Pro-life atheists

[Losty]

So after I just got done telling you

I really don't read your posts anymore. I got tired of your incessant tactics of obfuscation and insult. You near the bottom of people I pay attention too.

If you want me to read something....put it in green(or what ever the color is for official mod actions).

Translation: I do not read your posts because I know without a doubt that I could never beat you in a debate.

[Esquilax]

I really don't read your posts anymore. I got tired of your incessant tactics of obfuscation and insult. You near the bottom of people I pay attention too.

If you want me to read something....put it in green(or what ever the color is for official mod actions).

I've been quite careful not to insult you, since I know you're the kind of person who'll deflect the entire conversation by focusing on a single bad word in the hopes that nobody will notice you've ignored the point. As for obfuscation, I can hardly call pointing out the contradictions in your own position an obfuscation, though I suppose a nuanced and carefully considered position on abortion must be so confusing to you, given the tactics you've employed so far, that it must feel better to just presume some form of trickery rather than admit you have no answers.

Nor has it escaped my notice, Heywood, that even when you were specifically linked to an argument that I evidently wanted you to read, in the middle of a post explaining how it pertains to your current argument, that you've still failed to respond with anything more than "nyah nyah, I'm not listening!"

I wonder what that means?

[Tartarus Sauce]

Has anyone else noticed - likely the ladies have - that the majority of the most outspoken anti-choicers are male?

Ah yes, I made a post about this on TTA.

I know this is a topic done to death, but this a thought that just occurred to me.

First of all, I just want to clarify that I am specifically talking about the typical fundamentalist-Christian segment of pro-lifers; I am aware that non-religious pro-lifers are out there as well.

We all know that the "sanctity of life" argument is ad hoc bullshit. For starters, they don't treat it as the universal rule its nature entails, since truly holding life as sacred would inevitably lead to anti-war, pro-environment, and anti-death penalty viewpoints as well. None of these are typically the case for fundamentalist Christians claiming "pro-life." Secondly, I'm not sure on this one, but I don't think it's actually a biblically supported statement. In fact, the Bible is pretty explicit in humanity's dominion over life, and there are plenty of justifications given for taking the life of even our fellow species, therefore negating the whole "sanctity" aspect.

The transparency with this faux argument is usually summed up with "it's an attempt to control women's bodies" although I think it's actually a bit more encompassing than that. It is, of course, obvious that fundamentalist Christianity is a patriarchal system, so control over women is a given, but this made me realize that abortion is actually not just an affront to the patriarchy present in Christianity, but is also an attack on the foundational reasoning of the patriarchy itself.

The most commonly accepted theory is that patriarchy rose to prominence with the introduction of ownership that was brought about by the sedentary, surplus-rich societies induced by agriculture and domestication. When we were simply bands of hunter-gatherers---which we have been for the vast majority of our specie's existence---it's believed that it was more advantageous for promiscuity to be the norm. Since the men wouldn't know who their children were, they ended up caring for each one as if it was their own rather than trying to secure as much of the scant resources as possible for their offspring, which would have led to severe internal conflict.

Of course, this all changed when agriculture and domestication led to resource surpluses. This led to unequally distributed, clearly defined allocations of resources and wealth, hence leading to the creation of property and possessions as legal concepts. Since property was the insurance of the socio-economic prosperity and security of one's genetic lineage, it all of the sudden became important to know who your children were so they could inherit your assets. The mothers would obviously always know who their children were, but since this was before paternity tests existed, there was only one way for the father to have access to such knowledge: complete control over their partner's sexual activities.

Therefore, within patriarchal systems, all the benefits of lineage are under dominion of the father. So in patriarchal systems such as that within Christianity, the act of an abortion is a two-fold subversion. First, it undermines the general control of men over their partner's, but even more importantly, it is the woman denying the father's access to his lineage (and all the benefits it brings him) via destruction of his potential offspring. Since, according to the common theory, producing a successful lineage is the main reason for instituting a patriarchy to begin with, performing an abortion is the ultimate sin within such systems.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...e-abortion

[Rampant.A.I.]

What about when a woman's water breaks super early. This is actually pretty common and most cases she gets admitted to the hospital for the duration of her pregnancy and the doctors hold out as long as they think is safe before inducing labor. Sometimes, though, despite the best efforts of everyone she will get an infection. Then depending on how far along she is they will perform and abortion or induce labor to save her life.

Its the induce labor part that you ignore. Late term abortions are unnecessary. Induce labor, there is no need to kill the baby......except to get rid of it so you don't have to deal with it.

Why is it that anti-abortionists always strawman medical abortions as happening up to a viable birth?

That's extremely late term.

[Losty]

Its the induce labor part that you ignore. Late term abortions are unnecessary. Induce labor, there is no need to kill the baby......except to get rid of it so you don't have to deal with it.

Why is it that anti-abortionists always strawman medical abortions as happening up to a viable birth?

That's extremely late term.

Because it's the best way to make people feel icky and sad so they'll forget you didn't actually have a real argument.

[Heywood]

Its the induce labor part that you ignore. Late term abortions are unnecessary. Induce labor, there is no need to kill the baby......except to get rid of it so you don't have to deal with it.

Why is it that anti-abortionists always strawman medical abortions as happening up to a viable birth?

That's extremely late term.

We are talking about late term abortions now. You may have missed it but we talked about early term abortions earlier. I brought up ectopic pregnancies and said that it is reasonable to treat medical conditions...but if the life of the unborn can be preserved, then it should be preserved.

For all you people that are against late term abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger. Do you agree that the baby should be saved if it can be saved?

[Losty]

Why is it that anti-abortionists always strawman medical abortions as happening up to a viable birth?

That's extremely late term.

We are talking about late term abortions now. You may have missed it but we talked about early term abortions earlier. I brought up ectopic pregnancies and said that it is reasonable to treat medical conditions...but if the life of the unborn can be preserved, then it should be preserved.

For all you people that are against late term abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger. Do you agree that the baby should be saved if it can be saved?

As long as it doesn't risk the life of the mother or risk severe health problems to the mother then yes.

[Heywood]

"When a pregnancy must be ended before a fetus is viable, the result is an abortion," says Vanessa Cullins, Vice President for External Medical Affairs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America. But she says there also are cases after viability in which an abortion is safer than an induced childbirth or surgical delivery.

Listen Heywood, I know you consider yourself an expert for whatever reason, but I do not value your professional opinion because it is not your profession and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Perhaps you can ask Vanessa Cullins to tell us what those cases are because until she does, all you done is cite an unsupported assertion.
.

---

We are talking about late term abortions now. You may have missed it but we talked about early term abortions earlier. I brought up ectopic pregnancies and said that it is reasonable to treat medical conditions...but if the life of the unborn can be preserved, then it should be preserved.

For all you people that are against late term abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger. Do you agree that the baby should be saved if it can be saved?

As long as it doesn't risk the life of the mother or risk severe health problems to the mother then yes.

Then you should be against 99.99999999999999999999999% of all late term abortions. Instead you wish to give the mother the option to kill another human being she doesn't want to deal with.

[Esquilax]

Then you should be against 99.99999999999999999999999% of all late term abortions. Instead you wish to give the mother the option to kill another human being she doesn't want to deal with.

And now, three posts into Heywood being made aware of the fallacy he was committing, I think it's safe to say that he's just lying flat out, now.

Pro-choice peeps, I think we can chalk this one up as an unmitigated win, if all the opposition can do is lie right to our faces.

[Losty]

"When a pregnancy must be ended before a fetus is viable, the result is an abortion," says Vanessa Cullins, Vice President for External Medical Affairs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America. But she says there also are cases after viability in which an abortion is safer than an induced childbirth or surgical delivery.

Listen Heywood, I know you consider yourself an expert for whatever reason, but I do not value your professional opinion because it is not your profession and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Perhaps you can ask Vanessa Cullins to tell us what those cases are because until she does, all you done is cite an unsupported assertion.
.

I will hop right on over to her office and ask her to illegally share medical records of specific cases in order to prove this to you

---

As long as it doesn't risk the life of the mother or risk severe health problems to the mother then yes.

Then you should be against 99.99999999999999999999999% of all late term abortions. Instead you wish to give the mother the option to kill another human being she doesn't want to deal with.

Heywood, only 1% of abortions are late term abortions. Where I live it is illegal to have an abortion after 20 weeks unless you can either prove that the fetus is not viable or it is medically necessary. So I am against 0% of late term abortions where I live.