Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Rumraket · **#3321** by **Rumraket** » Apr 23, 2014 6:03 pm

Galactor wrote:
Tacticus wrote:
As to abortion being "safer" than natural birth, this is preposterous nonsense, and ongoing studies suggest that abortion routinely causes psychological (not to mention physical) harm that dramatically increases suicide and death rates in women who have them.

If abortion "routinely" causes psychological damage to those undergoing them, I would bet my mortgage it's to do with the cunts who go around trying to shame them at abortion clinics and those who erect fallacious nonsense about clumps of cells being human beings.

Rather like the way the religious look to how gays might have suicidal tendencies to make an argument that homosexuality is wrong - it's because of the work the fucking religious do to depress them, not the orientation.

amok · **#3322** by **amok** » Apr 23, 2014 6:04 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Tacticus wrote:
amok wrote:
Tacticus wrote:
As to abortion being "safer" than natural birth, this is preposterous nonsense, and ongoing studies suggest that abortion routinely causes psychological (not to mention physical) harm that dramatically increases suicide and death rates in women who have them.

Which studies, please? Because that was what I opined would be a secular argument against abortion earlier in the thread. If this dramatic increase in fact exists - leaving aside, of course, back alley abortions in places where safe abortions aren't available - this is something people need to know.

I though it was cited earlier. It was a study out of Australia as I recall. I'll do some looking around.

Finalnd, IIRC. When you find it, be sure not to neglect to mention the several flaws in the study that rendered its conclusions invalid, as you neglected to do here....

Ah, there we go. Thought such things as "routinely" and "dramatically increases suicide and death rates" might be overstating or, um, wrongly remembered.

Thinking about it, though, even if a legitimate study found some sort of linkage (thus the secular argument), it would depend on the degree of risk and would still allow each individual patient to make an informed decision. After all, we do that all the time. I was taking oral contraceptives for decades with the knowledge about the possible increased risk of long-term medical issues. My decision, for my reasons.

Shrunk · **#3323** by **Shrunk** » Apr 23, 2014 6:05 pm

Galactor wrote:
Tacticus wrote:
As to abortion being "safer" than natural birth, this is preposterous nonsense, and ongoing studies suggest that abortion routinely causes psychological (not to mention physical) harm that dramatically increases suicide and death rates in women who have them.

If abortion "routinely" causes psychological damage to those undergoing them, I would bet my mortgage it's to do with the cunts who go around trying to shame them at abortion clinics and those who erect fallacious nonsense about clumps of cells being human beings.

Rather like the way the religious look to how gays might have suicidal tendencies to make an argument that homosexuality is wrong - it's because of the work the fucking religious do to depress them, not the orientation.

It's just another piece of preposterous fiction of the sort Tacticus enjoys making up. He finds a couple poorly designed studies by incompetent and biased researchers, and suddenly this outweighs the overwhelming consensus of research that contradicts his view.

Blip · **#3324** by **Blip** » Apr 24, 2014 1:28 pm

!

GENERAL MODNOTE
Scot Dutchy, you have made a number of posts inviting other members to go and see their priests and / or play with their rosaries, for example this one, this one, this one and this one.

You have also made a series of posts telling other members to ‘fucking shut up’, 'FFS shut up', ‘fuck off’ and ''go somewhere else' for 'fucking shit sake’, for example this one, this one, this one and this one.

While ‘shut up’ can be a mark of exasperation, its repetition in this way goes beyond that and these posts, individually and as a group, are inflammatory towards other members.

This contravenes the Forum Users’ Agreement, specifically section 1.2e, which concerns attempts to inflame or provoke.

Please don’t continue in this vein or sanctions will follow.

Any comments on this modnote or moderation should not be made in the thread as they will be considered off topic. You may PM me or another moderator if you wish to discuss this further.

Fallible · **#3325** by **Fallible** » Apr 24, 2014 2:43 pm

Err...?

Blip · **#3326** by **Blip** » Apr 24, 2014 4:20 pm

!

MODNOTE
purplerat, this is a warning about your post here, in which you write of another member: ‘I'm convinced michael^3 is poe. Nobody can really be this dumb’.

This post contravenes the Forum Users’ Agreement, specifically section 1.2c, which concerns personal attack.

Please don’t continue in this vein or further sanctions may follow.

Any comments on this modnote or moderation should not be made in the thread as they will be considered off topic.

Rachel Bronwyn · **#3327** by **Rachel Bronwyn** » Apr 24, 2014 4:48 pm

Sendraks wrote:
michael^3 wrote:
Ok at least you're being honest here about your real argument against keeping a fetus alive in a deceased mother.

Rachel was citing a reason as to why this should not occur. Other reasons have been articulated. It is a misrepresentation on your part to assume this is the "real argument." Don't cherry pick.

Ah well, at least we know misrepresenting me is kosher.

Tacticus · **#3328** by **Tacticus** » Apr 24, 2014 8:26 pm

Scar wrote:All that semantic wibbling about what a person is is disturbing anyway. A person has thoughts, feeling and a life. A fetus possesses none of these. It's just a lump of cells that may one day delevop to become the container for a person to arise within but that is all.

Actually it is another scientific fact that a fetus at some point in gestation develops brain activity and thoughts and is capable of "feeling" and experiencing pain, among other sensations. When exactly this first occurs is still a subject of medical and scientific debate, but contrary to your implication, a human fetus is a human fetus and has achieved being and is therefore a human being at every stage of development. When it becomes a "person" either legally or philosophically is an entirely different issue, and is as I have said a matter for social and political decision making.

Putting the (non-existant) "rights" of such a container above an actual person is just sick.

See how desperate you are to dehumanize the fetus in order to justify your ideology?

A sperm, likewise, could probably become a person one day (after combining with an egg), yet we do not call fapping murder - order menstruation for that matter.

Of course not. Both sperm and eggs, un-united, are tissue of the donor. A zygote (and all future stage of development identification terms) however is a distinct, separate living human organism living in a parasitical relationship with the mother in that it depends on the mother for life. It is therefor a human being at all times and stages of development.

Religious apologists trying to pretend them fighting abortion for any other reason than their own bigotry need to shut the fuck up.

One does not have to be religious in order to oppose unlimited at-will abortion. It might also be fairly said that the depth of emotion combined with the illogic and unreason evident in your argument meets every criteria of being a religious apology.

Rumraket · **#3329** by **Rumraket** » Apr 24, 2014 8:30 pm

Tacticus wrote:Of course not. Both sperm and eggs, un-united, are tissue of the donor. A zygote (and all future stage of development identification terms) however is a distinct, separate living human organism...

Says who?

Tacticus wrote:... living in a parasitical relationship with the mother in that it depends on the mother for life. It is therefor a human being at all times and stages of development.

That doesn't follow.

Tacticus · **#3330** by **Tacticus** » Apr 24, 2014 8:36 pm

amok wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Tacticus wrote:
amok wrote:
Which studies, please? Because that was what I opined would be a secular argument against abortion earlier in the thread. If this dramatic increase in fact exists - leaving aside, of course, back alley abortions in places where safe abortions aren't available - this is something people need to know.

I though it was cited earlier. It was a study out of Australia as I recall. I'll do some looking around.

Finalnd, IIRC. When you find it, be sure not to neglect to mention the several flaws in the study that rendered its conclusions invalid, as you neglected to do here....

Ah, there we go. Thought such things as "routinely" and "dramatically increases suicide and death rates" might be overstating or, um, wrongly remembered.

Thinking about it, though, even if a legitimate study found some sort of linkage (thus the secular argument), it would depend on the degree of risk and would still allow each individual patient to make an informed decision. After all, we do that all the time. I was taking oral contraceptives for decades with the knowledge about the possible increased risk of long-term medical issues. My decision, for my reasons.

Debating the accuracy of any study is completely legitimate colloquy, but we aren't really doing that, we are all tossing out largely unsupported arguments by authority which may or may not represent the whole truth. Nothing wrong with that since we are all doing it.

I agree with your reasoning in part with respect to a proven linkage to mental harm caused by abortion. Yes, it would be a secular argument against abortion, and yes it would likely be seen as a matter of degree, and yes I would personally agree that if properly informed of the risk it should be up to the decision of the mother and doctor at least until the fetus is viable outside the womb.

However, the state has a legitimate interest in the health, safety and welfare of citizens and it regulates medical practice very closely to try to prevent just that sort of thing. Laws requiring informed consent when it comes to medical procedures, regulation of doctors and clinics to ensure the best possible outcomes, and the regulating or banning of some forms of medical treatment that cause more harm than good which may affect the public in general if permitted are all legitimate matters of public concern ripe for democratic legislation.

If abortions were proven to cause mental illness and suicide in a large number of patients, the state would be justified in regulating and even banning abortion entirely on the basis that a procedure that identifiably causes such ongoing illness poses a public health and welfare risk, not to mention an economic burden in caring for indigent patients who might require substantial and expensive mental health treatment to deal with the effects of an abortion.

Rumraket · **#3331** by **Rumraket** » Apr 24, 2014 8:38 pm

That's a mighty big if.

Tacticus · **#3332** by **Tacticus** » Apr 24, 2014 8:38 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Tacticus wrote:Of course not. Both sperm and eggs, un-united, are tissue of the donor. A zygote (and all future stage of development identification terms) however is a distinct, separate living human organism...

Says who?

Science.

Tacticus wrote:... living in a parasitical relationship with the mother in that it depends on the mother for life. It is therefor a human being at all times and stages of development.

That doesn't follow.

"Therefore was incorrect surplusage. The sentence should read, "It is a human being at all times and stages of development."

Thank you for bringing that logical and grammatical error to my attention.

Tacticus · **#3333** by **Tacticus** » Apr 24, 2014 8:40 pm

Rumraket wrote:That's a mighty big if.

Life is full of "ifs." That doesn't stop science or reason, it drives them.

Rumraket · **#3334** by **Rumraket** » Apr 24, 2014 8:40 pm

Tacticus wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Tacticus wrote:Of course not. Both sperm and eggs, un-united, are tissue of the donor. A zygote (and all future stage of development identification terms) however is a distinct, separate living human organism...

Says who?

Science.

Where?

Tacticus wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Tacticus wrote:... living in a parasitical relationship with the mother in that it depends on the mother for life. It is therefor a human being at all times and stages of development.

That doesn't follow.

"Therefore was incorrect surplusage. The sentence should read, "It is a human being at all times and stages of development."

Thank you for bringing that logical and grammatical error to my attention.

So it went from an non sequitur to a blind assertion. Congratulations. :roll:

Rumraket · **#3335** by **Rumraket** » Apr 24, 2014 8:41 pm

Tacticus wrote:
Rumraket wrote:That's a mighty big if.

Life is full of "ifs." That doesn't stop science or reason, it drives them.

Right, but your IF is unevidenced and so we can pretty much ignore it. Glad we got that settled.

purplerat · **#3336** by **purplerat** » Apr 24, 2014 9:05 pm

Tacticus wrote:
If abortions were proven to cause mental illness and suicide in a large number of patients, the state would be justified in regulating and even banning abortion entirely on the basis that a procedure that identifiably causes such ongoing illness poses a public health and welfare risk, not to mention an economic burden in caring for indigent patients who might require substantial and expensive mental health treatment to deal with the effects of an abortion.

But the fact is that's not what's happening. You might as well be saying "if abortion caused spontaneous human combustion in a large number of patients that would provide a secular argument against abortion in part due to the potential fire risk of such combustions...". But the fact is that we can quite clearly see that such is not happening. Ironically one common rhetoric pro-lifers use is to point out the very large number of abortions that have been had (and equating that to people killed), yet with all those abortions occurring there's a quite apparent lack of any such social ills resulting from them. In other words there's an abundant about of evidence against your "if" and scantly any for it. So to continually point to it as something that should be considered, without introducing an new supporting evidence, is nothing more than a red herring and not a legitimate argument.

purplerat · **#3337** by **purplerat** » Apr 24, 2014 9:26 pm

Galactor wrote:
Tacticus wrote:
As to abortion being "safer" than natural birth, this is preposterous nonsense, and ongoing studies suggest that abortion routinely causes psychological (not to mention physical) harm that dramatically increases suicide and death rates in women who have them.

If abortion "routinely" causes psychological damage to those undergoing them, I would bet my mortgage it's to do with the cunts who go around trying to shame them at abortion clinics and those who erect fallacious nonsense about clumps of cells being human beings.

Rather like the way the religious look to how gays might have suicidal tendencies to make an argument that homosexuality is wrong - it's because of the work the fucking religious do to depress them, not the orientation.

While it's fun to blame the religious and pro-lifers for inflicting guilt on women who've had abortions and likely is accurate as a source for some psychological issues what I think is probably more common is that many abortions (more likely a majority) are not the result of some trivial "15 minutes of fun" that the woman just wants to clean up, forget and move onto the next fuck as pro-lifers would like to make them out to be. Rather many abortions are the result of wanted pregnancies where something has gone wrong one way or another and the mother-to-be has to reluctantly choose to end the pregnancy. Of course pro-lifers like to pretend that these type of abortions don't occur or only make up a very small percentage of all abortions. But in reality they likely make up a very large portion of abortions and probably an even large portion of those that are correlated with subsequent mental health issues. This is a reality people like Tacticus like to gloss over when making these arguments because it goes against their narrative about why women have abortions as well as largely self defeating the argument about mental health related to abortion.

Shrunk · **#3338** by **Shrunk** » Apr 24, 2014 10:08 pm

Tacticus wrote:
Rumraket wrote:That's a mighty big if.

Life is full of "ifs." That doesn't stop science or reason, it drives them.

This question is pretty well answered. That there are pro-lifers concocting bogus "studies" that say the opposite, and even sometimes getting them published, says nothing more about this issue than the existence of creationist "scientists" says about the theory of evolution.

Scot Dutchy · **#3339** by **Scot Dutchy** » Apr 24, 2014 10:14 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Tacticus wrote:
Rumraket wrote:That's a mighty big if.

Life is full of "ifs." That doesn't stop science or reason, it drives them.

This question is pretty well answered. That there are pro-lifers concocting bogus "studies" that say the opposite, and even sometimes getting them published, says nothing more about this issue than the existence of creationist "scientists" says about the theory of evolution.

Anyway as I said a long time ago the arguments being used are 20 years old and longer even appear on anyone's radar in the civilised world.

Shrunk · **#3340** by **Shrunk** » Apr 25, 2014 1:12 am

Tacticus wrote:If abortions were proven to cause mental illness and suicide in a large number of patients, the state would be justified in regulating and even banning abortion entirely on the basis that a procedure that identifiably causes such ongoing illness poses a public health and welfare risk, not to mention an economic burden in caring for indigent patients who might require substantial and expensive mental health treatment to deal with the effects of an abortion.

Whereas if every abortion magically caused a child somewhere to get a million dollars and a pony, the state would be justified in promoting them aggressively. So exactly what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Who is online