Thread: I'm not ashamed to admit I hate feminists.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Technically, all cells become 'more' through cell division. So plants, animals, bacteria, all become 'more' through mitosis. Does this mean I have to stop eating plants and meat? Coz you know... gotta protect that 'sanctity' of life of yours.

Also, just an FYI, not every fertilised zygote attaches itself to the womb. It's only a chance if it does. So by your reasoning, a woman is a natural born killer. Also, ectopic pregnancies... where the zygote begins to develop outside of the womb. When such a thing happens, it will kill the mother long before the baby is ready to be born.

Men do not really have much of a say on the issue, again, it is not their body, it is not their burden. I would never impose my opinion on a woman's choice, I would never strip her of her choice because it is not my place to do so. Also, why should it matter with abortion? There's already enough people on the planet, and in a way it would be better to adopt rather than simply push out new ones. It's not like we are endangered species.

My distinction for when abortion shouldn't really be done is when the foetus develops to the point where it starts to show brain activity of some sort, a sign of consciousness. It's not so much life that I value, it is consciousness. A clump of cells is not conscious, therefore it is not important.

You do realize when I said "more" I meant a conscious being right? Cause with that your whole other argument about other life goes out the window. I believe there is a natural order of things, and that sentient beings are at the top of it, so there is your answer on that.

Im not talking about "imposing" my opinion. Im talking from personal experience here. My brother's first fiancee was pregnant and she had an abortion without even consulting my brother. Can you imagine how devestating that was to him and my family? Needless to say she is an ex-fiancee now. If you think that the man having a say is "imposing" your opinion then we are on two different wave lengths.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

You do realize when I said "more" I meant a conscious being right? Cause with that your whole other argument about other life goes out the window. I believe there is a natural order of things, and that sentient beings are at the top of it, so there is your answer on that.

Im not talking about "imposing" my opinion. Im talking from personal experience here. My brother's first fiancee was pregnant and she had an abortion without even consulting my brother. Can you imagine how devestating that was to him and my family? Needless to say she is an ex-fiancee now. If you think that the man having a say is "imposing" your opinion then we are on two different wave lengths.

Wanna talk from experience? My mother had to go through an illegal abortion once (due to locality and the laws of the land at that place in time), and nearly died from it. Not to mention, she had to go to work the next day so not to raise suspicions. Now, had she died, I wouldn't exist, so the picture ain't fucking black & white.

Also, did you stop to consider she may have not wanted to have a child? You can't force a woman to bare a child she may not want. To do that is to remove her rights to her own body. And to me, that is by far more disgusting than an abortion.

For the 'natural order', what sets that order? What is it that sets us apart from another ape? Life itself is not meaningful, it is consciousness. When the foetus develops to the point it starts to exhibit brain activity, then yeah, I would be against abortions at that term, but that happens at around 20 weeks onwards with the pregnancy. Before that, it can't even be said to be conscious, so what's the big deal?

Originally Posted by tkdyo

you are the one spewing bullshit. for one, it IS rellevant that the cells will have human life, seeing as they are the only ones that can. You and I know both know there is a difference between a cell that lives and a cell that becomes MORE. For another your sperm cannot until it has been joined with an egg.

So? A conjoined cell can't become a human until it has not been aborted. So technically, when we abort it, it's pretty obvious that it's not "potential" human life. Also, there's no actual difference between the cells. The difference is in the way you look at them, not in the cells themselves. They are no more potential humans than flour is a potential pizza.

My other point didnt get addresesed still. Its not only the woman's the man took part too. It wouldnt be in the woman if not for the man as well. Its not really HER leg if you want to continue the analogy, it is THEIR leg. So, it should never be only the woman's final say unless of course the man is some dead beat runaway/rapist.

How is it their leg? That doesn't make any sense.

In Ireland where abortion is illegal, the passage below contains details of what a lot of women have to deal with. This stuff is wrong, and betrays vulnerable women's trust.
Also herbal abortion is a good alternative to surgical/medical abortion. Any women who want to know more about herbal stuff like this and reclaiming your bodies (pregnancy is not an illness) see the website www.sisterzeus.com

Written by Choice Ireland a political lobby group in favour of legalisation of abortion:

A rogue agency is a fraudulent pregnancy counselling service set up
with the sole aim of taking advantage of the vulnerability of women
experiencing a crisis pregnancy in order to bully them out of
considering the possibility of abortion.

The WRC is located at number 50 on Upper Dorset Street. The sign above
the door reads "WRC" but this rogue agency has many aliases. It was
known as "Aadams" from 1995 until 1999 when that incarnation was shut
down in the midst of an illegal adoption scandal. It reopened as the
"Women's Counselling Network" and was more recently calling itself
"Alpha" until a Newstalk exposé led it to change its name once more to
the "WRC". This agency is also known to misleadingly advertise in the
yellow pages as "British Alternative Pregnancy Services" and "Choice
for Women" in order to give the false impression that they will
discuss all the options available to women in crisis pregnancy when
they have no intention of doing so.

The agency uses many names because it has a lot to hide. This agency
specialises in traumatising vulnerable women. They give medically
incorrect information to women about abortion, stating that abortion
causes breast cancer, child abuse, depression, fridgitity, promiscuity
and infertility. They also have told women that have been raped that
it is impossible to become pregnant from rape. None of this is true
and the only reason they tell women these lies is to try to impede
their abilitiy to make an informed decision. They have also been known
to breach the confidentiality of people seeking counselling –
informing family members without consent that a woman is pregnant and
may be considering an abortion, giving a woman's contact details to
priests, and posing as a boyfriend to try and persuade a clinic to
cancel an appointment for abortion.

The agency promises women that they will be given contact details for
abortion clinics in England as soon as they have had an unnecessary
and expensive ultrasound at a private clinic that may take several
weeks to procure. When the woman returns with her ultrasound scans the
clinic then uses the images to try and talk her out of her decision
once more. The reason they engage in such a tactic is to try and cause
a woman additional delay and expense in the hope that this will
prevent her from being able to procure an abortion.

Related Link: http://choiceireland.blogspot.com/

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Wanna talk from experience? My mother had to go through an illegal abortion once (due to locality and the laws of the land at that place in time), and nearly died from it. Not to mention, she had to go to work the next day so not to raise suspicions. Now, had she died, I wouldn't exist, so the picture ain't fucking black & white.

Also, did you stop to consider she may have not wanted to have a child? You can't force a woman to bare a child she may not want. To do that is to remove her rights to her own body. And to me, that is by far more disgusting than an abortion.

For the 'natural order', what sets that order? What is it that sets us apart from another ape? Life itself is not meaningful, it is consciousness. When the foetus develops to the point it starts to exhibit brain activity, then yeah, I would be against abortions at that term, but that happens at around 20 weeks onwards with the pregnancy. Before that, it can't even be said to be conscious, so what's the big deal?

And why did your mom HAVE to go through this illegal abortion? Not being cynical, actually serious.

Im gonna say it again, it is not only rights to her own body, it is rights to a child's body as well, which to me is disgusting since the to be child doesnt even have a say. If she didnt want the child, fine, we would have taken it. but, if you are old enough to play around you are old enough to accept the consequences which she didnt want so she found herself a loop-hole. I know not all abortion cases are like this but this one was.

You answered the question yourself. What determines the natural order is we have consciousness.

I really dont have a problem with your view. The fact you are against it at some stage is still good enough to me. but, if you are so against my view I will stick around and defend it.


Sekrat: You know full well there is plenty of difference, the difference is that no other cells will evolve in to a living human save the ones from a sperm and egg joining. Saying they wont cause we abort them so it doesnt matter really makes more sense when you realize they are the only cells that can do this.

oye, the point of the leg thing was to take your analogy and spin it cause its not only her baby, it is both her's and the man's.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

And why did your mom HAVE to go through this illeagal abortion?

Im gonna say it again, it is not only rights to her own body, it is rights to a child's body as well, which to me is disgusting since the to be child doesnt even have a say.

You answered the question yourself. What determines the natural order is we have consciousness.

Well, first of all, with the ban on abortion, there was also no contraceptives either. So that made things a little hard not to get pregnant if you were young and dating. So considering circumstances, such situations are bound to happen, whether it was my mother or not in that period of time (and it happened more often than not).

You can't force someone to bear children. I mean, I could decide I don't even want to knock up a girl (near-term and long-term) and go and have a vasectomy. Am I being inconsiderate towards any future girlfriends who may want to become pregnant? No, my body, my choice. It's the same with them. Besides, if it was really a problem, then there's always adoption.

As for the 'order' of things, consciousness is the key factor, but a clump of cells is not conscious. In fact, I actually see no objective reason why humans should be valued any more than the next animal. Any reasons are purely sentimental and subjective in such a case. As for you, you also proved a point, it is not life you value, it is consciousness. Therefore you shouldn't really have a problem with early-term abortions.

As the late (and awesome) George Carlin framed the whole thing: "Pro-life is Anti-woman"

Never was a big fan of him, anyways:

ok, no conctreceptives is pretty retarded.

wait wait wait. So, I cant force a woman to bear children PRE conciousness, but once there is conciousness I can? Then it really is not her body's rights, it is the child's rights. Am I following right here?

Yes, objectively I should not have a problem with early term abortions, but from the reasoning above, I do.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Never was a big fan of him, anyways:

ok, no conctreceptives is pretty retarded.

wait wait wait. So, I cant force a woman to bear children PRE conciousness, but once there is conciousness I can? Then it really is not her body's rights, it is the child's rights. Am I following right here?

Yes, objectively I should not have a problem with early term abortions, but from the reasoning above, I do.

No, I may have qualms against it, but that's personal sentiment. I would never impose personal sentiment against someone else in order to force them into doing something they may not be willing to. Just as someone has no right to deny me my vasectomy, you don't have any right to deny a woman the choice whether to bear a child or not. Denying someone the right to their own body is fucking evil, in my opinion. We are not reproduction machines.

It is fing evil to deny a child life. This is not only about the woman, that is a completely selfish view. A vesectomy is not equal to abortion, having the woman's tubes tied is. Which i have no problem with btw.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Sekrat: You know full well there is plenty of difference, the difference is that no other cells will evolve in to a living human save the ones from a sperm and egg joining. Saying they wont cause we abort them so it doesnt matter really makes more sense when you realize they are the only cells that can do this.

oye, the point of the leg thing was to take your analogy and spin it cause its not only her baby, it is both her's and the man's.

There's no baby. It's a clump of cells. A potential baby is not a baby. You're arguing potentialities. That is highly illogical and I will ask you to refrain from doing that. Potentialities are no more than mental masturbation. You can't deny a potential child life because there is no potential child.

I know that you will answer with the same nonsensical arbitrary distinctions again ad nauseam, so please just don't write anything.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

It is fing evil to deny a child life. This is not only about the woman, that is a completely selfish view. A vesectomy is not equal to abortion, having the woman's tubes tied is. Which i have no problem with btw.

Note the wording, child. The correct term is foetus. If the foetus is not conscious, then it is just a clump of cells. There's nothing there to suggest a human in the eyes of someone who values consciousness.

It is about the woman. We have come a long way to ensure equal rights to women, why the fuck should we start taking steps back all of a sudden? Why should you deny a fully conscious, fully developed, sentient being the right to its body, just because there's a clump of cells (which are not conscious, not aware) inhabiting inside that being's body? Where is the logic in that?

arguing potentiallity? How often do they not? In the rare times there is a miscarriage? Maybe to your view it is illogical, I will ask you to refrain from acting like your opinion is worth more than mine because it is not. I can just as easily say to me it is illogical that you can value the developing life at one point and not another, because there is no guaruntee that the baby will be ok until after it is out, but does that make it worth less? No

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Note the wording, child. The correct term is foetus. If the foetus is not conscious, then it is just a clump of cells. There's nothing there to suggest a human in the eyes of someone who values consciousness.

It is about the woman. We have come a long way to ensure equal rights to women, why the fuck should we start taking steps back all of a sudden? Why should you deny a fully conscious, fully developed, sentient being the right to its body, just because there's a clump of cells (which are not conscious, not aware) inhabiting inside that being's body? Where is the logic in that?

sorry for the double post.

Note your wording as well, I said not ONLY about the woman. The logic is that this clump of cells are the only ones that can become a sentient being. If you think it is a step back to ensure the life of another sentient being then we are at an impasse.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

sorry for the double post.

Note your wording as well, I said not ONLY about the woman. The logic is that this clump of cells are the only ones that can become a sentient being. If you think it is a step back to ensure the life of another sentient being then we are at an impasse.

And yet most fertilised eggs don't get to attach to the uterus, because most get washed away by that 'convenient' time of the month. So, by your logic, every woman who has had more than one period is a serial killer.

The voice of reason... right here

yeah, thats exactly what im saying

Originally Posted by tkdyo

arguing potentiallity? How often do they not? In the rare times there is a miscarriage? Maybe to your view it is illogical, I will ask you to refrain from acting like your opinion is worth more than mine because it is not. I can just as easily say to me it is illogical that you can value the developing life at one point and not another, because there is no guaruntee that the baby will be ok until after it is out, but does that make it worth less? No

It doesn't matter whether it will be a human or not. It is not, hence we can abort it. Simple, ain't it? The potentiality argument is really the worst of all. Potentialities don't mean anything because they are not real. They are mental masturbation. At least try and come up with something a bit more convincing... tell me why a batch of cells has human moral properties (as opposed to could have and will have). Until then...

because the reason for getting the abortion is exactly the same. because it will become human, the abortion occurs. The potentiallity goes both ways. If I you can argue for it because it will become human, I can argue against it because it will, simple aint it?

Originally Posted by tkdyo

because the reason for getting the abortion is exactly the same. because it will become human, the abortion occurs. The potentiallity goes both ways. If I you can argue for it because it will become human, I can argue against it because it will, simple aint it?

Yes. I'm not denying that it will become human if not aborted. I'm arguing that whether or not something will be something is irrelevant to it's moral status. What counts is what it is. And it's a batch of cells. If tomorrow I get hit by truck and have to live in a wheelchair, that doesn't mean I can demand disabled benefits today.

I can see where you are coming from. But how do we have a right to say how far back it is from not being human? you could argue the first brain waves, or the first organs, or the cells because they still had the genetic potential. as bluefinger said, I dont think it is so black and white.

I feel I have to make this edit cause maybe Im coming off as one. but Im not a fundamentalist christian. Im not even christian actually, I believe in evolution and science...just still have a spiritual side too I suppose.

If it doesn't breath, it is not a true human.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I can see where you are coming from. But how do we have a right to say how far back it is from not being human? you could argue the first brain waves, or the first organs, or the cells because they still had the genetic potential. as bluefinger said, I dont think it is so black and white.

Well, that's another issue. Surely it would be similarly illogical to say that cutting the umbilical cord determines the independence of a human organism. It's in between. My main point was that a bunch of cells with no neuronal activity whatsoever shouldn't have moral rights. I am currently not knowledgeable enough in the area to determine at which point I think a fetus should be given the right to life. Surely there would have to be signs of consciousness, i.e. independent mental functioning.

HD surely you are being sarcastic with that remark.

Serkat: I see...so does that mean you do think it should be illegal after a certain point? cause if so thats good enough for me. At the cellular level I have been back and forth many times, which is why I enjoy debate about it.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

HD surely you are being sarcastic with that remark.

Serkat: I see...so does that mean you do think it should be illegal after a certain point? cause if so thats good enough for me. At the cellular level I have been back and forth many times, which is why I enjoy debate about it.

Yes. Surely it shouldn't be allowed to abort a baby a couple of days or hours before birth. Whether it has an organic tube coming out of it's naval or not is irrelevant for its moral status.

hmmmmmm


I really can't stand abortion debates, and where the line of humanity begins and ends. people make such pathetic claims

anyone who is an avid lucid dreamer, would begin to see them self as the ghost in the machine. a lucid dream, may be created in the mind, but the mind - the you - the real you- certainly is experiencing everything without the body. that body is not you. you are the mind in the body. you are mind. you are consciousness.

you don't have to research to far to find a wealth of information regarding the mind of a fetus. we know, fetus at some point has a mind. we know they can hear and recognize their mothers voice. and many of us are convinced they can dream.

one of the most cowardly and pathetic arguments I have ever heard regards the dependency of a fetus. that the fetus isn't human because its completely dependent on its mother, thus a parasite.

show me how a new born is independent. show me how a three day old baby is independent. how a week old baby is independent. there is no such thing as a independent baby. this is how humanity has evolved. we have evolved to develop close bonds, and we start off by needing someone to take care of us.

the fetus is truly a human baby that needs its mother. you damn cowards.