Attack at Planned Parenthood Clinic

[Catholic_Lady]

Haha, no worries. Not your fault at all. I find it amusing actually lol.

I don't know how you do it, CL. I would not be strong enough to post in a religion forum without getting angry and frustrated.

I've had my moments. 

[Catholic_Lady]

Sorry CL, I did not mean to start a dog pile. This dude is totally out of line.

Sorry if you take offense.

I'm new to this forum, but don't think that makes me new to atheist discussion groups (got tired of the woo-based political factions and poor format for interaction over on Patheos.com). After years of watching such discussions as this one, I really find Catholic Lady's apologetics as tiresome as they are insulting, and I just can't be cool about this particular issue when so many people are being harmed by her ideas. I can't be cool about this because those who suffer under her whims aren't somebody else's future, they are MY future! Maybe you live in a different country than the US, if so you couldn't possibly understand.

The sort of person who argues like Catholic Lady  is never going to shift her position, and will always keep up her damaging campaign to con hapless, uneducated people out of their rights to medical autonomy and freedom from religious harassment. If you think you aren't wasting your time entertaining her, then you haven't been around the atheist scene long enough.

Because most people don't think the way we do, and are much more willing to be agreeable than to deconstruct her sort of bullshit, I reacted out of grave concern that more young minds are being raped by her now. What would you do if you witnessed a rape? Would you look the other way, or would you try and intervene?

Mr Hanky, you haven't given me an answer for my proposal. 

So, what do you think? Wanna hanky panky? 

[Mudhammam]

If you think that a woman who carries the human being inside of her to the point of viability, and then decides to kill it, is guilty of a moral atrocity, then the issue is no more about demonization in that instance as it would be in any other wherein a person kills another person for some reason. If you think demonization would be appropriate in the case that a person killed another without justification, then you're special pleading by demanding that this one situation be excepted. 

The majority of late-term abortions don't happen because a woman simply tires of being pregnant or decides she doesn't want to take care of the baby after it's born.  Late-term abortions consist of about 1-2% of all abortions that are performed, and when they happen it's more commonly because it is discovered through regular screenings and genetic testing that the baby either won't survive or will have a very restricted life due to severe disability and the parents have to decide whether they want to carry on with a wanted pregnancy and have a potentially severely disabled child with potentially little quality of life or whether to abort the baby.  Late-term abortions can be prohibitively expensive, and the longer a woman is pregnant the more dangerous performing an abortion on her becomes.  Late-term abortion is not a decision women make lightly.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/193363...-abortion/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/06/trut...abortions/
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/0...ion-story/

So no, I don't make the blanket assumption that all women who have late-term abortions are committing moral atrocities.  They are more likely to be expectant mothers (and their partners) who are given devastating news about wanted pregnancies and who have to make really tough decisions morally about their child's future, physically about the mother's health and body, and financially due to the cost of the procedure.

I have no qualm with late-term abortions if the life of the mother is at stake or the child has some defect that will drastically effect his or her quality of life. In such instances I think there may even be a moral obligation to have an abortion. Of the roughly 10,000 late-term abortions that are performed each year, I don't know how many would fall into a category such as this. My issue is only with abortions that are performed at this stage because the mother doesn't want the child, whether that be due to the inconveniences that carrying the child to full term may involve or something else. I imagine this would describe a very small number of abortions, but even those I would consider to be too many.

When it comes to moral issues, I don't really care what legal status a person has. To kill a non-citizen without justification is not somehow less of a crime than it is to kill a legal citizen. If a fetus is developed to the point that it has all of the biological equipment required for its survival outside of the womb, then it's own body ought to be considered along with it's mother's, regardless if one has citizenship while the other doesn't.

So you're advocating for involuntary servitude against the woman's will?

Nope. I'm not talking about the state intervening and preventing a woman from making a decision that regards her body. There's simply no feasible way to enforce my views on abortion without consequences that I would find to be even more outrageous. What should be done with the women who violate such a law so as to prohibit late-term abortions excepting the circumstances we have already related? Imprisonment? Fines? I wouldn't want to live in that society any more than you would. However, if we lived in a world where I could convince everyone to act in what I would consider to be the most ethical manner, then between what you call "involuntary servitude" and what I would consider to be the unlawful (immoral) killing of another person, I'd absolutely advocate for it. Where the situation involves those exceptions, i.e. harm to either the mother or the child's future quality of life, of course, I wouldn't consider killing the child to be unjust though. But where the child is healthy and the mother, perhaps because she was not aware of the pregnancy, or has changed her mind about wanting to carry it to term, then yes, she should not destroy that life. She should have the freedom to do as she wants because her right to privacy is incredibly important and there's no practical or even ethical way around it, but I have no sympathy with such a woman if she should be demonized as a baby killer. I do suspect that this rarely occurs, fortunately.

Of course an abortion for the vast majority constitutes an incredibly difficult decision, and since we are talking about terminating a human being in its early stages of development, that's absolutely the way it should be. That sexual intercourse practiced irresponsibly can easily result in the conception of a human life should also be taken seriously, and the decision to engage in such behavior without taking the necessary precautions such as birth control, the morning after pill, condoms, or - my favorite - the pullout method, should also be incredibly difficult for any person who has no desire to bring another life into the world.

I agree that sex should be taken serious (in the sense that it may result in pregnancy - and let's not forget STDs), but consenting to sex does not mean consenting to pregnancy.

If it was all about you and your body, there would be no debate to be had. It's also about the child and his/her body. Don't take their rights away - and I don't mean the rights that depend on recognition from the state.

This would be a really easy problem to solve if these rights you're affording this child had no bearing on another person, but that child has no inherent right to use another person's body to keep itself alive if that person don't consent to it just as I don't have the right to plumb myself to your kidney because I'm in renal failure and am waiting for a transplant.  It's only for a little while and there won't be any lasting effects.  I think...  You can go on disability while I'm hooked up to you.  Don't worry about those wrist bands and ankle cuffs, they're only there for your protection so you don't rip out any of the cords connecting us.  Don't you want to save my life?

That's a weak analogy, at least for your argument. For though the child may be infringing on the person's body against their will, it was likely that latter person's own decisions and actions that forced the child into the circumstances that he or she is in, unlike the scenario wherein you require a kidney to survive and wish to force your will upon another at their expense - which actually more or less describes the mother's act in killing the child because she wants X (note: wants, not needs) and the child is thought to stand in the way between herself and X. If I had been directly responsible for your renal failure - as the mother was for the child's existence and its need to use her body, the probability of which was implied to varying degrees in the consensual first act - then you may in fact have an argument that you are entitled to my kidney, as the child to her body. Rape, of course, would be a different situation, and that would be much more akin to your alternative example. In that case, if we are simply weighing the value of a person's life versus some bodily resources that another can provide without any major or permanent damage to themselves (in other words, unlike giving up an organ) - but perhaps only some moderate and temporary inconveniences - then even though it may be against their will, the life of the person whose existence is at stake is clearly to be valued higher.

[Catholic_Lady]

Parasite:

an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

I'd say a thingy bob in the womb fits this definition.

I'll ask just once more, then I'll give up: how should "abortion being illegal" be implemented?

A human fetus is not classified as a parasite, Rob. That's just a biological fact. 

I'm not sure, really. Maybe the abortionist should get some sort of fine or his medical license taken away for performing an illegal procedure.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Sorry if you take offense.

I'm new to this forum, but don't think that makes me new to atheist discussion groups (got tired of the woo-based political factions and poor format for interaction over on Patheos.com). After years of watching such discussions as this one, I really find Catholic Lady's apologetics as tiresome as they are insulting, and I just can't be cool about this particular issue when so many people are being harmed by her ideas. I can't be cool about this because those who suffer under her whims aren't somebody else's future, they are MY future! Maybe you live in a different country than the US, if so you couldn't possibly understand.

The sort of person who argues like Catholic Lady  is never going to shift her position, and will always keep up her damaging campaign to con hapless, uneducated people out of their rights to medical autonomy and freedom from religious harassment. If you think you aren't wasting your time entertaining her, then you haven't been around the atheist scene long enough.

Because most people don't think the way we do, and are much more willing to be agreeable than to deconstruct her sort of bullshit, I reacted out of grave concern that more young minds are being raped by her now. What would you do if you witnessed a rape? Would you look the other way, or would you try and intervene?

Mr Hanky, you haven't given me an answer for my proposal. 

So, what do you think? Wanna hanky panky? 

Does copprophelia turn you on?

I am the God of Mr. Hanky, Miss! I made Mr. Hanky, and I reincarnate him on a regular basis.

[Catholic_Lady]

Mr Hanky, you haven't given me an answer for my proposal. 

So, what do you think? Wanna hanky panky? 

I don't get involved with Catholic girls - the last time I saw the inside of a Catholic church, it was so creepy and weird that I knew it would have to be the last time ever. Not even to be polite with aging family, it was that revolting. The longer you stay out, the more you realize just how sick everything about Christianity is, and Catholicism is particularly freaky and macabre.

In shor - no, that weird sort of Goth play just isn't for me.

Are you sure?? I can make all your fantasies come true...

[Catholic_Lady]

Mr Hanky, you haven't given me an answer for my proposal. 

So, what do you think? Wanna hanky panky? 

Does copprophelia turn you on?

I am the God of Mr. Hanky, Miss! I made Mr. Hanky, and I reincarnate him on a regular basis.

No. But YOU do! 

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Parasite:

an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

I'd say a thingy bob in the womb fits this definition.

I'll ask just once more, then I'll give up: how should "abortion being illegal" be implemented?

A human fetus is not classified as a parasite, Rob. That's just a biological fact. 

I'm not sure, really. Maybe the abortionist should get some sort of fine or his medical license taken away for performing an illegal procedure.

I personally never liked that argument because even a protohuman deserves more respect than that of a parasite. Of course this is the case, almost nobody would consider an abortion as callously as they would ridding themselves of a parasitic infestation. Howevre, when push comes to shove, and an important decision must be made, nobody like you should be allowed to lord the idea you got by wishful interpretation from a 2000-year-old, cobbled-together book written by goat-herds for people of no better intellectual depth. This has never been justice, and it never would be. Whatever you may wish to say about the fetus, it's completely irrelevant while all of its life functions draw off the mother as the host. Until it breathes and processes its own food, it's no baby, it's just an extension of the mother's own body!

[Catholic_Lady]

A human fetus is not classified as a parasite, Rob. That's just a biological fact. 

I'm not sure, really. Maybe the abortionist should get some sort of fine or his medical license taken away for performing an illegal procedure.

I personally never liked that argument because even a protohuman deserves more respect than that of a parasite. Howevre, when push comes to shove, and an important decision must be made, nobody like you should be allowed to lord the idea you got by wishful interpretation from a 2000-year-old, cobbled-together book written by goat-herds for people of no better intellectual depth. This has never been justice, and it never would be. Whatever you may wish to say about the fetus, it's completely irrelevant while all of its life functions draw off the mother as the host. Until it breathes and processes its own food, it's no baby, it's just an extension of the mother's own body!

Ok. Can we make love now?

[Whateverist]

Sorry if you take offense.

I'm new to this forum, but don't think that makes me new to atheist discussion groups (got tired of the woo-based political factions and poor format for interaction over on Patheos.com). After years of watching such discussions as this one, I really find Catholic Lady's apologetics as tiresome as they are insulting, and I just can't be cool about this particular issue when so many people are being harmed by her ideas. I can't be cool about this because those who suffer under her whims aren't somebody else's future, they are MY future! Maybe you live in a different country than the US, if so you couldn't possibly understand.

Oh, stuff it.  All you've done is disparage what CL said without offering one concrete objection.  Whether or not people are being harmed by her ideas is irrelevant.  From her point of view the same is true in reverse. 

The sort of person who argues like Catholic Lady  is never going to shift her position, and will always keep up her damaging campaign to con hapless, uneducated people out of their rights to medical autonomy and freedom from religious harassment. If you think you aren't wasting your time entertaining her, then you haven't been around the atheist scene long enough.

What a weak, pompous ass you are. You do not speak for atheists generally. If you have a complaint you'd like to make against what CL has said at least have the cajones to address her directly.

Most of us know her well enough to know she is speaking with candor from her values, not all of which we share. But you make few friends here with this kind of indirect character assassination of a person who is a well respected member of our community. Civility will take you further. It certainly has her.

Because most people don't think the way we do, and are much more willing to be agreeable than to deconstruct her sort of bullshit, I reacted out of grave concern that more young minds are being raped by her now. What would you do if you witnessed a rape? Would you look the other way, or would you try and intervene?

Please do not presume to speak for atheists generally. Not all of us are anti-abortion. In short, bugger off.