT "Abortion is murder."

20 PRINT "All abortion?"

30 PRINT "Yes.  Because life begins at conception."

40 PRINT "Ah!  But [scientific jargon], so the fetus should be considered a part of the mother's body until X weeks of pregnancy."

50 PRINT "No."

60 GOTO 40
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Junkenstein on April 18, 2017, 01:35:38 pm

2) fathers should be allowed to request an abortion - if the mother chooses to have the child anyway, the father should not have to pay child support


Your trilby is crooked.

Thank you for referencing the correct style of hat.

Are you both sure? It sounds more like this kind of headwear:

(https://radimrehurek.com/gumby.jpg)
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Junkenstein on April 18, 2017, 01:41:24 pm
I clicked on this thread expecting it to immediately turn into a barrel of ridiculous stupidity.

I was not even remotely disappointed.

Read it all in the Gumby voice and it's actually quite good.

MY BRAIN HURTS.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 18, 2017, 03:41:12 pm
You seem to be missing many of my points.

First of all, the thought leaders you dismiss as irrelevant or meaningless are the sources of the slogans slung back and forth at dinner tables. People who engage in this debate draw their conclusions by the shorthand of "Person X believes this way, and I like person X, so therefore I believe this way." They are not active participants in the formation of their own beliefs. They did not arrive at the conclusion that abortion is wrong for any reason other than because they have been conditioned to adopt that conclusion by some external force. The people who have something to say about it at the dinner table are, nearly invariable, just spitting out what they heard on Fox News or at church last Sunday.

In order to change such minds, it is pointless to rely on a competing ideology on the opposite side of the debate. You will not convince someone who believes fetuses are babies that fetuses are not actually babies no matter how airtight your argument is. Because every ironclad dogmatic religious pillar of identity includes a trigger to protect against undermining it, every attempt to directly confront the religious proclamation that "Fetuses are children" will not only fail, but it will have the ultimate effect of strengthening that proclamation in the mind of its believer. Besides, trying to argue a moral point -- even if you see it as a scientific one, they see it as a moral one -- against someone self-assured of their own moral righteousness is utterly futile.

The way past this argument is not through insisting that they draw a distinction between baby and fetus. Like I said: they're not going to. They just aren't. Drop it. Give up. That way lies madness, etc.

The way forward is in bringing their attention to the fact that if you want to actually decrease abortion, rather than just whinging about it forever while it goes on all the same whether legal or illegal, then put your investment in effective sex education, ubiquitously available birth control for everyone, and set serious penalties for rape - both social and criminal.

This line of reasoning has the benefit of removing the opponent's insistence on the stupid "crime and punishment" approach to abortion AND removing your own need to alter your opponent's moral framework. Let them go on believing that fetuses are babies. Let them think abortion is some kind of abomination before God. Who cares what they think? The point is they're no longer out for the blood of people who end up needing abortions for whatever reason, and as much as they might hate and spit and curse, they lose their momentum toward prohibition.

I'll secede that point. You got me there.

Re: "They are not active... last sunday.":

I think you're lumping different types of people together that should not be equated.

Again, you are right. People like this do exist, and they may make up a large portion of the population of anti-abortion people (Anti-abortionists? Non-stoppists? Go-ists?). But there is a large portion of people that would normally be swayed immediately by at least a valid argument against "Ur killing babiz." Not only that, but it doesn't hurt the view of the left if you have a valid counter-argument that doesn't ignore their argument.

You're also still acting like the immediate assumption by a non-scientific individual that abortion is the killing of babies is absurd and can only be made by someone who was brainwashed by the right-wingers. Being lazily introduced to the debate does not qualify as brainwashing.

Re: "In order to change such minds... lies madness, etc.":

Thankfully I'm not trying to change such minds. I'm trying to win over the people that the left would normally get with a simple argument. I'm not talking about extreme conservatives, I'm talking about moderates that come from moderate religious households. Forget the science of my post. It's not relevant at this point. My point is, every abortion debate I've ever seen ignored the one fact that makes abortion okay and a women's right's issue. And yet, women's rights is the main argument made every single time. You can't kill babies just because you're a woman. Yet, that is exactly how every single person who's pro abortion defends it. It's a bullshit first-response argument.

And before I continue, let me make this clear: I want to redirect the conversations of the people I'm around on a daily basis with the above post, not convince you guys, specifically, that this is the only solution to the bigger problem. However, I highly value all of your input. This is why I presented this here, before Facebook.

Re: The rest:

I completely agree with you here. This is very likely the best option when fighting the entire anti-abortion movement. Probably better than any argument alteration. However, I did not intend for the OP to be a catch-all solution for the entire problem. It was intended to be a contribution to victory, much less a method for victory.

If we're going to win, we need to re-evaluate the way we, as progressives, develop our arguments. I'm not even necessarily saying that we have to make sure our arguments are air-tight, or even fully correct. But our arguments need to be palatable to the most people they can be. And we have to actually have an argument. Otherwise, they are the only ones getting any air-time or getting their word out.

If my point in my post was "Let's improve our argument for abortion" and your argument is "There is no point in presenting an argument," then I have to disagree with you there. Non-arguments or no argument whatsoever is not better than an argument you know won't change everyone's mind.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: LMNO on April 18, 2017, 03:50:12 pm
I think there's also an element here, where the definition of "life" may differ between the two parties.  You may be talking about biology, but the pro-life camp often takes the viewpoint that an irreducible "soul" exists, and becomes a part of the baby/fetus/blastocyst at some point.

So, even if you try to make the argument that a fetus is biologically 'part of the mother' up until a certain number of weeks, you can't scientifically approach the concept of a "soul" and when it does or does not inhabit a fetus.

Essentially, it seems like you've jumped to stage two of an argument without addressing stage 1: Setting the parameters and definitions of the debate.  Your solution sounds fine, as soon as your opponent agrees that pure atheistic biology is the context of the argument.

In fact, one could posit that the entire debate vanishes as soon as that's agreed upon, regardless of how clever your position is.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 18, 2017, 04:39:35 pm
And, for FoFP, I offer this hypothetical example:

READY

10 PRINT "Abortion is murder."

20 PRINT "All abortion?"

30 PRINT "Yes.  Because life begins at conception."

40 PRINT "Ah!  But [scientific jargon], so the fetus should be considered a part of the mother's body until X weeks of pregnancy."

50 PRINT "No."

60 GOTO 40

Better than the following:

READY

10 PRINT "Abortion is murder."

20 PRINT "All abortion?"

30 PRINT "Yes.  Because life begins at conception."

40 PRINT *Says nothing*

50 PRINT "So, I win..."

60 PRINT *Observers see this and are convinced that they did win.*

or

READY

10 PRINT "Abortion is murder."

20 PRINT "All abortion?"

30 PRINT "Yes.  Because life begins at conception."

40 PRINT "I brought'em into this world, I can take'em out."

50 PRINT "That's a non-argument, so I win..."

60 PRINT *Observers see this and are convinced that they did win.*

I think there's also an element here, where the definition of "life" may differ between the two parties.  You may be talking about biology, but the pro-life camp often takes the viewpoint that an irreducible "soul" exists, and becomes a part of the baby/fetus/blastocyst at some point.

So, even if you try to make the argument that a fetus is biologically 'part of the mother' up until a certain number of weeks, you can't scientifically approach the concept of a "soul" and when it does or does not inhabit a fetus.

Essentially, it seems like you've jumped to stage two of an argument without addressing stage 1: Setting the parameters and definitions of the debate.  Your solution sounds fine, as soon as your opponent agrees that pure atheistic biology is the context of the argument.

In fact, one could posit that the entire debate vanishes as soon as that's agreed upon, regardless of how clever your position is.

Good point. And that's why I mentioned the potential theological basis of autocatalysis. I know of several religious people that I could convey that argument to as something that is pro-religion, and they'd buy it. They believe in magic, for fuck's sake. All we need to do is sell them magic that sounds better. The bible doesn't say life begins at conception, nor does it say autocatalysis is or isn't the basis of life. Therefore, all of it is up for grabs. Assuming you can make the idea sound better than their previous interpretation of the biology, of course.

If we get a religious icon to sell our kind of magic without them knowing it, we can start making some progress in terms of argument logic.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: LMNO on April 18, 2017, 04:49:08 pm
Quote
The bible doesn't say life begins at conception

Psalm 139:13, if that matters.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Cramulus on April 18, 2017, 04:49:30 pm
[Maybe a bit of a tangent...]

I think the right psychic-kung-fu stance is to try to understand their position, the way they see it, then feel it out for weak points.

If you want to feel what it's like in the pro-life space, visualize this:

Imagine that you live in a world where it's legal to kill a child at any point before their first word. They're not really considered independent people until they can talk.

This is obviously murder, right? But nobody else seems to think so. If you try to explain that a 6-month old baby is a person, people are like "It can't even fuckin' talk! You hate women."



Quote
The way forward is in bringing their attention to the fact that if you want to actually decrease abortion, rather than just whinging about it forever while it goes on all the same whether legal or illegal, then put your investment in effective sex education, ubiquitously available birth control for everyone, and set serious penalties for rape - both social and criminal.

yeah I think this is the right jujutsu

isn't it funny how these same spags always go "Gun regulations don't actually stop criminals, so why do we need regulations?" - but abortion laws, totally different animal, right?
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Faust on April 18, 2017, 05:04:30 pm
Yeah, I've also seen the argument life does not mean conciousness or things like a developing fetus is a developing conciousness: A grey prelife state. It's seen as the compassionate option, that saying "it is the mothers choice" is somehow cruel to the unborn. Ireland is the only country in Europe where Abortion is completely illegal, which the 8th Amendment enshrines the rights of the unborn.
Even my mother who is fairly liberal on most issues believes abortion after the first two weeks is murder.

The 8th has resulted in the death of at least two women in the last few years because of complications where there was a risk to their lives and they requested the abortion and were denied.

The Hypocrisy is that the state does not offer these children the same opportunities to others nor have a mechanism in place for proper adoption for unwanted children forced to term by mothers who don't want them. A case from a couple of years ago that was exceptionally grim was a rape case where a 15 year old was denied the right to abortion, she carried the child to term but insisted she never wants to see it. The child is still in state care, it has been two years. The compassionate option my ass.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 18, 2017, 05:26:17 pm
[Maybe a bit of a tangent...]

I think the right psychic-kung-fu stance is to try to understand their position, the way they see it, then feel it out for weak points.

If you want to feel what it's like in the pro-life space, visualize this:

Imagine that you live in a world where it's legal to kill a child at any point before their first word. They're not really considered independent people until they can talk.

This is obviously murder, right? But nobody else seems to think so. If you try to explain that a 6-month old baby is a person, people are like "It can't even fuckin' talk! You hate women."

This is essentially the exact point that spurred on my original thoughts about this. These people think that people are killing mass numbers of babies. And that would be very fucking important to be upset about, if it were true. And that's why I didn't understand why the usual response to that was so casual and irrelevant to what they're actually saying. From their perspective, we are literally psychopaths. People die because of this assumption, and as progressives, we blow it off.

There's been all kinds of anti-abortion violence for more than decades. And our response always amounts to "J'ai une vagoo, what about you?"

And then I don't like that progressives like to turn around and make the same blanket assumptions about them, claiming that they are all inherently, purposefully sexist, and want nothing more than for Christianity to rule the world. They want the same shit we do. Including the reduction of abortions. Hence Vex's point.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 18, 2017, 05:55:45 pm
Quote
The bible doesn't say life begins at conception

Psalm 139:13, if that matters.

 :um:

Well, that's not exactly...

Okay, let me put it like this:

That's not specific enough to completely rule out twisting that into being something useful. Thankfully the bible was written in vague enough analogies to be interpreted literally in different ways. I mean, I could twist "knit me together in my motherís womb" into autocatalysis.

And I would if I wasn't at work.



Also, I generally can only respond at work because I don't have a computer or phone. Sorry if that means late responses.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: LMNO on April 18, 2017, 05:57:59 pm
But do you really think that telling someone about a neat fact of biology is going to change their stance?

I mean, they didn't ask for scientific evidence when they drew their initial conclusion, so why would that sway them after they've come to their decision?

And if it's true that the decision is ultimately one about morality, starting by accepting their moral POV cripples whatever counter argument you're trying to make.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on April 18, 2017, 06:04:42 pm
*snip
our response always amounts to "J'ai une vagoo, what about you?"

And then I don't like that progressives like to turn around and make the same blanket assumptions about them

See my stance is rarely ever "us and them", per se. I make every possible effort to avoid having an "us" if at all possible. I see most liberals and/or progressives as dumbfuck assholes the exact same way I see most conservatives or right wingers as dumbfuck assholes. The question of which brand of retarded bullshit going on in their heads doesn't really matter since, historically speaking, right or left anything will very quickly round up subset - B and exterminate them if given half a chance.

It's most pro or anti abortionists that give either side a bad name, same as it's most anybody who's pro or anti anything that paints that cause in a bad light. You wanna pick a side and argue for that? Fine, just remember that you have now just joined all the retards that the dude you're trying to get through to has had it up to here with. Oh and that dude? He's probably a retard too and will refute your every statement with with the most retarded crock of shit you can imagine.

If it's anyone you have a chance of getting through to, they'll either be reasonably smart and usually somewhere near the fence and you'll be arguing over smallprint like how many months or else they're a total dumbfuck and you're probably as well just gaslighting shit out of them and leaving them to try and figure it out a bit better.



Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: MithridatesXXIII on April 18, 2017, 06:04:57 pm
Not necessarily lmno, value debate has been happening forever. You just have to show how your value supercedes and/or subsumes their own position. Or,  how their value is better served or maximized by your position.

Unfortunately it's just difficult to top babylivesmatter. Freedom? Something else? It'll have to be something else, maybe something we've yet to conceive.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 18, 2017, 06:21:22 pm
But do you really think that telling someone about a neat fact of biology is going to change their stance?

I mean, they didn't ask for scientific evidence when they drew their initial conclusion, so why would that sway them after they've come to their decision?

And if it's true that the decision is ultimately one about morality, starting by accepting their moral POV cripples whatever counter argument you're trying to make.

It's not going to change someone's stance. It's going to give someone an incentive for an initial stance if they're new, and not make it look like our side is losing. Which, in itself, can make some people change stances.

Forget the science. We need to be able to say something that's not "Muh women's rights" since that argument is based on the science. Women's rights is a non-argument without the science.

If we're twisting religious text into something that fits our narrative, we're obviously not too hellbent on being correct or logical. We're set to use their fallacies against them. That strategy is just a way to win. As is my point with all of this. We're losing. Hence, Trump. Re-evaluating our strategies is how we win. They play dirty? We play dirty. They play fair? We play better.

We have to beat them on all sides, or we won't win anything.

*snip
our response always amounts to "J'ai une vagoo, what about you?"

And then I don't like that progressives like to turn around and make the same blanket assumptions about them

See my stance is rarely ever "us and them", per se. I make every possible effort to avoid having an "us" if at all possible. I see most liberals and/or progressives as dumbfuck assholes the exact same way I see most conservatives or right wingers as dumbfuck assholes. The question of which brand of retarded bullshit going on in their heads doesn't really matter since, historically speaking, right or left anything will very quickly round up subset - B and exterminate them if given half a chance.

It's most pro or anti abortionists that give either side a bad name, same as it's most anybody who's pro or anti anything that paints that cause in a bad light. You wanna pick a side and argue for that? Fine, just remember that you have now just joined all the retards that the dude you're trying to get through to has had it up to here with. Oh and that dude? He's probably a retard too and will refute your every statement with with the most retarded crock of shit you can imagine.

If it's anyone you have a chance of getting through to, they'll either be reasonably smart and usually somewhere near the fence and you'll be arguing over smallprint like how many months or else they're a total dumbfuck and you're probably as well just gaslighting shit out of them and leaving them to try and figure it out a bit better.

This is a good point. And raises the question: If we do win, how do we distribute power among those who we brought to our side? We certainly won't like everyone who's on our side. I know I don't like liberals who think that abortion is okay, but also believe that fetuses are babies.

And I think the theological misdirection and redirection will count as gaslighting. We're essentially twisting their theological reality into what we want it to be. One that is okay with abortion and the things we consider okay, and leaving out the things we don't think are okay.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on April 18, 2017, 06:56:17 pm
The pro-choice people I know who were raised pro-life were converted by arguments of reducing abortions through education and contraceptive availability, and from there walking back on late term bans (since most late term abortions are non-viable fetuses and/or threatening the life of the mother), and eventually walking back on all abortion access.

Compassion sells, not science.

I swear to God(dess) if anyone with a penis WELL ACTUALLYs me on this one they will wake up short one testicle.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: LMNO on April 18, 2017, 07:01:21 pm
PoFP, I'm fascinated that you're approaching this from a moral stance, and your apparent solution is an attempt to manipulate and warp a person's religious texts and beliefs and essentially trick them into agreeing with you.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on April 18, 2017, 07:02:49 pm
I just see absolutely no value in trying to convince the religious conviction out of someone in order to get them to stop believing anything. The amount of time and effort that goes into doing a thing like that on purpose is so immense and so likely to fail anyway that it's a fool's errand. No amount of biological or cognitive science is going to sway one person, let alone enough people to change the dynamics of the debate.

Maybe the need to do this arises from some weird desire to have everyone on the same page, or in thinking that a lasting truce cannot be built between opposing sides until they agree on some very basic facts that just happen to saw the legs out from under one or the other of them. But it seems to me that it's beyond useless to pursue any such goal. We'll never have a frame of reference common to the two sides that includes the definition of life or the existence of a soul, so it's a waste to even try.

What we can agree on is what to do about the situation we are in right now. Presumably, the anti-choice crusaders want to end abortion. It makes a lot more sense to me to show them how their current tactics are unlikely to succeed in that goal and give them an alternative that can succeed without any need to threaten their religious or moral convictions and also with a long-term understanding that simple prohibition is a failure of an idea no matter how strictly they imagine it can be enforced. They won't like the moral fuzziness of it, but at least it isn't a direct assault on their moral foundation. And the pro-choice side won't like the continued existence of a faction of people who pass moral judgment against a woman's basic bodily autonomy, but at least it's a moral judgment rather than a criminal one.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 18, 2017, 07:40:19 pm
PoFP, I'm fascinated that you're approaching this from a moral stance, and your apparent solution is an attempt to manipulate and warp a person's religious texts and beliefs and essentially trick them into agreeing with you.

I can live with manipulation of people that are willingly offering themselves up for manipulation, knowingly, if that means we can avoid another disaster like the Trump administration. Doing the right thing is for people who have already won and want to continue to be in power. We can start pressing for truth and transparency once we've secured our position.

At least if a liberal I don't like becomes powerful, they'll still kinda want the whole system to function. I can deal with political differences.

I just see absolutely no value in trying to convince the religious conviction out of someone in order to get them to stop believing anything. The amount of time and effort that goes into doing a thing like that on purpose is so immense and so likely to fail anyway that it's a fool's errand. No amount of biological or cognitive science is going to sway one person, let alone enough people to change the dynamics of the debate.

Maybe the need to do this arises from some weird desire to have everyone on the same page, or in thinking that a lasting truce cannot be built between opposing sides until they agree on some very basic facts that just happen to saw the legs out from under one or the other of them. But it seems to me that it's beyond useless to pursue any such goal. We'll never have a frame of reference common to the two sides that includes the definition of life or the existence of a soul, so it's a waste to even try.

What we can agree on is what to do about the situation we are in right now. Presumably, the anti-choice crusaders want to end abortion. It makes a lot more sense to me to show them how their current tactics are unlikely to succeed in that goal and give them an alternative that can succeed without any need to threaten their religious or moral convictions and also with a long-term understanding that simple prohibition is a failure of an idea no matter how strictly they imagine it can be enforced. They won't like the moral fuzziness of it, but at least it isn't a direct assault on their moral foundation. And the pro-choice side won't like the continued existence of a faction of people who pass moral judgment against a woman's basic bodily autonomy, but at least it's a moral judgment rather than a criminal one.

I completely agree with the bottom part, and feel like the top part isn't applying to the conversation anymore. I think we can reformulate our arguments to be viable and still take the "Let's lower abortion rate through preventative means to lower the incarceration rate" approach at the same time.

I mean, you do see what I'm saying about the whole "a valid argument is better than no argument at all" part right? No argument causes us to lose support, whereas a valid argument doesn't make us necessarily gain a ton of support (We get new millennials that are introduced to the debate), but we also don't lose any at all.

Like, your strategy involves already having the political influence to alter policy, and my strategy is about ensuring that political influence is there, and stays there. They're really just better off in tandem.

It's much easier for those media barons to develop their tag lines that get slurred at the dinner table if there isn't a valid counter-argument being made. Social media does the work for these people if you let it. Saying nothing looks like accepting defeat.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: LMNO on April 18, 2017, 07:58:36 pm
See, that's where I don't think you're seeing the hidden arguments.  BASIC programming jokes aside, the argument is:

"I believe life starts at conception."

"I don't believe life starts at conception."

The reasoning for these conclusions come from different places, but they both exist. 

You don't hear a lot of pro-choice people explicitly say this, because there's really no point to it.  "Women's rights" isn't used because there's no response available; it's used to shift context and reframe.  If one side tries to gain a moral advantage by insisting life begins at conception, the other side shifts the argument away from the nebulous religious and biological arguments, and reframes it as a woman's right -- that way, the other side feels has to assume (or admit) an anti-woman point of view, losing a portion of moral ground.

But you know what?  This is just another man talking about abortion.  I'll just re-quote QG.

The pro-choice people I know who were raised pro-life were converted by arguments of reducing abortions through education and contraceptive availability, and from there walking back on late term bans (since most late term abortions are non-viable fetuses and/or threatening the life of the mother), and eventually walking back on all abortion access.

Compassion sells, not science.

I swear to God(dess) if anyone with a penis WELL ACTUALLYs me on this one they will wake up short one testicle.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 18, 2017, 08:27:56 pm
See, that's where I don't think you're seeing the hidden arguments.  BASIC programming jokes aside, the argument is:

"I believe life starts at conception."

"I don't believe life starts at conception."

The reasoning for these conclusions come from different places, but they both exist. 

You don't hear a lot of pro-choice people explicitly say this, because there's really no point to it.  "Women's rights" isn't used because there's no response available; it's used to shift context and reframe.  If one side tries to gain a moral advantage by insisting life begins at conception, the other side shifts the argument away from the nebulous religious and biological arguments, and reframes it as a woman's right -- that way, the other side feels has to assume (or admit) an anti-woman point of view, losing a portion of moral ground.


Right, my point is, doing the same thing they're doing (And not in a better/more effective way, might I add) is not going to work. You have to do them one better, or do something different.

I mean, you see how killing babies sounds a lot worse than not liking women, right? I'd rather be stuck in a room with a guy accused of smacking some girl's ass than some guy accused of killing a baby. If that's supposed to be strategic moral re-positioning, that's a terrible way to do it.

The pro-choice people I know who were raised pro-life were converted by arguments of reducing abortions through education and contraceptive availability, and from there walking back on late term bans (since most late term abortions are non-viable fetuses and/or threatening the life of the mother), and eventually walking back on all abortion access.

Compassion sells, not science.

I swear to God(dess) if anyone with a penis WELL ACTUALLYs me on this one they will wake up short one testicle.

Nah, I'm right there with you. Sounds like supporting evidence of Vex's original solution. It's a winning strategy.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on April 18, 2017, 09:26:18 pm
But you know what?  This is just another man talking about abortion.  I'll just re-quote QG.

Most relevant statement ITT.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 18, 2017, 09:39:37 pm
Everything Vex said.

This.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 18, 2017, 09:41:17 pm

My point, as well as the conservatives'  point is that bodily autonomy is irrelevant in this debate until "a wedge is driven between fetus and baby." Again, having a vagina doesn't give someone the right to kill babies.

Damn it, just the other day I commented to Salty that you appeared not to be quite so much of a complete idiot anymore.

Thanks for proving me wrong. AGAIN.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 18, 2017, 09:43:00 pm
I remember like 5 years ago when most people who were even Christian were either undecided and or indifferent to abortion, and were generally moderate about social issues.

OMG

whut 

Are you literally 12?

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 18, 2017, 09:52:47 pm
ITT FP actually somehow made it to adulthood (?) without ever noticing that the argument about viability outside the womb has been hashed out endlessly since the dawn of safe surgical abortion.

How

how is this possible

has he simply lived in a hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere his entire life? Is this even for real, or is it an AMAZING KenM style cluelessness troll? Can he use Google? https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS703US703&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=abortion+viability+argument

THESE AND MANY MORE MYSTERIES AWAIT IN THE ANNALS OF PEEDEE.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: MithridatesXXIII on April 18, 2017, 09:55:38 pm
Viability outside of the womb is not the end all be all of personhood and moral status.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: MithridatesXXIII on April 18, 2017, 10:20:27 pm
Suppose your argument rests upon the viability of the of the fetus apart from the mother. Babies are being born with the ability to survive premature birth because of technology. Has the child's viability increased? It is obviously conceivable that further advances can reduce this length of time to the point that a just-fertilized egg could be transferred to a machine. The viability argument fails at this time, if the mother would otherwise choose to terminate the pregnancy.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 18, 2017, 10:26:42 pm
ITT FP actually somehow made it to adulthood (?) without ever noticing that the argument about viability outside the womb has been hashed out endlessly since the dawn of safe surgical abortion.

How

how is this possible

has he simply lived in a hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere his entire life? Is this even for real, or is it an AMAZING KenM style cluelessness troll? Can he use Google? https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS703US703&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=abortion+viability+argument

THESE AND MANY MORE MYSTERIES AWAIT IN THE ANNALS OF PEEDEE.

Obviously it's been hashed out before. That doesn't mean the argument shouldn't be made anymore. I'm referring to current debates that are had, not old ones.

I remember like 5 years ago when most people who were even Christian were either undecided and or indifferent to abortion, and were generally moderate about social issues.

OMG

whut 

Are you literally 12?

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

What I meant by this is that vocalized opinions about the topic that I heard expressed by religious people and non-religious people alike, were mostly in support or indifferent. Not that there weren't large numbers of people non-vocally hating abortion the entire time. And obviously there were people avidly against it the entire time who were vocal, they were just much more of a minority.


My point, as well as the conservatives'  point is that bodily autonomy is irrelevant in this debate until "a wedge is driven between fetus and baby." Again, having a vagina doesn't give someone the right to kill babies.

Damn it, just the other day I commented to Salty that you appeared not to be quite so much of a complete idiot anymore.

Thanks for proving me wrong. AGAIN.

So, did you not read further clarifications on this line made throughout the post/thread? Or do you think that I think abortion is killing babies? Or do you think that being female does give you a right to kill babies?
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 18, 2017, 10:31:46 pm
Suppose your argument rests upon the viability of the of the fetus apart from the mother. Babies are being born with the ability to survive premature birth because of technology. Has the child's viability increased? It is obviously conceivable that further advances can reduce this length of time to the point that a just-fertilized egg could be transferred to a machine. The viability argument fails at this time, if the mother would otherwise choose to terminate the pregnancy.

Growing the fetus in another vessel does not make it less or more autocatalytic at any stage in the development. When it's capable of being detached from a vessel that supports its growth, and is able to continue that growth and development with its own systems and external food/energy molecules, it is autocatalytic. Whether or not that vessel is alive is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: MithridatesXXIII on April 18, 2017, 10:39:54 pm
Suppose your argument rests upon the viability of the of the fetus apart from the mother. Babies are being born with the ability to survive premature birth because of technology. Has the child's viability increased? It is obviously conceivable that further advances can reduce this length of time to the point that a just-fertilized egg could be transferred to a machine. The viability argument fails at this time, if the mother would otherwise choose to terminate the pregnancy.

Growing the fetus in another vessel does not make it less or more autocatalytic at any stage in the development. When it's capable of being detached from a vessel that supports its growth, and is able to continue that growth and development with its own systems and external food/energy molecules, it is autocatalytic. Whether or not that vessel is alive is irrelevant.

So is whether the organism is autocatalytic important to you? Is this what distinguishes viability from non-viability?
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 18, 2017, 10:44:23 pm
Suppose your argument rests upon the viability of the of the fetus apart from the mother. Babies are being born with the ability to survive premature birth because of technology. Has the child's viability increased? It is obviously conceivable that further advances can reduce this length of time to the point that a just-fertilized egg could be transferred to a machine. The viability argument fails at this time, if the mother would otherwise choose to terminate the pregnancy.

Growing the fetus in another vessel does not make it less or more autocatalytic at any stage in the development. When it's capable of being detached from a vessel that supports its growth, and is able to continue that growth and development with its own systems and external food/energy molecules, it is autocatalytic. Whether or not that vessel is alive is irrelevant.

So is whether the organism is autocatalytic important to you? Is this what distinguishes viability from non-viability?

It's what scientists mean by "viable." If the complex chemical system that is the human body is incapable of sustaining its chemical reactions with food and energy molecules, how can it be considered viable?
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 18, 2017, 11:02:44 pm
ITT FP actually somehow made it to adulthood (?) without ever noticing that the argument about viability outside the womb has been hashed out endlessly since the dawn of safe surgical abortion.

How

how is this possible

has he simply lived in a hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere his entire life? Is this even for real, or is it an AMAZING KenM style cluelessness troll? Can he use Google? https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS703US703&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=abortion+viability+argument

THESE AND MANY MORE MYSTERIES AWAIT IN THE ANNALS OF PEEDEE.

Obviously it's been hashed out before. That doesn't mean the argument shouldn't be made anymore. I'm referring to current debates that are had, not old ones.

I remember like 5 years ago when most people who were even Christian were either undecided and or indifferent to abortion, and were generally moderate about social issues.

OMG

whut 

Are you literally 12?

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

What I meant by this is that vocalized opinions about the topic that I heard expressed by religious people and non-religious people alike, were mostly in support or indifferent. Not that there weren't large numbers of people non-vocally hating abortion the entire time. And obviously there were people avidly against it the entire time who were vocal, they were just much more of a minority.


My point, as well as the conservatives'  point is that bodily autonomy is irrelevant in this debate until "a wedge is driven between fetus and baby." Again, having a vagina doesn't give someone the right to kill babies.

Damn it, just the other day I commented to Salty that you appeared not to be quite so much of a complete idiot anymore.

Thanks for proving me wrong. AGAIN.

So, did you not read further clarifications on this line made throughout the post/thread? Or do you think that I think abortion is killing babies? Or do you think that being female does give you a right to kill babies?

Oh, I read them. With quite a lot of audible chuckling. Your comprehension of the argument is incredibly, uhhhhh, incomplete.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 18, 2017, 11:07:47 pm
I'm sorry, man, but this really is hilarious. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: You just don't understand why yet.

I feel kind of like a jerk because you are clearly making an effort to educate yourself and that is highly admirable.





This is still funny tho.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 18, 2017, 11:29:43 pm
Here are a few starting points that can help you catch up on the debate, and why bodily integrity and not fetus viability is the core argument in favor of legal medical abortion:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=yjlf
http://www.healthrights.am/practitioner-guide/more/579/
https://www.mmfllaw.com/ones-right-to-bodily-integrity.shtml

Now, consider the argument you are making, which is that the right to bodily integrity alone is insufficient to justify abortion. In order for that argument to be valid, you must assume that pregnancy is a special case in which a woman's bodily integrity is suspended in favor of another organism, which we will assume for the sake of the discussion is a person. Therefore, the woman's right to bodily integrity is suspended in order to confer the right to use her body to another person, placing her in a category of less-than-human, as bodily integrity is legally considered a human right.

Yes. Please read that again, and understand that the argument you are making, at its core, is that the human rights argument is insufficient because women just aren't quite people enough.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 19, 2017, 12:30:18 am
I'm sorry, man, but this really is hilarious. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: You just don't understand why yet.

I feel kind of like a jerk because you are clearly making an effort to educate yourself and that is highly admirable.





This is still funny tho.

I'm 21, and understand that I have often said, and will often say things that are outrageously stupid for quite awhile longer than Imight expect. I accept that.

But don't be surprised that I find this annoying.

On second thought, I've intentionally walked into threads and turned into an exploding shitfountain before. I'll give you this one.


Here are a few starting points that can help you catch up on the debate, and why bodily integrity and not fetus viability is the core argument in favor of legal medical abortion:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=yjlf
http://www.healthrights.am/practitioner-guide/more/579/
https://www.mmfllaw.com/ones-right-to-bodily-integrity.shtml

Now, consider the argument you are making, which is that the right to bodily integrity alone is insufficient to justify abortion. In order for that argument to be valid, you must assume that pregnancy is a special case in which a woman's bodily integrity is suspended in favor of another organism, which we will assume for the sake of the discussion is a person. Therefore, the woman's right to bodily integrity is suspended in order to confer the right to use her body to another person, placing her in a category of less-than-human, as bodily integrity is legally considered a human right.

Yes. Please read that again, and understand that the argument you are making, at its core, is that the human rights argument is insufficient because women just aren't quite people enough.

Before I jump into this,  I wanna have something clarified:

By bodily integrity, do you mean the ability for the body to live? Or do any changes/damage to the body whatsoever count as "affecting bodily integrity?" I looked up the definition, but my young male brain shit the bed and resorted to pterodactyl sex fantasies and pepe memes.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: MithridatesXXIII on April 19, 2017, 12:35:17 am
Sovereignty over your person
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: LMNO on April 19, 2017, 12:59:33 am
Following the links would be a good start.

Also paying attention to what women say about abortion is also a good idea.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 19, 2017, 01:22:09 am

2) fathers should be allowed to request an abortion - if the mother chooses to have the child anyway, the father should not have to pay child support


Your trilby is crooked.

Thank you for referencing the correct style of hat.

Are you both sure? It sounds more like this kind of headwear:

(https://radimrehurek.com/gumby.jpg)

Those are in fact my people, you know.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 19, 2017, 01:23:12 am

2) fathers should be allowed to request an abortion - if the mother chooses to have the child anyway, the father should not have to pay child support


Your trilby is crooked.

Thank you for referencing the correct style of hat.

It's an important distinction.  I don't want to tar Tom Waits with this brush.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 19, 2017, 02:26:31 am
Here are a few starting points that can help you catch up on the debate, and why bodily integrity and not fetus viability is the core argument in favor of legal medical abortion:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=yjlf
http://www.healthrights.am/practitioner-guide/more/579/
https://www.mmfllaw.com/ones-right-to-bodily-integrity.shtml

Now, consider the argument you are making, which is that the right to bodily integrity alone is insufficient to justify abortion. In order for that argument to be valid, you must assume that pregnancy is a special case in which a woman's bodily integrity is suspended in favor of another organism, which we will assume for the sake of the discussion is a person. Therefore, the woman's right to bodily integrity is suspended in order to confer the right to use her body to another person, placing her in a category of less-than-human, as bodily integrity is legally considered a human right.

Yes. Please read that again, and understand that the argument you are making, at its core, is that the human rights argument is insufficient because women just aren't quite people enough.

I have some information to digest.

Might take me a day or so to respond. Thank you for the response.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: rong on April 19, 2017, 03:46:01 am
Sovereignty over your person

the is the best pro-choice argument i've ever heard. 

kind of like the "stand your ground" laws
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: MithridatesXXIII on April 19, 2017, 03:55:18 am
It's basically the cornerstone of freedom, followed by dominion over what you own and produce, followed by the authority of the state to tax all of the above. Conservatives tout this all the time, just as it pertains to every other conceivable phenomena.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 19, 2017, 03:57:18 am
Sovereignty over your person

the is the best pro-choice argument i've ever heard. 

kind of like the "stand your ground" laws

Having the right to your own body is just like shooting Trayvon Martin.

You are a fucking genius.  Talking Ben Carson level brains, here.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: MithridatesXXIII on April 19, 2017, 04:11:07 am
There's that, and that it also goes beyond self-defense. The important question is, if a human being can be considered a sovereignty unto themselves, What are the powers of the sovereign?
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 19, 2017, 04:57:26 am
There's that, and that it also goes beyond self-defense. The important question is, if a human being can be considered a sovereignty unto themselves, What are the powers of the sovereign?

Doing as they please with their own bodies.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: rong on April 19, 2017, 06:44:53 am
Sovereignty over your person

the is the best pro-choice argument i've ever heard. 

kind of like the "stand your ground" laws

Having the right to your own body is just like shooting Trayvon Martin.

You are a fucking genius.  Talking Ben Carson level brains, here.

 :thanks:
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: LMNO on April 19, 2017, 12:45:38 pm

2) fathers should be allowed to request an abortion - if the mother chooses to have the child anyway, the father should not have to pay child support


Your trilby is crooked.

Thank you for referencing the correct style of hat.

It's an important distinction.  I don't want to tar Tom Waits with this brush.

They fact that I know the difference, and am sometimes upset when an error is made, worries me that I may be part of the former group, rather than the latter.



m'lady.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Junkenstein on April 19, 2017, 12:53:41 pm
Sovereignty over your person

the is the best pro-choice argument i've ever heard. 

kind of like the "stand your ground" laws

Having the right to your own body is just like shooting Trayvon Martin.

You are a fucking genius.  Talking Ben Carson level brains, here.

 :thanks:

Sigh.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 19, 2017, 05:20:25 pm
I understand now why I was wrong. There's just a few things that don't sit well with me. And I come to you about this, not to disagree, but to see if more elaboration, or another way of looking at these particular situations will make this an easier pill to swallow.

I didn't mention this in the OP because I assumed it was already expected to be the case of anyone who's pro abortion, but I understand why the OP could lead someone to believe this wasn't the case:

In cases of rape/incest, and life-threatening pregnancy of either the baby or the mother, I don't see any type of abortion as wrong. Whether or not it's late term is irrelevant if the pregnancy endangers either life, or has the potential to cause moderate to serious damage to either.

In other words, I already applied the bodily integrity argument to those cases. The change here, of course, is that you claim, and I agree, that bodily integrity should apply to all cases of abortion regardless of level of harm to either the baby or mother or intention of conception.

That being said, something doesn't feel right about late-term abortion of a healthy baby from a healthy mother in the case of consensual conception. You're right though, it's the woman's body. It really is their choice. I'm not taking that away. But is there some sort of line drawn since the baby is a person who also has a right to bodily autonomy? And in the case of consensual conception, should the mother/father be held responsible for their decision to conceive? I would argue that consensual conception of a baby is the act of "Conferring the right of the use of the body to another person." And once that fetus becomes living, and no damage is expected from the pregnancy, is it morally responsible to retract that right to the use of the body to end the baby's life?

Maybe I'm missing something, or assuming information that was not intended. I just wanted your thoughts on this.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 19, 2017, 05:24:12 pm
I'm sorry, man, but this really is hilarious. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: You just don't understand why yet.

I feel kind of like a jerk because you are clearly making an effort to educate yourself and that is highly admirable.





This is still funny tho.

I'm 21, and understand that I have often said, and will often say things that are outrageously stupid for quite awhile longer than Imight expect. I accept that.

But don't be surprised that I find this annoying.

On second thought, I've intentionally walked into threads and turned into an exploding shitfountain before. I'll give you this one.


Here are a few starting points that can help you catch up on the debate, and why bodily integrity and not fetus viability is the core argument in favor of legal medical abortion:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=yjlf
http://www.healthrights.am/practitioner-guide/more/579/
https://www.mmfllaw.com/ones-right-to-bodily-integrity.shtml

Now, consider the argument you are making, which is that the right to bodily integrity alone is insufficient to justify abortion. In order for that argument to be valid, you must assume that pregnancy is a special case in which a woman's bodily integrity is suspended in favor of another organism, which we will assume for the sake of the discussion is a person. Therefore, the woman's right to bodily integrity is suspended in order to confer the right to use her body to another person, placing her in a category of less-than-human, as bodily integrity is legally considered a human right.

Yes. Please read that again, and understand that the argument you are making, at its core, is that the human rights argument is insufficient because women just aren't quite people enough.

Before I jump into this,  I wanna have something clarified:

By bodily integrity, do you mean the ability for the body to live? Or do any changes/damage to the body whatsoever count as "affecting bodily integrity?" I looked up the definition, but my young male brain shit the bed and resorted to pterodactyl sex fantasies and pepe memes.

So you didn't click on ANY of those links, which explain bodily integrity and why it is important?
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 19, 2017, 05:26:25 pm
Following the links would be a good start.

Also paying attention to what women say about abortion is also a good idea.

REVOLUTIONARY CONCEPT!

Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 19, 2017, 05:29:53 pm
I'm sorry, man, but this really is hilarious. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: You just don't understand why yet.

I feel kind of like a jerk because you are clearly making an effort to educate yourself and that is highly admirable.





This is still funny tho.

I'm 21, and understand that I have often said, and will often say things that are outrageously stupid for quite awhile longer than Imight expect. I accept that.

But don't be surprised that I find this annoying.

On second thought, I've intentionally walked into threads and turned into an exploding shitfountain before. I'll give you this one.


Here are a few starting points that can help you catch up on the debate, and why bodily integrity and not fetus viability is the core argument in favor of legal medical abortion:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=yjlf
http://www.healthrights.am/practitioner-guide/more/579/
https://www.mmfllaw.com/ones-right-to-bodily-integrity.shtml

Now, consider the argument you are making, which is that the right to bodily integrity alone is insufficient to justify abortion. In order for that argument to be valid, you must assume that pregnancy is a special case in which a woman's bodily integrity is suspended in favor of another organism, which we will assume for the sake of the discussion is a person. Therefore, the woman's right to bodily integrity is suspended in order to confer the right to use her body to another person, placing her in a category of less-than-human, as bodily integrity is legally considered a human right.

Yes. Please read that again, and understand that the argument you are making, at its core, is that the human rights argument is insufficient because women just aren't quite people enough.

Before I jump into this,  I wanna have something clarified:

By bodily integrity, do you mean the ability for the body to live? Or do any changes/damage to the body whatsoever count as "affecting bodily integrity?" I looked up the definition, but my young male brain shit the bed and resorted to pterodactyl sex fantasies and pepe memes.

So you didn't click on ANY of those links, which explain bodily integrity and why it is important?

Yes, but we're past that.

Actually, the first link I clicked used the term without defining it, so I looked it up by hand and still didn't fully understand the definition, mostly because my preconceived notion of what I assumed the word meant conflicted with what was included in the definition. I accepted the definition provided after more thought about it.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 19, 2017, 05:35:32 pm
Man, you're going to be so embarrassed by this thread in five years. "I'm a 21-year-old boy and all the arguments wimmins been using about abortion rights is bad!"

There is SO MUCH available on the internet to read and comprehend about the debate, and all the questions you are asking.

It is very important to know your background information before building a new thesis. You have to actually understand the arguments and the contexts around those arguments before you can build anything useable. The step that all academics go through before starting to write about a new idea is a "literature review"; reading anywhere from dozens to hundreds of articles and books about the topic of interest. After that baseline knowledge has been established, then and only then are you equipped to move forward with turning speculation into a statement, let alone to argue (defend) that statement.

I think that for you, a good place to start would be learning search skills. I have to leave, but I will try to dig up some resources that will help you approach this methodically.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 19, 2017, 06:39:14 pm
Here are a couple of good starting points. This first link is good starter information for the non-academic looking to improve their research review skills:
https://www.lifewire.com/how-real-online-research-works-2483456

This is much more in-depth and is oriented toward university students. I think that although it might be information overload at first, this is the website you will ultimately find most useful:
https://digitalliteracy.cornell.edu/tutorial/dpl3000.html
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 19, 2017, 06:46:43 pm
Also, read the Wikipedia page on bodily integrity. It's a pretty good place to start forming baseline understanding. If it confuses you, take notes as you go, and go back to those sections to see if they make more sense on a second read-through.

FWIW, when I think I have an original thought, the first thing I do now is search to see if I can find out whether anyone else already had that thought and published something on it. Over 99 percent of the time, the answer is yes, someone has. So, I read what they had to say about it, and check my idea to see if there are any directions I can take it in that would offer something that hasn't been done. This is a superb way to both learn more about your interests, and to refine your ideas into something that is both original and useful.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 19, 2017, 08:41:52 pm
All of this is very helpful. I definitely run into problems in online research wherein I'll be stuck going through mounds and mounds of material that's either irrelevant or only contains pieces here and there that I need on the question I'm asking. And when you're mind is constantly racing from one topic/idea to the next, it's damn-near impossible to acquire all the information I need within a short enough time to stay interested and focused. If I lose focus or interest, I can't even continue thinking about the topic. Nothing I read even registers or makes sense.

I will definitely use these resources to help my researching skills.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 19, 2017, 10:09:44 pm
I understand about losing interest. I have been reading about antigen retrieval steps in immunohistochemistry for days, and I am not interested in it in the slightest but I have to make my project work if I want to graduate, so... 40+ articles later, I think I have the information I need to move forward.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Cain on April 19, 2017, 10:56:33 pm
Sovereignty over your person

the is the best pro-choice argument i've ever heard. 

kind of like the "stand your ground" laws

Having the right to your own body is just like shooting Trayvon Martin.

You are a fucking genius.  Talking Ben Carson level brains, here.

 :thanks:

You can use your uterus to store grain.  It's scientific fact.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on April 19, 2017, 11:42:56 pm
I can't mine is defective. Grain just pisses out through the holes  :sad:
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 20, 2017, 12:52:47 am

2) fathers should be allowed to request an abortion - if the mother chooses to have the child anyway, the father should not have to pay child support


Your trilby is crooked.

Thank you for referencing the correct style of hat.

It's an important distinction.  I don't want to tar Tom Waits with this brush.

They fact that I know the difference, and am sometimes upset when an error is made, worries me that I may be part of the former group, rather than the latter.



m'lady.

No, I can tell that's not the case because LMNOW hasn't killed you yet.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 20, 2017, 04:28:51 am
I understand about losing interest. I have been reading about antigen retrieval steps in immunohistochemistry for days, and I am not interested in it in the slightest but I have to make my project work if I want to graduate, so... 40+ articles later, I think I have the information I need to move forward.

Yeah, I just looked up what that is. It seems quite important as a form of information gathering regarding health diagnostics and study, but it sounds so incredibly specific and tedious. Fucking yawn fest.

I physically wouldn't be capable of reading 40 articles on something like that. If I'm not stimulated I will fall asleep. That takes some serious dedication. Kudos, seriously.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 22, 2017, 03:56:23 am
I understand about losing interest. I have been reading about antigen retrieval steps in immunohistochemistry for days, and I am not interested in it in the slightest but I have to make my project work if I want to graduate, so... 40+ articles later, I think I have the information I need to move forward.

Yeah, I just looked up what that is. It seems quite important as a form of information gathering regarding health diagnostics and study, but it sounds so incredibly specific and tedious. Fucking yawn fest.

I physically wouldn't be capable of reading 40 articles on something like that. If I'm not stimulated I will fall asleep. That takes some serious dedication. Kudos, seriously.

Thanks!

Learning to stick it out through really tedious texts has been one fairly important skill so far in this whole science adventure.  :horrormirth:
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 22, 2017, 03:56:50 am
Oh, and also Ritalin.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on April 22, 2017, 03:12:48 pm
Yeah, I'm gonna have to suck it up and just do it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-sfG8BV8wU).

May end up getting a prescription for Ritalin, too. I know it would help me.

I just don't want 1.) To become addicted to it or 2.) To have long lasting damage to my already deficient reward system.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 22, 2017, 03:30:04 pm
Yeah, I'm gonna have to suck it up and just do it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-sfG8BV8wU).

May end up getting a prescription for Ritalin, too. I know it would help me.

I just don't want 1.) To become addicted to it or 2.) To have long lasting damage to my already deficient reward system.

For what it's worth, I was diagnosed at 19, and have been sporadically taking the exact same prescription ever since. I take a very low dose (5mg) of the original non-time-release, because it wears off after only about 3 to 4 hours, which means that I can take it specifically when I need it, and not bother with it otherwise. I rarely take it on weekends at all. Because I take it so intermittently, I have never built any kind of tolerance to it. For the obvious reasons, I recommend this approach over the more common one of taking the same time-release dose daily.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on May 01, 2017, 09:06:47 pm
Yeah, I'm gonna have to suck it up and just do it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-sfG8BV8wU).

May end up getting a prescription for Ritalin, too. I know it would help me.

I just don't want 1.) To become addicted to it or 2.) To have long lasting damage to my already deficient reward system.

For what it's worth, I was diagnosed at 19, and have been sporadically taking the exact same prescription ever since. I take a very low dose (5mg) of the original non-time-release, because it wears off after only about 3 to 4 hours, which means that I can take it specifically when I need it, and not bother with it otherwise. I rarely take it on weekends at all. Because I take it so intermittently, I have never built any kind of tolerance to it. For the obvious reasons, I recommend this approach over the more common one of taking the same time-release dose daily.

Must have missed this the first time through.

This definitely seems like an effective strategy. I might talk to my doctor about it and give it a try. Thank you!
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: rong on May 02, 2017, 01:56:31 am
Sovereignty over your person

the is the best pro-choice argument i've ever heard. 

kind of like the "stand your ground" laws

Having the right to your own body is just like shooting Trayvon Martin.

You are a fucking genius.  Talking Ben Carson level brains, here.

 :thanks:

You can use your uterus to store grain.  It's scientific fact.

it's how beer was invented
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 03, 2017, 06:35:30 pm
Sovereignty over your person

the is the best pro-choice argument i've ever heard. 

kind of like the "stand your ground" laws

Having the right to your own body is just like shooting Trayvon Martin.

You are a fucking genius.  Talking Ben Carson level brains, here.

 :thanks:

You can use your uterus to store grain.  It's scientific fact.

 :lulz: Missed this the first time through.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on May 18, 2017, 05:41:49 pm
Well... no.

The argument that fetuses are not babies is of course made all the time. The "life begins at conception" and such ridiculousness is the anti-choice camp's counter to this argument. There will never be any successful attempt to convince them that fetuses are not babies, because anything that is sure to become a thing is as good as having become it already, at least whenever a person is inclined to believe that, which they are in this case. As far as any anti-choice person's ability to reason, there is no meaningful distinction between a fertilized egg and a baby. Even if physically they are as different as an elephant is from a ant, there is no difference morally, and that's all that matters.

Focusing the argument on the bodily autonomy of women, logically, is all that is left to the pro-choice arguer. It's unfortunate that this is one of the many, many exceptions to the conservative's crusade for "less government interference", but it is what it is. We are effectively faced with a situation where half of the country wants to rob women of their own bodily autonomy. Making it a question of bodily autonomy may not be the most effective way to settle the argument, but it's better than trying to drive some impossible wedge between "baby" and "fetus", which has been tried and proven to be completely useless.

Of course, the debate over abortion is not actually a debate over abortion. If saving lives was really the aim of anti-choice "activists", they wouldn't condemn all manner of not-fetuses to death at the slightest provocation in other areas. Their wailing over "dead babies" is just a charade they use because people are easily swayed by the idea of violence against defenseless children. There are many proven ways to materially decrease the rates of both abortion and of unwanted or underage pregnancy in general -- and if these people actually cared about eliminating abortion, they would champion these methods instead of simply calling for prohibition and punishment of abortion. But they don't like those methods, because while they are effective, they strike at the real motives behind the anti-choice crusade: they empower women, rather than constrain them to obedience and "modesty".

So I have to disagree with your assessment that the reason the abortion debate rages on is because the defenders of women's choice are doing it wrong. It rages on because there are theocratic monsters among us who are allowed to push their oppressive agenda as some kind of antidote to all the evils of the modern, liberated world. And as long as they exist, they will find ways to hate anyone who is too free for their liking, no matter what arguments are used against them.

How the darknesses do crowd up one against another in your mind. If you seriously believe this about the christians you're more deluded as they are.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on May 18, 2017, 06:20:54 pm
Wow, snappy comeback. I had to wait a whole month for this grammatically buttfucked nonsensical shite? I wanna refund :argh!:
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on May 18, 2017, 06:35:25 pm
Anyway my personal opinion on the matter is unique and probably super offensive to both sides

1.) The woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body but the fetus is not part of her body, so she has a right to remove it but not to directly damage it

2.) A fetus is a fractionally complete person and therefore there is a finite number of abortions, greater than one, that is theoretically equivalent to murder

3.) The only thing worse than state mandated eugenics is DIY eugenics that serves the convenience of the everyday mediocretin.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: LMNO on May 18, 2017, 06:46:40 pm
All three of your points sound... pretty weird, in light of what some of the responses to the OP have been.

Point one has been addressed in the OP, and directly relates to biology.

Point two is partially based on point one, and also appears to be a ham handed attempt at misplaced utilitarianism.

Point three reeks of privilege and sanctimonious condescension.


I'm going to take a wild guess and say you've never fully discussed these ideas with more than three women.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 18, 2017, 06:47:49 pm
PDS needs to shut the fuck up or move within shoe throwing range.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on May 18, 2017, 07:55:43 pm
All three of your points sound... pretty weird, in light of what some of the responses to the OP have been.

Point one has been addressed in the OP, and directly relates to biology.

The OP arguments struck me as a non-sequitur and ass-pull. It's clearly a distinct organism because it is genetically distinct.

As for autocatlysis if taken to its conclusion the argument would label anyone with a serious enzymatic disorder as an unperson

Furthermore, from a strict biological standpoint the the pro-life standpoint is closer to being literally correct. Technically both standpoints are incorrect; life is a continuous process that began once, billions of years ago. It would however be correct to say that the diploid stage of the lifecycle begins at conception.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: LMNO on May 18, 2017, 08:07:53 pm
(http://blog.chron.com/tubular/files/2014/01/liz-lemon-eye-roll.gif)
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on May 19, 2017, 12:33:59 am

As for autocatlysis if taken to its conclusion the argument would label anyone with a serious enzymatic disorder as an unperson


Requiring more (And slightly varied) food molecules to make up for the enzyme deficiency doesn't make someone not a person in this argument.

As for the rest, it seems like you haven't read biology's requirements for life. Last I checked, genes aren't the only requirement.





Also, I recommend this:

 :llama:
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on May 19, 2017, 01:56:50 am
As for the rest, it seems like you haven't read biology's requirements for life. Last I checked, genes aren't the only requirement.

Sorry. I assumed it went without saying that the fetus is made up of cells which undergo metabolism, multiply, and respond to chemical signals
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on May 19, 2017, 02:12:27 am
My main problem with abortion however is the undercurrent of ableism and of paradoxially reactionary concepts about reproduction and family that underlay it. It's supporters are basically saying that 1.) People like me who have genetic disorders shouldn't exist and 2.) That a child only exists for the benefit of the parents, rather than for their own benefit or to string along the ponzi scheme that is civilization until we can find a way to stabilize it by putting a stop to death.

Also, going back to this

Well... no.

The argument that fetuses are not babies is of course made all the time. The "life begins at conception" and such ridiculousness is the anti-choice camp's counter to this argument. There will never be any successful attempt to convince them that fetuses are not babies, because anything that is sure to become a thing is as good as having become it already, at least whenever a person is inclined to believe that, which they are in this case. As far as any anti-choice person's ability to reason, there is no meaningful distinction between a fertilized egg and a baby. Even if physically they are as different as an elephant is from a ant, there is no difference morally, and that's all that matters.

Focusing the argument on the bodily autonomy of women, logically, is all that is left to the pro-choice arguer. It's unfortunate that this is one of the many, many exceptions to the conservative's crusade for "less government interference", but it is what it is. We are effectively faced with a situation where half of the country wants to rob women of their own bodily autonomy. Making it a question of bodily autonomy may not be the most effective way to settle the argument, but it's better than trying to drive some impossible wedge between "baby" and "fetus", which has been tried and proven to be completely useless.

Of course, the debate over abortion is not actually a debate over abortion. If saving lives was really the aim of anti-choice "activists", they wouldn't condemn all manner of not-fetuses to death at the slightest provocation in other areas. Their wailing over "dead babies" is just a charade they use because people are easily swayed by the idea of violence against defenseless children. There are many proven ways to materially decrease the rates of both abortion and of unwanted or underage pregnancy in general -- and if these people actually cared about eliminating abortion, they would champion these methods instead of simply calling for prohibition and punishment of abortion. But they don't like those methods, because while they are effective, they strike at the real motives behind the anti-choice crusade: they empower women, rather than constrain them to obedience and "modesty".

So I have to disagree with your assessment that the reason the abortion debate rages on is because the defenders of women's choice are doing it wrong. It rages on because there are theocratic monsters among us who are allowed to push their oppressive agenda as some kind of antidote to all the evils of the modern, liberated world. And as long as they exist, they will find ways to hate anyone who is too free for their liking, no matter what arguments are used against them.

So, we've aired the paranoid way pro-choice sees pro-life, so now let me give you a glimpse of the - perhaps equally paranoid, I don't know) way they pro-life sees pro-choice.

I don't actually believe it's really about bodily autonomy at all. The issue isn't that you don't want to be pregnant, the issue is that you don;t want to raise a child. Bodily autonomy is just a convenient excuse. Imagine, if you will, this were a paralell universe where we were reptiles and the gestation took place completely outside of you, without even any incubation needed or possible, you'd find some other excuse for why it's ok to smash eggs. You simply don't want to take responsibility, which is something I emphathize with, but I can't support your methods. Instead, why not seek out one of the many gay couples clamoring to take responsibility for you

EDIT:
In fact, forget reptiles, you'd find some excuse even if we were amphibians or fish
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 19, 2017, 02:25:26 am
My main problem with abortion however is the undercurrent of ableism and of paradoxially reactionary concepts about reproduction and family that underlay it. It's supporters are basically saying that 1.) People like me who have genetic disorders shouldn't exist and 2.) That a child only exists for the benefit of the parents, rather than for their own benefit or to string along the ponzi scheme that is civilization until we can find a way to stabilize it by putting a stop to death.


By which you mean a woman's body is essentially the property of any potential offspring.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 19, 2017, 02:47:00 am
A BABY IS NOT PUNISHMENT FOR SEX.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on May 19, 2017, 02:50:39 am
So you come in here with "helpful advice" on how we can better "defend" abortion, because the left are idiots, and we are doing it wrong. Over the course of 6 dreadfully predictable pages, you (of course) wander from "here, dummies, let me help you" to "my main problem with abortion". So you out yourself as having entered the thread under false pretenses to begin with. You're not interested in improving arguments in favor of abortion rights, you are actually a pro-life fanatic. This explains why any honest attempt to enlighten you as to the reasons why certain arguments are or are not employed, fails to enlighten you. You are not here for information, you are here to preach.

I'm not exposing anything everyone hasn't already seen here, of course. But maybe this will help you understand why no one is taking you seriously. You know, besides the fact that your "arguments" are stupid and not worth real consideration.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on May 19, 2017, 04:07:04 am
So you come in here with "helpful advice" on how we can better "defend" abortion,

I never said that.

I came here to try and sway you. That said I believe the standard jesus freak pro-lifers are morons too, so I'll give you something that may be helpful specifically against them. Try quoting Ecclesiastes 4:3 to them, "[/i]But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.[/i]"
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 19, 2017, 04:19:09 am

I don't actually believe it's really about bodily autonomy at all. The issue isn't that you don't want to be pregnant, the issue is that you don;t want to raise a child. Bodily autonomy is just a convenient excuse.

This is what is known on PD as a "Babylon Horuv moment."
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: 00.dusk on May 19, 2017, 06:37:22 am
So you come in here with "helpful advice" on how we can better "defend" abortion, because the left are idiots, and we are doing it wrong. Over the course of 6 dreadfully predictable pages, you (of course) wander from "here, dummies, let me help you" to "my main problem with abortion". So you out yourself as having entered the thread under false pretenses to begin with. You're not interested in improving arguments in favor of abortion rights, you are actually a pro-life fanatic. This explains why any honest attempt to enlighten you as to the reasons why certain arguments are or are not employed, fails to enlighten you. You are not here for information, you are here to preach.

I'm not exposing anything everyone hasn't already seen here, of course. But maybe this will help you understand why no one is taking you seriously. You know, besides the fact that your "arguments" are stupid and not worth real consideration.

You've mistaken PoFP (original poster, bipedal) for PDS (this guy, screeches on knuckles).
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: 00.dusk on May 19, 2017, 06:50:16 am
Now's my turn to quite possibly get my monkey on, but I think that the current raving lunatic believes in traditional family ties and maybe even the concept of a nuclear family, judging by this:

paradoxially reactionary concepts about reproduction and family

Personally, I think family ties are a convenient screen for hiding abuse and the foremost enabler of things like nepotism and us vs them thinking, and the "nuclear family" concept has only made this worse. Anti-abortion rhetoric is used, in some cases, to further this specific agenda: essentially using the concept of "family" to beat innocent humans with.

Also, particularly the "reproductive" bit of our neighborhood moron's above quoted bit makes me think that he believes motherhood is an essential part of being a woman. Which, if true, has a ton of fun domino-effect aspects that force him to believe a host of other stupid things or modify his bullshit. They aren't even slippery slope fallacy, they're logical consequences of that belief.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on May 19, 2017, 07:40:12 am
So you come in here with "helpful advice" on how we can better "defend" abortion, because the left are idiots, and we are doing it wrong. Over the course of 6 dreadfully predictable pages, you (of course) wander from "here, dummies, let me help you" to "my main problem with abortion". So you out yourself as having entered the thread under false pretenses to begin with. You're not interested in improving arguments in favor of abortion rights, you are actually a pro-life fanatic. This explains why any honest attempt to enlighten you as to the reasons why certain arguments are or are not employed, fails to enlighten you. You are not here for information, you are here to preach.

I'm not exposing anything everyone hasn't already seen here, of course. But maybe this will help you understand why no one is taking you seriously. You know, besides the fact that your "arguments" are stupid and not worth real consideration.

You've mistaken PoFP (original poster, bipedal) for PDS (this guy, screeches on knuckles).

so I have. oh well.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on May 19, 2017, 09:16:55 am
paradoxially reactionary concepts about reproduction and family

Personally, I think family ties are a convenient screen for hiding abuse and the foremost enabler of things like nepotism and us vs them thinking, and the "nuclear family" concept has only made this worse. Anti-abortion rhetoric is used, in some cases, to further this specific agenda: essentially using the concept of "family" to beat innocent humans with.

Also, particularly the "reproductive" bit of our neighborhood moron's above quoted bit makes me think that he believes motherhood is an essential part of being a woman.

Where the hell did you get that interpretation from?

I think you're reactively trying to pigeonhole me into a preconceived notion (no pun intended) of a pro-life person. As strange as it may seem to you, and as admittedly rare as they seem to be nowadays, there are a greater range of possible political opinions out there than just cookiecutter Democrat and cookiecutter Republican.

My statement was if anything anti-traditional family. It was a statement against family ties and traditional family roles and specifically against parental control and authority.

And furthermore I've argued several times elsewhere on this board in favor of the idea that we'd all be a lot better off if all gender roles and expression were comprehensively suppressed across the board and we had a single range of acceptable forms of dress, speech, conduct, etc for all members of society to the point where it would be impossible to even speculate whether a given person was male or female.

A BABY IS NOT PUNISHMENT FOR SEX.

Are you insinuating that I insinuated that? At most I insinuated that it's something that happens. I didn't even say that you have to deal with it; in fact I explicitly said that someone else would. Again, I think you all are trying to pigeonhole me.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 19, 2017, 12:57:14 pm

I don't actually believe it's really about bodily autonomy at all. The issue isn't that you don't want to be pregnant, the issue is that you don;t want to raise a child. Bodily autonomy is just a convenient excuse. Imagine, if you will, this were a paralell universe where we were reptiles and the gestation took place completely outside of you, without even any incubation needed or possible, you'd find some other excuse for why it's ok to smash eggs. You simply don't want to take responsibility, which is something I emphathize with, but I can't support your methods. Instead, why not seek out one of the many gay couples clamoring to take responsibility for you

EDIT:
In fact, forget reptiles, you'd find some excuse even if we were amphibians or fish

Everything here is horseshit.

Abortions end unwanted, dangerous, or non-viable pregnancies. Criticizing people for "not wanting to take responsibility" is the epitome of BABIES ARE PUNISHMENT FOR SEX thinking. Proposing a hypothetical scenario in which pregnancy is removed from the equation so you don't have to talk about bodily autonomy is fucking stupid, and then you go on to assume that women would get off on smashing eggs/incubators anyway.

Eat seven diseased dicks. I hope you get severe gout and unpleasant rashes.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 19, 2017, 04:52:43 pm

I don't actually believe it's really about bodily autonomy at all. The issue isn't that you don't want to be pregnant, the issue is that you don;t want to raise a child. Bodily autonomy is just a convenient excuse. Imagine, if you will, this were a paralell universe where we were reptiles and the gestation took place completely outside of you, without even any incubation needed or possible, you'd find some other excuse for why it's ok to smash eggs. You simply don't want to take responsibility, which is something I emphathize with, but I can't support your methods. Instead, why not seek out one of the many gay couples clamoring to take responsibility for you

EDIT:
In fact, forget reptiles, you'd find some excuse even if we were amphibians or fish

Everything here is horseshit.

Abortions end unwanted, dangerous, or non-viable pregnancies. Criticizing people for "not wanting to take responsibility" is the epitome of BABIES ARE PUNISHMENT FOR SEX thinking. Proposing a hypothetical scenario in which pregnancy is removed from the equation so you don't have to talk about bodily autonomy is fucking stupid, and then you go on to assume that women would get off on smashing eggs/incubators anyway.

Eat seven diseased dicks. I hope you get severe gout and unpleasant rashes.

All of the above.  And the "BABIES ARE PUNISHMENT FOR SEX" thing is bog-standard for incels all over the world.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on May 19, 2017, 05:48:05 pm

I don't actually believe it's really about bodily autonomy at all. The issue isn't that you don't want to be pregnant, the issue is that you don;t want to raise a child. Bodily autonomy is just a convenient excuse. Imagine, if you will, this were a paralell universe where we were reptiles and the gestation took place completely outside of you, without even any incubation needed or possible, you'd find some other excuse for why it's ok to smash eggs. You simply don't want to take responsibility, which is something I emphathize with, but I can't support your methods. Instead, why not seek out one of the many gay couples clamoring to take responsibility for you

EDIT:
In fact, forget reptiles, you'd find some excuse even if we were amphibians or fish

Everything here is horseshit.

Abortions end unwanted, dangerous, or non-viable pregnancies. Criticizing people for "not wanting to take responsibility" is the epitome of BABIES ARE PUNISHMENT FOR SEX thinking. Proposing a hypothetical scenario in which pregnancy is removed from the equation so you don't have to talk about bodily autonomy is fucking stupid, and then you go on to assume that women would get off on smashing eggs/incubators anyway.

I was not criticizing, I was empathizing. I think I may fear serious responsibility more than death itself. I am anti responsibility, anti-duty and certainly opposed to traditional sexual social mores and Abrahamic prudishness that says that you need to be a married couple or something to have sex and that you can't have sex if you're an unmarried couple, or a random hookup from the craigslist or Tinder, or an Eyes Wide Shut type situation (and just because I've phrased that last thing in a humorous way I don't want you to take that as me not being serious about it; I am, and I really meant those last two parts). And furthermore I explicitly suggested to still avoid it but find some other way; put it up for adoption or leave it on someone's doorstep and I am 100% serious about that you should do that (though maybe try the first one first because, and only because, the second could get you into trouble). Responsibility should be dodged and slack restored but without violence when possible.

As for the lizard parable, fine, I suppose that's a little outlandish. Let's consider another more realistic one then:
Suppose, in the future, that there are medical advances such that with treatment a fetus is viable as of the second month, and furthermore suppose that wherever this is taking place has a functional amply funded single-payer health system; Is there, in this situation, any excuse for leaving the fetus to die after extracting it?

EDIT:
And for clarification I'm all for medically necessary abortions and abortions of non-viable pregnancies (though the latter seems a bit of a redundant step when there's not overlap with the former). Hell, when its medically necessary it ought to be sponsored by the government just like any medically necessary procedure ought to; it's only the elective ones I take issue with.

Now's my turn to quite possibly get my monkey on, but I think that the current raving lunatic believes in traditional family ties and maybe even the concept of a nuclear family, judging by this:

paradoxially reactionary concepts about reproduction and family

Personally, I think family ties are a convenient screen for hiding abuse and the foremost enabler of things like nepotism and us vs them thinking, and the "nuclear family" concept has only made this worse. Anti-abortion rhetoric is used, in some cases, to further this specific agenda: essentially using the concept of "family" to beat innocent humans with.

Also, particularly the "reproductive" bit of our neighborhood moron's above quoted bit makes me think that he believes motherhood is an essential part of being a woman. Which, if true, has a ton of fun domino-effect aspects that force him to believe a host of other stupid things or modify his bullshit. They aren't even slippery slope fallacy, they're logical consequences of that belief.

I wanna go back to this and say that I'm actually borderline anti-family. And partly because of abortion. If everyone was raised by the state or something it would scale back elective abortions to only the true bodily autonomy cases that have issue with pregnancy itself. Furthermore, the traditional family has become a false idol; in whose name progress is stifled, in whose name gays are discouraged from getting married and everyone else is badgered into it, in whose name people fight and are miserable for years because they don't want to get divorced, in whose name we have excessive censorship, in whose name many children endure negligance and abuse because there's no one other than their blood relatives to raise them and their blood relatives are all negligent, in whose name avoidable public health crisises occur because parents are given the authority to choose not to have their kids vaccinated
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 19, 2017, 07:46:41 pm
Dicknuts, lemme all caps again for you:

YOUR HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO IS SIDESTEPPING THE ACTUAL ISSUE.

We do not live in a world where abortions happen absent a pregnancy. We do not live in a world where pregnancy is not an imposition upon the body of a living human person. Get your head out of your own colon.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 19, 2017, 10:00:31 pm

I was not criticizing, I was empathizing.

 :tyra:
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Salty on May 19, 2017, 10:36:38 pm
My main problem with abortion however is the undercurrent of ableism and of paradoxially reactionary concepts about reproduction and family that underlay it. It's supporters are basically saying that 1.) People like me who have genetic disorders shouldn't exist and 2.) That a child only exists for the benefit of the parents, rather than for their own benefit or to string along the ponzi scheme that is civilization until we can find a way to stabilize it by putting a stop to death.

Also, going back to this

Well... no.

The argument that fetuses are not babies is of course made all the time. The "life begins at conception" and such ridiculousness is the anti-choice camp's counter to this argument. There will never be any successful attempt to convince them that fetuses are not babies, because anything that is sure to become a thing is as good as having become it already, at least whenever a person is inclined to believe that, which they are in this case. As far as any anti-choice person's ability to reason, there is no meaningful distinction between a fertilized egg and a baby. Even if physically they are as different as an elephant is from a ant, there is no difference morally, and that's all that matters.

Focusing the argument on the bodily autonomy of women, logically, is all that is left to the pro-choice arguer. It's unfortunate that this is one of the many, many exceptions to the conservative's crusade for "less government interference", but it is what it is. We are effectively faced with a situation where half of the country wants to rob women of their own bodily autonomy. Making it a question of bodily autonomy may not be the most effective way to settle the argument, but it's better than trying to drive some impossible wedge between "baby" and "fetus", which has been tried and proven to be completely useless.

Of course, the debate over abortion is not actually a debate over abortion. If saving lives was really the aim of anti-choice "activists", they wouldn't condemn all manner of not-fetuses to death at the slightest provocation in other areas. Their wailing over "dead babies" is just a charade they use because people are easily swayed by the idea of violence against defenseless children. There are many proven ways to materially decrease the rates of both abortion and of unwanted or underage pregnancy in general -- and if these people actually cared about eliminating abortion, they would champion these methods instead of simply calling for prohibition and punishment of abortion. But they don't like those methods, because while they are effective, they strike at the real motives behind the anti-choice crusade: they empower women, rather than constrain them to obedience and "modesty".

So I have to disagree with your assessment that the reason the abortion debate rages on is because the defenders of women's choice are doing it wrong. It rages on because there are theocratic monsters among us who are allowed to push their oppressive agenda as some kind of antidote to all the evils of the modern, liberated world. And as long as they exist, they will find ways to hate anyone who is too free for their liking, no matter what arguments are used against them.

So, we've aired the paranoid way pro-choice sees pro-life, so now let me give you a glimpse of the - perhaps equally paranoid, I don't know) way they pro-life sees pro-choice.

I don't actually believe it's really about bodily autonomy at all. The issue isn't that you don't want to be pregnant, the issue is that you don;t want to raise a child. Bodily autonomy is just a convenient excuse. Imagine, if you will, this were a paralell universe where we were reptiles and the gestation took place completely outside of you, without even any incubation needed or possible, you'd find some other excuse for why it's ok to smash eggs. You simply don't want to take responsibility, which is something I emphathize with, but I can't support your methods. Instead, why not seek out one of the many gay couples clamoring to take responsibility for you

EDIT:
In fact, forget reptiles, you'd find some excuse even if we were amphibians or fish

I dream of the day when you finally STFU. I know it's never, ever coming, yet I dream.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Cain on May 20, 2017, 03:58:03 am
Someone should copyright anti-abortion laws, then PDS will hate them.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 21, 2017, 06:01:19 pm
PDS is absolutely not worth wasting the time to discuss anything with. You'll have better luck if you go outside and shout at clouds.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Freeky on May 23, 2017, 08:18:39 pm
A BABY IS NOT PUNISHMENT FOR SEX.

One more time, because it needs repeating.


A baby being used by outside parties as punishment for sex A) don't care about the wellbeing of children, who are often treated badly by parents who don't want them, B) have some fucked up ideas about families, and C) exhibit symptoms of believing that their opinions about other people's lifestyles are not just valid but objectively true.


Go fuck yourself, PDS.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Freeky on May 23, 2017, 08:20:31 pm
Dicknuts, lemme all caps again for you:

YOUR HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO IS SIDESTEPPING THE ACTUAL ISSUE.

We do not live in a world where abortions happen absent a pregnancy. We do not live in a world where pregnancy is not an imposition upon the body of a living human person. Get your head out of your own colon.

Nailed it.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on June 05, 2017, 02:59:29 pm
While almost all of what PDS said was a waste of brain processing power and time, I did find the proposal to leave the baby in-tact during termination of the pregnancy to be interesting.

While it's not ideal in many cases, as often-times, the abortion might be done to keep the baby from living a bad life because the the parents know they can't provide for it, it does satisfy the "what about the 'bodily integrity' of the baby?" question. Leaving the baby in-tact would obviously lead to more kids in the adoption system, which, as we all know, is awful. But, I could see baby bodily integrity - Non-lethal abortion procedure - being an argument used by the pro-lifers in the future (If they haven't used that argument already. I apologize if I'm missing updated information on the subject. I'm brand new to the abortion debate from the legal perspective.).

Not to mention, I think leaving it in-tact makes the procedure itself vastly different, and more complicated/dangerous/damaging, since the body isn't ready for birth during the time of the abortion.

Just my thoughts.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2017, 12:22:58 am
While almost all of what PDS said was a waste of brain processing power and time, I did find the proposal to leave the baby in-tact during termination of the pregnancy to be interesting.

While it's not ideal in many cases, as often-times, the abortion might be done to keep the baby from living a bad life because the the parents know they can't provide for it, it does satisfy the "what about the 'bodily integrity' of the baby?" question. Leaving the baby in-tact would obviously lead to more kids in the adoption system, which, as we all know, is awful. But, I could see baby bodily integrity - Non-lethal abortion procedure - being an argument used by the pro-lifers in the future (If they haven't used that argument already. I apologize if I'm missing updated information on the subject. I'm brand new to the abortion debate from the legal perspective.).

Not to mention, I think leaving it in-tact makes the procedure itself vastly different, and more complicated/dangerous/damaging, since the body isn't ready for birth during the time of the abortion.

Just my thoughts.

The vast majority of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks.

Not sure how the fuck you'd keep a 12 week old fetus going.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 06, 2017, 12:09:27 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

Read that whole thing before you come back to this thread.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2017, 04:39:39 pm
While almost all of what PDS said was a waste of brain processing power and time, I did find the proposal to leave the baby in-tact during termination of the pregnancy to be interesting.

While it's not ideal in many cases, as often-times, the abortion might be done to keep the baby from living a bad life because the the parents know they can't provide for it, it does satisfy the "what about the 'bodily integrity' of the baby?" question. Leaving the baby in-tact would obviously lead to more kids in the adoption system, which, as we all know, is awful. But, I could see baby bodily integrity - Non-lethal abortion procedure - being an argument used by the pro-lifers in the future (If they haven't used that argument already. I apologize if I'm missing updated information on the subject. I'm brand new to the abortion debate from the legal perspective.).

Not to mention, I think leaving it in-tact makes the procedure itself vastly different, and more complicated/dangerous/damaging, since the body isn't ready for birth during the time of the abortion.

Just my thoughts.

The procedure which extracts an intact fetus is only used in late-term abortions, which are almost universally abortions of a wanted fetus because the fetus was abnormal and unviable. While the terminology may imply that the mother is a passive recipient of this process, in reality it is usually very similar to induced labor; she experiences not only the pain of labor and delivery, but also additional pain due to the fact that the labor must essentially be forced, as her body isn't ready to give birth, and also the nightmarish emotional pain of knowing that the fetus is dead. There are many medical reasons that this process is safer for the mother than foregoing the labor and delivery through surgical removal, and there is also an important emotional reason, which is that it allows the grieving would-be parents to see and hold the dead fetus, which is often considered to help with the grief process.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2017, 04:40:45 pm
In other words, the specifics of an abortion should be between a woman and her doctor. No one else has any place making those decisions, especially including the government.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on June 06, 2017, 05:29:50 pm
While almost all of what PDS said was a waste of brain processing power and time, I did find the proposal to leave the baby in-tact during termination of the pregnancy to be interesting.

While it's not ideal in many cases, as often-times, the abortion might be done to keep the baby from living a bad life because the the parents know they can't provide for it, it does satisfy the "what about the 'bodily integrity' of the baby?" question. Leaving the baby in-tact would obviously lead to more kids in the adoption system, which, as we all know, is awful. But, I could see baby bodily integrity - Non-lethal abortion procedure - being an argument used by the pro-lifers in the future (If they haven't used that argument already. I apologize if I'm missing updated information on the subject. I'm brand new to the abortion debate from the legal perspective.).

Not to mention, I think leaving it in-tact makes the procedure itself vastly different, and more complicated/dangerous/damaging, since the body isn't ready for birth during the time of the abortion.

Just my thoughts.

The vast majority of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks.

Not sure how the fuck you'd keep a 12 week old fetus going.

Of course. I may have been unclear about the abortion types I was referring to.

While most of the abortions that happen are considered early term, I would argue that most people, regardless of which side they're on, have issues swallowing the reality of the late term abortion. Specifically, the ones in which the baby could technically be allowed to live on its own, outside the womb.

I was just pointing out that PDS's mention of leaving the baby alive during termination of these pregnancies solves a few of the problems/fills a few of the holes in the bodily integrity argument, and would likely make a late term abortion less controversial (For lack of a better word at the moment). But I was also pointing out that leaving the baby alive during these types of abortions would cause other problems, such as an increase in health risk. Which leads me to what QG pointed out below:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

Read that whole thing before you come back to this thread.

Thank you for the link, I did actually learn quite a bit about abortion procedure and risks. However, I think there may have been some confusion on this link's application to my points above, or the link above was simply your indicator that the basis of my argument wasn't viable.

As far as I can tell, the procedure you linked to above requires the use of a fatal injection to the baby. I'm not completely sure if that's the case in all in-tact dilation and extraction procedures, but that appeared to be the case, based on the article. My points above, however, were based on the assumption that the baby would be in-tact and alive, meaning the abortion procedure would have to be non-lethal.

Interestingly enough, the in-tact dilation and extraction procedure appears to have no increase in health risks, contrary to what I expected. What I'm not sure of, however, is whether the fatal injection is required in order to keep the health risks low on the mother, considering she is not dilated to the extent that a normal birth would entail. I imagine that with lower levels of dilation, the baby would have an increase in health risks if it were not to receive the lethal injection. I assume, in this case, the risks would increase for the mother as well.


The procedure which extracts an intact fetus is only used in late-term abortions, which are almost universally abortions of a wanted fetus because the fetus was abnormal and unviable. While the terminology may imply that the mother is a passive recipient of this process, in reality it is usually very similar to induced labor; she experiences not only the pain of labor and delivery, but also additional pain due to the fact that the labor must essentially be forced, as her body isn't ready to give birth, and also the nightmarish emotional pain of knowing that the fetus is dead. There are many medical reasons that this process is safer for the mother than foregoing the labor and delivery through surgical removal, and there is also an important emotional reason, which is that it allows the grieving would-be parents to see and hold the dead fetus, which is often considered to help with the grief process.

I stand corrected. This was also outlined in the link QG provided, but didn't mention the fact that the pain and process of labor is still experienced by the mother (Not that that changes the argument, the decision is obviously still in the mother's court). Thanks for the clarification.


In other words, the specifics of an abortion should be between a woman and her doctor. No one else has any place making those decisions, especially including the government.

I completely agree. I wasn't contrary to this at all. I was simply pointing out how the argument to keep the baby alive (Not just intact) during termination of the pregnancy could limit some controversy, but also introduce more problems. And those problems would obviously make the rights argument even more important, as you and QG have just demonstrated.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on June 06, 2017, 05:51:32 pm
I think my problem with the way I presented my points was my vocabulary. Abortion seems to imply that the baby/fetus is terminated in all cases, not just removed. I guess the correct way of portraying my points is to replace every use of the term "abortion" in my comment preceding Roger's last with the term "prematurely induced birth." This implies that the baby would be alive, and makes my post make wayyy more sense. Sorry for the confusion.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2017, 08:24:35 pm
As far as I can tell, the procedure you linked to above requires the use of a fatal injection to the baby. I'm not completely sure if that's the case in all in-tact dilation and extraction procedures, but that appeared to be the case, based on the article. My points above, however, were based on the assumption that the baby would be in-tact and alive, meaning the abortion procedure would have to be non-lethal.

Interestingly enough, the in-tact dilation and extraction procedure appears to have no increase in health risks, contrary to what I expected. What I'm not sure of, however, is whether the fatal injection is required in order to keep the health risks low on the mother, considering she is not dilated to the extent that a normal birth would entail. I imagine that with lower levels of dilation, the baby would have an increase in health risks if it were not to receive the lethal injection. I assume, in this case, the risks would increase for the mother as well.

To be quite frank, it is largely because to allow the fetus to remain alive and unanesthetized through the birth would be tantamount to torturing it to death. It would be brutally inhuman to do that.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: PoFP on June 06, 2017, 10:40:22 pm
As far as I can tell, the procedure you linked to above requires the use of a fatal injection to the baby. I'm not completely sure if that's the case in all in-tact dilation and extraction procedures, but that appeared to be the case, based on the article. My points above, however, were based on the assumption that the baby would be in-tact and alive, meaning the abortion procedure would have to be non-lethal.

Interestingly enough, the in-tact dilation and extraction procedure appears to have no increase in health risks, contrary to what I expected. What I'm not sure of, however, is whether the fatal injection is required in order to keep the health risks low on the mother, considering she is not dilated to the extent that a normal birth would entail. I imagine that with lower levels of dilation, the baby would have an increase in health risks if it were not to receive the lethal injection. I assume, in this case, the risks would increase for the mother as well.

To be quite frank, it is largely because to allow the fetus to remain alive and unanesthetized through the birth would be tantamount to torturing it to death. It would be brutally inhuman to do that.

That seems obvious in hindsight. Feels like a silly point to have brought up now. Especially since the only alternative would be a C-Section, which, who the fuck would go through that to save a baby they didn't want anyways?





Thank you both for the info, I did learn quite a bit. This is why I come to you guys with unusual or misguided questions.
Title: Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 07, 2017, 12:50:35 am
Right on, man, anytime.