Abortion is murder

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Abortion is murder

Saying that an abortion is the equivalent of murdering an actual person is very, very irrational. By the way, to Christians, the Bible actually says life begins at birth.

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

But seriously, a fetus is not a person, especially very early - as Sam Harris pointed out, a blastocyst actually has fewer cells than are present in the brain of a fly. Why are christians only concerned with life when it is either a fetus or brain dead? Maybe they only like people of similar intelligence to them.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:kellym78

MattShizzle wrote:

kellym78 wrote:

 Why should he just get to opt out because it wasn't part of his plan? Fuck that.

 

"Why should she get to abort jsut because having a kid wasn't part of her plan."

 

Congratulations. You use the same logic as a fundie.

 How's that? By flipping the tables on you? What she gets to do with HER BODY is HER CHOICE. There's no fundie logic there.

Quote:


In my opinion women need to decide if they really want to be equal - if they do then the way I said it is how it should be. Otherwise, get back in the kitchen and shut the fuck up, beyotch!

 As to your question - YES! You should have either had to abort, pay yourself or find someone else to pay.

With these comments, I'm officially bowing out of the discussion with the suggestion that you think long and hard about Watcher's comment. You know, we've ALL had bad relationships--I'd be willing to bet that some of my experiences could trump yours. Yet, I do not hate men nor do I participate in generalized man-bashing, no matter how common it is. Your attitude towards women is not only offensive; it's incredibly ignorant and unfair. You're doing to women what fundies do to atheists--just because a few assholes are atheists, they all are. THAT is poor logic.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I see absolutely nothing

I see absolutely nothing wrong with what I said. Nobody should be punished for having sex. A woman shouldn't be punished with an unwanted baby and a man shouldn't be punished with losing a big chunk of his money. Yes, it's her body - she can abort or have the baby - just don't expect anyone else to pay for it. I do feel that any form of consensual sex should be completely without consequences for any party involved. 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
That has to be the most

That has to be the most unrealistic thing i've ever read. sex does have consequences. aside from having a baby, sex can change the relationship, it can cause you to have an emotional response that's unpleasant, you could contract a disease. just because something is fun and can be engaged in simply for your amusement  that doesn't mean it can be done with impunity. there are some situations where a guy really shouldn't have to pay. if you have a one night stand and you see the girl 9 months later with a baby saying hey you gotta pay for this little bundle of joy and you're like "i don't even know your name lady"  then probably not. But that doesn't mean in any situation the guy can just  wave it off and say "that's your problem bitch, you should  have been smart enough not to sleep with me".

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Men who don't want to have

Men who don't want to have children can get vasectomies.  Men without vasectomies who have sex with women are taking a chance that they might become a father.  Part of being a rational human being is accepting the consequences when engaging in a risk/reward activity.

If a man is certain he doesn't want a child with a particular woman, he has several choices:

1) Avoid vaginal intercourse.  There are other ways to get off with someone.

2) Get a vasectomy.  Frankly, I think it's insane for men who have already had as many children as they want not to get one.  It's cheap, easy, and virtually foolproof.  For men who might want children later, it's not as great an option, but hey, if you can't keep your dick in your pants, get one and either get it reversed later, or see one of the other options.

3) Practice really safe sex.  Always use a condom.  Avoid sex during the week when ovulation is most likely.  Throw some spermicidal gel in that thing.  Use a diaphragm.  Get her on the pill.

I'm the first person to say that people who want to have sex with each other have every right to do so, and I have no fundamental problems with casual sex.  However, I do have problems with people who take a risk, and then when their risk doesn't pay off, they bitch about consequences they knew were possible.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That has to be the

Quote:
That has to be the most unrealistic thing i've ever read. sex does have consequences. aside from having a baby, sex can change the relationship, it can cause you to have an emotional response that's unpleasant, you could contract a disease. just because something is fun and can be engaged in simply for your amusement  that doesn't mean it can be done with impunity. there are some situations where a guy really shouldn't have to pay. if you have a one night stand and you see the girl 9 months later with a baby saying hey you gotta pay for this little bundle of joy and you're like "i don't even know your name lady"  then probably not. But that doesn't mean in any situation the guy can just  wave it off and say "that's your problem bitch, you should  have been smart enough not to sleep with me".

You raise a very good point.  Women are not immune from the consequences of actions either.  If you're a woman and you engage in casual sex with someone you have no intention of staying with, you shouldn't have the "Get Out of Jail Free" card.  Abortion is not the most pleasant thing in the world, to be sure,  but one of the potential consequences of casual sex is pregnancy, and I don't agree with blanket paternal obligations in all cases.

In short, I believe that parental obligations ought to be tied to a reasonable assumption that both people were ok with the possibility of staying together and possibly having children.  Of course, this belief is concurrent with my belief that the government ought to provide free abortions for anyone who wants one.  Just as a man takes several risks when having sex, so does a woman.  One of those risks, when having casual sex, is that an unwanted pregnancy will result.  Just as 18 years of child payment is pretty painful, abortion is pretty painful.  Even so, sometimes humans are capable of rising above their emotions and doing something painful because they know it's the right thing to do.  Forcing a man to pay child support from a fling is unreasonable.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I do think not only abortion

I do think not only abortion should be free, but also tubal ligation and vasectomy. I'd get one if it was free.

 

What I'm saying is we shouldn't force consequences on anyone for sex - if we have vaccines/cures for any STD they should be available. Abortion should be available free and on demand up until birth - and no man should have to pay a cent for child support if he didn't want a baby. If there are unavoidable consequences that's one thing, but there shouldn't be "punishment" just for having sex.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I see

MattShizzle wrote:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with what I said. Nobody should be punished for having sex. A woman shouldn't be punished with an unwanted baby and a man shouldn't be punished with losing a big chunk of his money. Yes, it's her body - she can abort or have the baby - just don't expect anyone else to pay for it. I do feel that any form of consensual sex should be completely without consequences for any party involved. 

We know you don't see anything wrong with what you said.  Did you notice what I said about your social disconnection, Matt?

It would be nice if we all lived in lollipop land where there were no consequences from consensual sex.  Tell that to my cousin who contracted HIV doing so.  Or the 45 million Americans with Herpes. 

Sex isn't just for giggles anymore no matter which way you look at it.  Be an adult, take the proper precautions, or own up to the consequences of your actions.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm saying we should keep

I'm saying we should keep them to as little as we can. If we can treat/prevent STD's we should. If we can come up with a cheap, 100% effective non-intrusive form of birth control we should. And we should provide free abortion on demand for any woman who wants it regardless of how far along she is - and the man should have the exact same rights - ie not having to pay child support (though if he knew he shouldn't be able to decide this after birth.) We should do as much as we can to keep consequences to a minimum as I said. The way some of you sound is almost exactly like the fundies who don't want women to have access to abortion or the HPV vaccine. Sex is not bad. It doesn't deserve punishment for women OR men.

 

Of course another problem is how high regard some people have for a baby. I really can't see a baby as a person as opposed to a thing.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:We know you don't see

Quote:

We know you don't see anything wrong with what you said.  Did you notice what I said about your social disconnection, Matt?

It would be nice if we all lived in lollipop land where there were no consequences from consensual sex.  Tell that to my cousin who contracted HIV doing so.  Or the 45 million Americans with Herpes.

Watcher is spot on, Matt.  You're missing a really important point, which is that sex does have potential negative consequences, and both legal and economic justification exists for saying that men and women are jointly responsible for babies they make.  This isn't even taking into account the psychological issues that go along with sex.

Look, I agree that our system of automatic economic responsibility across the board is unreasonable.  I think that a woman who gets pregnant by accident on a casual encounter has a moral responsibility to choose between abortion, adoption, or raising the child herself rather than saddle a man she hardly knows and certainly doesn't want to marry with 18 years of debt.  I wish she had a legal responsibility, too.  However, I think that the majority of cases where men end up paying child support are NOT from casual encounters like this.  Maybe someone knows where some data is on that, but I'm guessing that most are cases where the couple was dating.  If you're dating someone, you need to have an agreement about what happens if there's a pregnancy.  That's part of the responsibility of being an adult.  If you haven't had the talk, that's tough tits.  You're morally and legally responsible to help raise the child.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I strongly disagree. Too

I strongly disagree. Too many people are obsessed with this idea in this country - hence the mantra of "Personal responsibility" we hear from conservatives. I don't think dating should require legal documents. If he says he doesn't want a baby and it happens - well what's his recourse?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'm saying we should

Quote:
I'm saying we should keep them to as little as we can. If we can treat/prevent STD's we should. If we can come up with a cheap, 100% effective non-intrusive form of birth control we should.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with this.  I'm all for std research, treatment, and prevention.  I think it would be awesome if we developed a vaccine for herpes and HIV. 

We do have virtually 100% effective birth control.  The three month shots are damn near 100%.  The daily pill is, too, if taken as directed.  Even though it's technically intrusive, IUDs are virtually 100% effective, and the intrusion is minimal.

We have really awesome intrusive birth control, too.  Vasectomy and tubal ligation are virtually 100%.

Quote:
And we should provide free abortion on demand for any woman who wants it regardless of how far along she is - and the man should have the exact same rights - ie not having to pay child support (though if he knew he shouldn't be able to decide this after birth.)

I agree that free abortion should be available to anyone who wants it.  However, this doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a man is obligated to pay for a child.

Quote:
The way some of you sound is almost exactly like the fundies who don't want women to have access to abortion or the HPV vaccine. Sex is not bad. It doesn't deserve punishment for women OR men.

Matt, you seem to have this bizarre disconnect about sex.  People didn't invent the consequences of sex as a way to stop people from having sex!  Sex has consequences, and people make policies about how those consequences should be dealt with.  Nobody's trying to tell anybody they shouldn't have sex, just like we're not trying to tell people not to skydive or bungee jump.  These are all activities that are fun but have unavoidable potential consequences.   If someone skydives and then breaks both legs from hitting a tree while landing, we say, "Gee, dude.  That sucks, but you knew it might happen."  It's the same with sex.  You're going around having unprotected sex and knock a girl up?  That sucks for both of you, but it's a risk you took.

I'm going out on a philosophical limb by suggesting that there are some cases where I don't feel a man ought to be economically responsible for a child, but that's the way I feel about it.  I don't believe that babies are sacred, or that women have the inalienable right to have babies any time they please.  Sometimes, it's a really bad idea for a woman to have a baby, and I think one of those situations is when the pregnancy resulted from a casual hook up.  I think the mature thing to do is have an abortion and count it as a hard life lesson.  Even so, when a baby is born, somebody's got to pay for it.  If it's not the father, who's it going to be?  You and me?  The mother's family?  Why should they be responsible for someone else's actions just because they're related to her?

It's reasonable to suggest that the government could encourage abortions for unwed mothers with unwilling fathers by making it very difficult to win child support in such cases, but even if they do that, there's the very real possibility that it won't really make a significant difference in the number of babies born in this way.  If that's the case, are we going to punish the children by forcing their mothers into poverty?  Because that's what would happen.

The world is not fair because evolution doesn't care about fair.  It cares about babies being born.  Sex isn't just a fancy playground that evolution developed for our amusement.  It's an integral part of our psyche, our culture, and it's all about making babies.

I submit to you, Matt, that YOU are being just like the fundies by ignoring the real facts of how life is and believing what you want to believe just because it makes you feel good.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I strongly disagree. They

I strongly disagree. They ARE "inventing" the consequences but not allowing someone to get out of them easily. The skydiving/bungee jumping equivalent would be if we refused to provide any medical care for them. I still see no reason the guy should pay. She can choose abortion or to raise herself. If she chooses to raise the kid in poverty instead of having one, that's her fault. Again, we should eliminate as many of the consequences as we possibly can. I really do wish we could come up with a way to totally disconnect sex from reproduction. If insurance would pay for tubal ligation/vasectomy/etc - or better yet it was provided free to anyone who wanted it - that would be better. It truly disgusts me how in this overpopulated world that insurance will pay for viagra/fertility treatments but often not birth control/abortion. Again, we should be discouraging breeding - not encouraging and certainly not forcing it. So there are places we can't (yet) eliminate consequences. That doesn't mean we shouldn't where we can. That reminds me of the mindless people who say "well life isn't fair" to complaints. Maybe not, but it would be a lot more fair if people would do something to make it more so instead of saying that.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:They ARE "inventing"

Quote:
They ARE "inventing" the consequences but not allowing someone to get out of them easily.

Matt, you seem to think that things happen in a vacuum.  They don't.  In our society, it takes more than most middle class people can make by themselves to raise a child.  If a woman chooses to have a child in poverty, it's all fine and dandy to say that she's made a bad choice.  I agree with you.  However, that child is alive, and needs food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care.  Somebody's got to pay for it, and you, Mr. Socialist, should know better than anyone else who that's going to be if it's not the father.

Are you going to advocate government subsidies to mothers who can't afford to raise their kids?  That's what you're proposing, you know.  If fathers aren't obligated to pay for their children, the choices will be poverty or government aid.  Poverty, as you well know, breeds crime and societal dysfunction, so the government has an obligation to try to prevent it.  That means the government is obligated to pay women to have babies, based on your logic.

Alternatively, you can just take away women's rights to reproduce.  You can mandate that any unwed women who get pregnant must have abortions.  That way, men are never responsible, just like you want.  You're going to have to face facts.  If you don't take away reproductive rights, many women WILL choose to have babies when they can't afford it.  Many men will not want to pay for them.  Poverty WILL result.

So, which do you want?  Government checks for having babies, or taking away reproductive rights?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I strongly

MattShizzle wrote:

I strongly disagree. They ARE "inventing" the consequences but not allowing someone to get out of them easily. The skydiving/bungee jumping equivalent would be if we refused to provide any medical care for them. I still see no reason the guy should pay. She can choose abortion or to raise herself. If she chooses to raise the kid in poverty instead of having one, that's her fault.

 

Yeah, it would be her fault.  Because she had sex with a pisspoor example of humanity.  Humans did not invent the consequences of pregnancy or STDs Matt.

Civilization is a very recent invention of humanity.  For most of our history we existed as small bands of hunter-gatherers.  Women didn't have to worry all that much about some male coming along, impregating her, and then dissapearing.  Now they do.  This so called invented "consequence" has be enacted so that women don't have to shoulder all the responsibility while some jerk of a guy gets a girl, humps her until she gets pregnant, and then kicks her out the door.  If you think that's fair then you are truly clueless.  Completely and utterly so.  If you were a woman you'd be screaming the opposite.  IE I'm calling you a hypocrite.

MattShizzle wrote:

Again, we should eliminate as many of the consequences as we possibly can. I really do wish we could come up with a way to totally disconnect sex from reproduction. If insurance would pay for tubal ligation/vasectomy/etc - or better yet it was provided free to anyone who wanted it - that would be better. It truly disgusts me how in this overpopulated world that insurance will pay for viagra/fertility treatments but often not birth control/abortion. Again, we should be discouraging breeding - not encouraging and certainly not forcing it. So there are places we can't (yet) eliminate consequences. That doesn't mean we shouldn't where we can. That reminds me of the mindless people who say "well life isn't fair" to complaints. Maybe not, but it would be a lot more fair if people would do something to make it more so instead of saying that.

Well Matt, just keep staying celibate and you won't really have to worry about any of this now will you?

Just another product of pampered America where people are upset that their actions have consequences.

I agree that our government would be wise to help with birth control.  I'm all for it.  Where do I sign?  But I think your main bitch is just sexual frustration.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I know humans didn't invent pregnancy - but we can certainly do something to stop it. I actually am in favor of limiting reproductive "rights." With the population out of control, we do need to control who can have kids and how many (if you can't afford it, you can't.) No, I don't think anyone should pay for someone else's CHOICE to have a baby. If she chooses to have it it's up to her. Please stop repeating the same thing. Yeah I get it. Nature causes pregnancy/STD's. So by your logic someone who contracts an STD should just go die because that's the way it it and that's the consequences? Some of you are apparently still deluded by the idea that sex is bad and should be punished.

 

It seems my beliefs are very internally consitsant (Life in and of itself is worthless, women should have an absolute right to abortion, and men shouldn't be forced to pay for an unwanted baby either.)

 

The double-standard it seems most here is:

 

(women should be able to get abortions, but whether the man has to pay or not is completely at the woman's whim.)

 

Fundies seem to do the oppisite double standard (Women shouldn't be allowed abortion but men shouldn't have to pay support, and welfare is bad - life is sacred until you are born - if you happen to become brain dead it becomes sacred once again.)

 

I'm not the hypocrite - she has the choice to abort - she doesn't HAVE to raise it on her own.

 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle

MattShizzle wrote:

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I know humans didn't invent pregnancy - but we can certainly do something to stop it. I actually am in favor of limiting reproductive "rights." With the population out of control, we do need to control who can have kids and how many (if you can't afford it, you can't.) No, I don't think anyone should pay for someone else's CHOICE to have a baby. If she chooses to have it it's up to her. Please stop repeating the same thing. Yeah I get it. Nature causes pregnancy/STD's. So by your logic someone who contracts an STD should just go die because that's the way it it and that's the consequences? Some of you are apparently still deluded by the idea that sex is bad and should be punished.

You've mentioned before that women supposedly tried to have you for a fling.  If sex is no big deal then why didn't you?  Or have you built up sex to be something sacred that only "two people who love each other a whole lot" do?

Yet you call yourself a pimp?  This does not seem internally consistent.

MattShizzle wrote:

 

It seems my beliefs are very internally consitsant (Life in and of itself is worthless, women should have an absolute right to abortion, and men shouldn't be forced to pay for an unwanted baby either.)

Life is worthless only to the cosmos.  I personally find my life and the life of those I care for, love, or respect to a rather high value.  I agree that women should have a right to an abortion.  But I don't think they should be forced to be the sole provider if she cannot bring herself to abort the fetus.  It takes two to tango.  Men can make sure that they can't impregnate anyone just as easy as a woman.  If neither take that precaution and a pregnancy results...well tough shit.  Your bad.  Being an adult is a bitch sometimes.

MattShizzle wrote:

The double-standard it seems most here is:

(women should be able to get abortions, but whether the man has to pay or not is completely at the woman's whim.)

Yes, your idea that a man can be as careless as he wants and doesn't have to pay for any resultant child is much more fair.  What a catch, ladies.

 

MattShizzle wrote:

Fundies seem to do the oppisite double standard (Women shouldn't be allowed abortion but men shouldn't have to pay support, and welfare is bad - life is sacred until you are born - if you happen to become brain dead it becomes sacred once again.)

According to you apparently even a baby is an object not a person.  I find this a tad worrisome.  Maybe you should discuss this with your therapist.  Humans normally have an emotion called compassion.  And, for the main part, protection of a helpless baby is strong.  Why do you lack this common, human trait?

MattShizzle wrote:

I'm not the hypocrite - she has the choice to abort - she doesn't HAVE to raise it on her own.

My wife was practically forced to get an abortion when she was 17.  She still has nightmares over it.  Think on that you... *breathes*

One of the things I love about my wife is that she is so loving and a nurturer.  Not some cold hearted bitch that finds it so simple to get an abortion like you make it out to be.  Just excising an unwanted tumor.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't see that as cold

I wouldn't see that as cold hearted - I really wouldn't see it any different from cutting out a tumor or taking an antibiotic for a disease. As to the first part, I'm OK with people having all the casual sex they want - it just isn't for me. And it would violate my personal honor to sleep with another man's wife. I say if neither take precaution and pregnancy results - that's why there is abortion. Here is where I'd place what happens:

 

Both want baby: They have it and poth pay to support - probably a married couple who wants kids or decide to stay together with kids.

 

Woman wants but man doesn't - she can have it but he doesn't support. If she can't afford on her own or through voluntary help - abort.

 

He wants she doesn't - tough shit for him - she aborts he has no say.

 

Neither want - obviously abort.

Seriously, even the fundies give the woman the right to put the kid up for adoption regardless of how "irresponsible" she was - but the man doesn't have this choice! Why should the woman be the only one who can decide not to have the baby?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Seriously,

MattShizzle wrote:

Seriously, even the fundies give the woman the right to put the kid up for adoption regardless of how "irresponsible" she was - but the man doesn't have this choice! Why should the woman be the only one who can decide not to have the baby?

Until you can grow a child to full term inside of your body I guess you just won't ever understand this Matt.  I walked my wife through two pregnancies and it opened my eyes enough to realize this fact better than you.

Honestly, it's easy to find a woman that wants a child.  If the man wants a child then he finds a woman who is receptive to having a child with him.

You don't just stick it to some random woman, impregnate her, and then try to force her to birth it.

If you are a responsible adult then this will never be an issue.  So don't make it an issue.  If you can't be responsible enough to not impregnate a woman when you don't want to take responsibility for a child then I have no sympathy for you.  Society should force your ass to be responsible for that child.  It's your own damn fault.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I disagree in the strongest

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. This is the old "You don't understand unless..." fallacy. If the woman can get an abortion even though she was "irresponsible" a man should be able to refuse to support if he was. I hate double standards totally - If I was in charge Augusta National would be shut down and Hootie Johnson in prison for their refusal to let women join. Again, I would love to see reproduction considered a privledge not a right. Since they can even get people state to state, if I was a guy in that situation I'd leave the entire country.

 

Seriously! It's downright insane to let women be irresponsible but not men. Even the way I put it she has a choice. Abortion or raise herself and support herself. Why should ONLY women have a choice? That's selfish on a woman's part to have a kid and make the man pay when he didn't want a baby. Granted, a guy who doesn't want kids is better off not dating a woman that does - but why should he be fucked over if she changes her mind? I really don't see it as a responsiblity issue. If anything she's irresponsible for not aborting if she can't afford it or be with someone who can and wants to.

 

Your argument is the equivalent of if a woman gets Syphillis she gets the antibiotic, but if a man does it's up to the woman he got it from whether he gets it or suffers. And I don't really see a fetus as any more worthy of being than a syphillis microbe (not sure of the type it is.)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
*I will respond to this in

*I will respond to this in more depth tomorrow Matt.  Mainly because my wife wants me to spend time with her.*

YOU CAN TAKE PRECAUTIONS THAT WILL ENSURE THAT YOU NEVER IMPREGNATE A WOMAN IF YOU DON'T WANT TO!

If you are irresponsible as a male you want the right to just walk away.  If a woman is irresponsible and she doesn't want the child she...has a FUCKING FETUS CUT OUT OF HER BODY.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
If there was a way to do it

If there was a way to do it that she could just walk away it would be great. But why should the man suffer just because of how biology works? A guy should have the absolute right to walk away if it wasn't planned and he didn't accept it at any point. I think it would solve this completely if they provided those shots free of charge (if there was one that worked for a man.) Notice the woman has all the "easy" methods of birth control - pill or shot - while a guy has to either get surgery or have something that more resembles a medical procedure than making love (condom)

 

Note: no method of prevention is 100% effective - and all the man has control over are either expensive, involve surgery or greatly reduce intimacy/pleasure (ie condoms.)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
How would you know?Try

How would you know?

Try pulling out before you ejaculate.  Porn is a great resource to study this technique.

Why should the woman suffer just because of how biology works?  You want to talk about double standards, well women already have a double standard implemented by biology.  If humans try to even those standards out you scream foul.

Let me try to help you to understand, Matt.  Of course I know I'm fighting the odds here, but I'll try one last time.  Let's say that if a pregnancy occurs between you and a woman, she can walk away and you have to get one of your testicles cut off to prevent the birth.  Sound fair to you?

Of course even this doesn't really approximate the same thing as a woman getting an abortion.  But it's the closest thing you are likely to understand.  If even that can seep into your thick skull.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Knock off the ad

Knock off the ad hominems.

 

Losing a testicle permanently would be much worse than getting rid of a fetus. Pulling out doesn't work well at all. Obviously you don't get what I'm saying and we are never going to agree on this.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Matt - I think you're

Matt - I think you're misinterpreting the ad homs... it's not like "ha ha - you've never had sex" but rather how can someone that has never had sex state that sex with a condom is equivalent to a medical procedure? 

similarly, watcher is trying to make the point that having an abortion is not equivalent to supersizing your value meal.  ie. you don't just show up ask for it and boom - problem solved.  there are significant physical and mental components.  similarly, carrying a child is not just a small inconvenience either.   try going to the library and picking up a copy of 'our bodies, ourselves.'  it's been a while since i've read it but they do devote time both to factual information and testimonials of women on both sides of the fence.

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Knock off

MattShizzle wrote:

Knock off the ad hominems.

I don't think that means what you think it means.

MattShizzle wrote:

Losing a testicle permanently would be much worse than getting rid of a fetus.

Wrong.

MattShizzle wrote:

Pulling out doesn't work well at all.

Please inform us of your personal experience that this is so.

MattShizzle wrote:

Obviously you don't get what I'm saying and we are never going to agree on this.

I understand exactly what you are saying.  I would have agreed with you when I was 15.

Who has a agreed with you so far on this Matt?  Does this give you a moment's pause?  Or do you just bulldoze your way on ahead and ignore the possibility that you might be missing something that people who are not Autistic don't miss?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I would say "get through

I would say "get through your thick skull" is an ad hom. It's documented that pulling out is ineffective. Losing a testicle is a permanet maiming.

 

Hamby agreed with me at least if it was a casual hook up.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


PorkChop
Rational VIP!SuperfanSilver Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 2008-06-26
User is offlineOffline
I recall hearing a piece on

I recall hearing a piece on NPR (I know it's not peer-reviewed) about the Religious Right and it's conception for forward motion in politics.  I'm currently searching for the real interview with Fallwell (I believe)...but the general idea runs along these lines:

Abortion was legal.

Christian ministers were all for it..."whatever is best for the Mother" and so forth

Republicans were losing ground politically

Politicos noticed that Catholics voted Democrat, yet they were anti-abortion

Fallwell gave the First Abortion Sermon in '78..."This is not just a Roman Catholic issue, this an issue we should all be concerned about."

*Ding* More Republican voters

 

I do just love the audio of the big preacher extolling the virtue of abortion...makes me smile.  I will continue to search for that and bring it to show and tell.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Have you ever heard of a

Have you ever heard of a woman that became sterile after having an abortion?  I have.  Would you consider that a permanent maiming?

I dated a girl for a year and a half.  We used birth control (condoms) about one in five times that we had sex.  I never got her pregnant.  Six months after we broke up she became pregnant with her next boyfriend.  And a year after that I had my first child.  Then a second in quick succession.  So we were both fertile people.  Why did it work for me?  Where is this documentation?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Matt, you need to read what

Matt, you need to read what I wrote more carefully.  I said that while I feel like a man shouldn't be forced into child support from a casual hookup, I can't work around the mechanics of trying to implement such a strategy.  Remember all that stuff about governments having to pay for women to have babies?

Oh yeah... you didn't respond to that at all.  Curious.

I do believe that a woman has a moral obligation to have an abortion, put the baby up for adoption, or find a way to support it herself if she conceived from a casual hookup.  I wish there was a way to structure the law so that this moral obligation could be encouraged.  However, the math just doesn't work out.

In short, Matt, I agree that it seems unfair, but I (unlike you) am not hanging my hat on fair.  I recognize the futility of trying to fight human nature and economics, and I'm resigned to the fact that correcting that imbalance would cause more problems than it solved.

Just to be perfectly clear, I believe it's unfair for women to expect men to pay for babies from casual hookups.  However, it's even less fair to ask me to pick up the slack when my dick was in my pants at the time.  Given two poor alternatives, I choose the one that says the man responsible has to pay.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Oh... couple more

Oh... couple more things...

"Get through your thick skull" is not an ad hominem.

An ad hom is an argument.

1) You are dense

2) Therefore, what you say is wrong.

This is an ad hominem.  It can clearly be demonstrated as fallacious by pointing out that very dense people sometimes say things that are correct.

Calling you thick skulled is an assertion.

 

Watcher, I am going to have to get Matt's back on one point.  I don't think getting a testicle cut off is analogous to getting an abortion.  I don't disagree with the broad point you're making, which is that it can be a very traumatic experience for a woman.  However, it does seem a little over the top (maybe a little over-ingratiating to women?) to make the comparison to testicles.  For one thing, I personally know women who have had abortions and experienced ittle to no emotional or physical baggage.  We read the horror stories of abortion all the time, between anti-abortion propaganda and the various factions of moralists on all sides.  What we very seldom read about are the cases where an abortion is the best solution to a problem, and the woman is happy with her decision.

As you well know, infanticide and other forms of reproductive control predate civilization, and spread across the animal kingdom.  Modern medical abortions are advanced forms of what we've been doing for a long time, and they're much safer and less emotionally damaging than digging a fetus out with a clothes hangar or drinking small doses of poison.

The question I believe we are addressing is not whether or not abortion is permissible or even ought to be encouraged.  It's whether or not it's fair to ask a woman to shoulder the entire burden of child rearing if she chooses not to have an abortion.  I don't think you need to resort to hyperbole to win your position. 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I did respond to it: I said

I did respond to it:

 

I said that they shouldn't support her baby from the government either. She should understand if she makes the choice to have a baby the burden to raise and pay for it is completely on her.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Matt, you can't just print

Matt, you can't just print money on your deskjet.  If you have a baby, there is a certain cost associated with raising it. 

Let's take you for an example here.  You have circumstances in your life that keep you from making a lot of money, right?  What if I told you, "Hey, Matt.  You have to pay a thousand dollars a month for 18 years, starting now.  Go get a job that gives you an extra thousand a month.  Oh, and I should also mention, you have to spend between 18 and 20 hours a day at home while you make this money, or you're going to have to pay someone another $10 per hour for every hour you're not at home."  What would you do, Matt?  Because if you can magically make that much money appear despite your circumstances, you need to tell me how to do it.

This is the situation poor mothers are in.  They aren't poor because they just didn't care to take the really great job.  They're poor because all they could get was a bad job.  Then, they have to come up with all this money to raise a kid, and they have to pay baby sitters or day care if they don't happen to have that $40,000 work from home job.  All this while they're getting about 4 hours of sleep a night for the first year of the baby's life.

It's fine and dandy for you to say, "HEY POOR PEOPLE!  Don't have babies!"  That's really awesome.  But poor people do have babies, and they're going to continue to have babies.  If the government leaves them to their own devices, the babies will grow up in poverty, and poverty breeds crime and societal dysfunction.  So, the government, in order to protect the public against rampant poverty and crime, either has to give the poor mothers money or take away their right to reproduce, because guess what... They aren't going to have stop having kids because an autistic guy is pissed.

So, again, I'll ask you.  Since poor people aren't going to stop having kids just because you're pissed, which alternative do you prefer?  Government subsidies or taking away reproductive rights?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I answered that - I said

I answered that - I said take away reproductive rights. Take them from anyone who can't afford them, anyone who will pass on terrible genetic conditions, etc too.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Watcher, I

Hambydammit wrote:

Watcher, I am going to have to get Matt's back on one point.  I don't think getting a testicle cut off is analogous to getting an abortion.  I don't disagree with the broad point you're making, which is that it can be a very traumatic experience for a woman.  However, it does seem a little over the top (maybe a little over-ingratiating to women?) to make the comparison to testicles.  For one thing, I personally know women who have had abortions and experienced ittle to no emotional or physical baggage. 

I had a childhood friend that lost both testicles at the age of 17 and he has expressed practically no concern with it even over 15 years later.

Is there a more apt comparison to make to a male that can't even fathom that having an abortion may be emotionally taxing to a woman?

Eh, beating my head against the brick wall that is Shizzle makes me sad.  I'm not doing it anymore.  The guy is nothing but a downer.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
regardless of whether it's

regardless of whether it's equivalent to getting a testicle chopped off or having a route canal while heavily sedated and going home with fun drugs, the point is - it's a medical procedure.  matt - you're saying that a man can just say "i don't want kids" before the sex act and boom - he's off the hook.  (of course, he could just not use his real name but that's another story entirely...)  a woman can't just tell her uterus she doesn't want to be late that month and call it a day. 

sure - we can limit consequences with birth control and std medications... but we can also limit consequences of sky diving with better parachutes and safety gear.  limiting doesn't eliminate.   i'm going to say the same thing i said to you about carla - just think about it, okay?

to semi-derail this though - i do think it's good that we are talking about abortion because the guilt, emotional pain, etc. thing is used by the religious community big time to convert people.  look at norma mccorvey and she didn't even have the abortion herself!  on campus' here fundies proselytize under the guise of pro-life signs and pamphlets.

you started this thread out with a statement that to say 'abortion is murder' is irrational.  i would say it's tragic, irrational and grossly deceitful that large amounts of women who have undergone an abortion are targeted into religion as an attempt to negate the emotional pain resulting from the procedure.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I really do think that's how

I really do think that's how it should be. Again, the best would be if birth control was provided by the government. But the man shouldn't be punsihed just because of biology - and like I said, women have access to easy methods of birth control (which would be provided free of charge under my system remember) that do NOT involve surgery or reducing sexual pleasure.

 

Again, do you think it would be fair to say women have 100% access to STD vaccines and treatments while if a man gets an STD tough shit he should have been more responsible? It is extremely unfair to give the woman 100% control of if she has a baby but whether or not the man has to give up a big chunk of his money for 18-22 years is totally at the woman's whim. I wish more men in this situation who felt it unfair would simply leave the country to avoid that. Then maybe when politicians realize they would be losing tax money they would change things. There are already guys in this situation that simply quit their jobs - sometimes they get checks for a few dollars - hell even if it takes half their check. They just think "Why should I work so that bitch can get all the money." Some even prefer jail to pretty much working for nothing.

 

Emotionally an abortion should have no more impact than taking an antibiotic to get rid of a disease. And as was pointed out many women are not bothered by it. Why should we make things different because of biology? Should men have to be stabbed once a month because they don't bleed once a month naturally? Since women can't pee standing up should urinals be illegal? Since women are naturally less strong than men should it be illegal for men to work out? Since men tend tohave lower verbal skills than men should women not be educated in English beyond 10th grade? Of course not. And we should provide equal opprtunity to not have to deal with a kid - physically emotionally OR financially. She could easily have gotten the shot or whatever under my system to not get pregnant. If she didn't and doesn't take the abortion option it's insane to expect the guy to pay.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:"Why

MattShizzle wrote:

"Why should I work so that bitch can get all the money."

Why should I work so my child can get all the money?

Fuck you.

Peace.

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You really are a fucking

You really are a fucking asshole. Stay out of my thread like you said you would.

 

I personally see a baby as having equivalent value to an insect. If I was in a situation where I could save either a baby or one of my cats I would not think twice before saving the cat. Hell, I'd save a 1 dollar bill before a baby to be honest.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Hell, I'd

MattShizzle wrote:

Hell, I'd save a 1 dollar bill before a baby to be honest.

 

Seems you're coming around on capitalism too!  


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7581
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:You really

MattShizzle wrote:

You really are a fucking asshole. Stay out of my thread like you said you would.

Chill pill... swallow. 

 

Quote:
I personally see a baby as having equivalent value to an insect.

So you admit when you were young you had the equivalent value of an insect?

 


 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 535
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Abortion is abortion

I'm opposed to abortion, as a method of birth control. It sucks, as does ANY invasive medical proceedure for a condition that could have been prevented.

That being said, as a male, I'm never going to have to make that choice, thus, I have no say in what another person does with their own body. (It occurs to me, that even were I of the XX persuasion, I'd still have no 'right' to assert soverienty over another person's body).

To my mind, there IS an objective and empirical point at which a fetus becomes a person, that is to say, when an animated collection of cells becomes a human being.

The medical and legal definition of when life ends, is at the point when brain function ceases, thus, it is logical and reasonable to assert that life begins at the same point, when brain function starts. This occurs sometime in the late 2d tri-mester, or at the 5th to 6th month of gestation.

LC >;-}>

Ok, I edited the darned thing...

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:YY

Louis_Cypher wrote:

YY persuasion

What does this mean?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm guessing that means XX

I'm guessing that means XX (female). YY is genetically impossible.

XXY and XYY can occur as genetic disorders.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I think he means XX, as in

I think he means XX, as in female.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Back on Original

Back on Original topic:

 

"Fuck this and fuck that! Fucking motherfucker fucking brats! She don't want a baby that looks like that I don't want a baby that looks like that. Bodies!!!!!!!!!! It's an abortion."

 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Polaris
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Some two thirds(2/3) of all

Some two thirds(2/3) of all egg fertilizations abort naturally. Fail to divide, disolve, fail to attach to uterus, etc.........There is nothing magical about conception!


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Are we talking about the

Are we talking about the legal right for women to have abortions or the moral permissibility of a woman choosing to abort a fetus? They are two very different conversations and I just want to be clear about what is being said.  i think too that because religious groups have been so insensitive on this issue athiests will often diagree with them simply because of their less than honourable tactics without regard for the moral philosophy behind it. Likewise religious groups seemed to have confused morality and legality, claiming that what is perhaps is immoral should also be legislated against.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Matt Churchman wrote:Are we

Matt Churchman wrote:

Are we talking about the legal right for women to have abortions or the moral permissibility of a woman choosing to abort a fetus? They are two very different conversations and I just want to be clear about what is being said.  i think too that because religious groups have been so insensitive on this issue athiests will often diagree with them simply because of their less than honourable tactics without regard for the moral philosophy behind it. Likewise religious groups seemed to have confused morality and legality, claiming that what is perhaps is immoral should also be legislated against.

 

I was speaking on both. I personally see no more of a moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and swatting a fly. Legally restricting abortion is fucking insane. I see no immorality in abortion up until the moment of birth (or even beyond.)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: I see no

MattShizzle wrote:
I see no immorality in abortion up until the moment of birth (or even beyond.)

But you would save a cat?

So you don't see a baby as a human being? Tough titty for you then, that the rest of humanity does, with the exception of emotionless sociopaths like yourself. You are talking about killing human beings, because they have no more value than insects, and the rest of us capable of human emotion are revolted by your words. Deal with it. It's not our fault that you can't sympathise with anyone but yourself (and your cats... Retch!).

You are a dispicable human being Matt, because of what you have said here. That's how it is. DEAL WITH IT!

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:But

MattShizzle wrote:
But seriously, a fetus is not a person, especially very early - as Sam Harris pointed out, a blastocyst actually has fewer cells than are present in the brain of a fly. Why are christians only concerned with life when it is either a fetus or brain dead? Maybe they only like people of similar intelligence to them.

Yeah a blastocyst is composed of so few cells it's just not reasonable to classify it as a person, but a baby is not a blastocyst. Abortion up to and even after birth really can't be justified with regard to this statement at all, Matt. There is already a standard established on the basis of reproductive development, AKA the precedent of Roe vs Wade - a short time after the foetal stage of development begins there is distinguishable human quality and viability which ought be recognised as significant. That was a very reasonable ruling, even other countries agree and apply the same basic sense of judgement in making abortions generally available.

But in any case, if your argument that a full term abortion is of no more moral consequence than swatting a fly is an attempt to follow from there being merely a few cells in the first 3 weeks of pregnancy, then it fails. It's that simple. In a matter of days after the argument from few cells enjoys its credibility the human embryo can eclipse the complexity of an insect and you'll be dealing with something entirely on a different spectrum.

That all said, I think the deep issue here is death not abortion. What irks us about abortion, regardless the gestational stage at which the feeling kicks in for us individually, is the deep rooted psychological belief that death is bad and causing death is worse. Although we all fairly well comprehend that death is inevitable, we naturally want to defy it. And although our very existence depends heavily on death to support it, we have the contradictory desire to avoid being direct party to its function.  But those are not the general rule, there are many exceptions to how much distance from death people are comfortable with. I think the general rule is that we all are forced deal with these contradictory aspects of our nature. We possess a lot more power to create life and death than we sometimes like to have and abortion brings all that human power into play against itself begging the question which power should we be freer to exercise?

In my opinion there is no arguing which involves more selfishness or selflessness, both sexual reproduction and abortion have plenty of both to speak about and there's nothing much we can, practically speaking, do to change that reality. They are both decisions that tread a fine line between extreme considerations of the self and cannot be resolved into black and white. 

I believe all the while death and our private thoughts about it beg far greater attention than we give them, and we waste our time hypothetically regulating the unresolvable grey state that our life and death decisions continue to dwell in whilesoever that is the case.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com