Attack at Planned Parenthood Clinic

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I know you weren't, I was restating your argument in that way to show why one should not depend on the naturalistic fallacy as justification for one's position.  I was not intending to insinuate that you somehow supported or condoned rape, I know you don't. I was intending to show how that kind of argument (using the naturalistic fallacy), with only a few changes of words, can be used to justify both what people consider a moral position or behavior (a pro-life stance) and what people consider an immoral position or behavior (something like rape) in the same way I used it before (see the post with the Mr. Bean pic).

The problem with the whole "penis is supposed to go in the vagina, therefore the penis has a right to be in the vagina" is that it doesn't even remotely compare with the example of the fetus having a right to be in the vagina. Firstly, because the penis itself isn't an entire living being, just part of one, so it doesn't have rights anyway. Secondly (and more importantly), although the penis is supposed to go in the vagina, it not being in the vagina doesn't deny someone the right to life, as removing a fetus from the vagina does.

Finally, even if we were to somehow come up with a valid logical argument that men have a right to put their penis into vaginas, we have to deal with the conflict in rights. On the one hand, we have the (assumed for sake of the argument) right of the man to put their penis into the woman's vagina, and on the other hand, we have the right of the woman to do what she wants with her own body (within reason), which includes preventing the man from putting his penis into her vagina.

To sort out the conflict, we have to balance the rights and determine which is right is more important (as I did with the fetus issue). One could successfully argue that the right of the man to put his penis into the woman's vagina is far less important than the right of the woman to prevent the man from doing so, especially considering the possible outcomes. The worst outcome for the man is that he doesn't get to have sex...not a particularly bad outcome (undesirable for him, but there are plenty of women who may want his penis in their vagina, so it's ultimately not a huge violation of his "right"). The worst outcome for the woman is that she feels violated, is potentially injured, and could have an unwanted pregnancy. It's obvious to me at least that the right of the woman is more important in this situation.

Any idea that something is "supposed to" be or "meant" for any sort of narrowly-defined purpose presumes the unquestioning acceptance of a design theory, which is necessarily unscientific. There is no true version of "god-given" rights or "god-intended" purpose, but the rights which we recognize are the rights which we have evolved to uphold as a result of our social evolution. So it goes with purpose as well. We uphold our own, but mostly-cohesive sense of right and purpose because our genes created them (most of us aren't criminals or complete idiots), and our genes created in us the tendency to recognize such ideas because they make the societies which our survival depends on more stable. While it is likely that the need for social stability gave rise to the invention of gods and the rise of ruthlessly ambitious priests who employed themselves for life by creating thousands of pointless laws supposedly given by their gods, they are in no way necessary.

Anyway, if you become aware that the promotion of a fetus to a dependent offspring will cause too much suffering for both mother and offspring, then that's when you should know that that the fetus has no good purpose for remaining in the womb.

On rights, purpose, and everything else: Religious ideas need to be universally displaced by the rule of empirical fact, which is always more true to our natural perceptions on everything. Religious ideas are only good for depriving people of the rights which they would otherwise know should be theirs.

[Angrboda]

That is why I support the right of the woman to insist that the man remove all traces of his offending penis .. including the drib that has hijacked one of her eggs.

...and the issue I have with this argument is that the "drib" you speak of isn't part of the man anymore, it's an entirely separate form of life, an entirely separate human being, and therefore it has human rights. It didn't ask to be put into the womb, it's entirely innocent of any events leading up to its creation, so I don't find the argument that the woman not wanting it there is a valid reason for denying it the right to life.

Rights are extended to persons by the society in which they live. If our society doesn't extend the right to life to this potential person, then they don't have that right, and historically, that right has not been granted to the fetus. You can assert on one side that you believe it has that right by virtue of it being a 'human being', and the other side can equally as rationally deny it on the grounds that the fetus is not a person. Nothing is resolved by a battle of "because I said so." Whether the right extends to the fetus is determined by the collective will of the people, and they have decided it doesn't.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

ID IS just another term for creationism.  That was proven, with their own poorly-doctored records, at the Dover trial.

Yes, I know. That's what I was getting at. they think Planned Parenthood is just another word for Abortion Clinic.

Those who think and argue deviously tend to expect others will do the same.

[GrandizerII]

This topic is one reason why I insist on morality being subjective. Much easier to respect women's rights that way.

[Minimalist]

This is interesting.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/30...tail=email

Christian group's survey finds that Christians have the most abortions in U.S.

With the terrible events that unfolded over the holiday weekend still reverberating across the country, it is timely that the Christian Research group LifeWay would release the findings of a survey they conducted concerning abortion and the demographics of abortion when it comes to religion. The study was co-sponsored by Care Net, a pregnancy center support organization. Some of their findings:

• 70 percent of the women they surveyed identified as Christians.
  
• 23 percent of Christian women who have had an abortion consider themselves evangelical Christians.
  
• Over one third of the women surveyed attend a church once a week or more.
  
• Over half of the women who attend church regularly have kept their terminated pregnancy secret from their church community.
  

Typical of the "I've got mine - fuck you" attitude of right-wing xristers.

[Joods]

Well, with that study, I fully expect to see a shit storm of excuses from the religious folk explaining all that away.

[Minimalist]

Obviously....... ( wait for it.....)


They aren't TRUE xtians.

[rexbeccarox]

Esq posted something ages ago... I'm pretty sure it was Esq...

It was a blog or something coming from the POV of someone (I believe) at PP who constantly witnessed women and girls picketing outside, then the next day, they'd be in for an abortion, and the next, right back out there picketing. I wish I could remember enough about it to search it and get the details right.

Assholes.

[Minimalist]

Assholes.

Jesus freaks.

[Aroura]

This is interesting.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/30...tail=email

Christian group's survey finds that Christians have the most abortions in U.S.

With the terrible events that unfolded over the holiday weekend still reverberating across the country, it is timely that the Christian Research group LifeWay would release the findings of a survey they conducted concerning abortion and the demographics of abortion when it comes to religion. The study was co-sponsored by Care Net, a pregnancy center support organization. Some of their findings:

• 70 percent of the women they surveyed identified as Christians.
  
• 23 percent of Christian women who have had an abortion consider themselves evangelical Christians.
  
• Over one third of the women surveyed attend a church once a week or more.
  
• Over half of the women who attend church regularly have kept their terminated pregnancy secret from their church community.
  

Typical of the "I've got mine - fuck you" attitude of right-wing xristers.

Like I keep telling CL, awareness or belief that one is killing their own baby doesn't stop them from doing it.  She doesn't believe me, or any statistics I have provided.  If a Christian finds themselves with an unwanted pregnancy, they are not less likely to abort, DESPITE professed belief that it is a sacred living human baby.  
Nor are they less likely even if it is illegal.  
Sigh.