For every entry in the pro-abortion series, the following commenting rules are in effect.
* If you are anti-abortion, you must clearly declare this on any thread-starter you post, and give your numerical answer to the following question:
What maximum number of women dead from botched back alley abortions per year under an anti-abortion scheme do you consider a fair and just tradeoff to prevent all abortions that would happen under a pro-abortion scheme?
Repeatedly refusing to identify your position or your answer to this question will result in a ban. Answering zero will result in an immediate ban. Vague textual answers (such as “hundreds or a few thousands” or “infinite”) will be accepted.
For example, you may start a comment like this:
“Hello, my name is Thetis. I am pro-life, and my answer is around 200,000.”
(I will accept pro-life and pro-death labels for the sake of comments, although I refuse to use them because they are technically incorrect)
* If you are pro-choice, you must clearly declare this on any thread-starter you post, and then give your numerical answer to the following question:
What maximum number of children afflicted with spina bifita/Tay-Sachs/leukemia/cancer/Downs Syndrome/etc a year born under a pro-choice scheme do you consider a fair and just tradeoff to prevent the distress of women who would not be allowed to have a child under a pro-abortion scheme?
Repeatedly refusing to identify your position or your answer to this question will result in a ban. Answering zero will result in an immediate ban. Vague textual answers (such as “hundreds or a few thousands” or “infinite”) will be accepted.
For example, you may start a comment like this:
“Hello, my name is Seth. I am pro-choice, and my answer is infinity.”
* If you are pro-abortion, you are under no obligation to answer anything, although I would appreciate if you clearly declared that you are pro-abortion. Pro-abortion people who do not identify themselves will not be banned.
* If you are undecided, you must clearly declare that you are undecided. Anyone declaring themselves undecided and then manifesting a clear anti-abortion or pro-choice bias will be banned.
* If you lean on one or the other but are not fully in any camp, please clearly declare your position and answer either the pro-choice or the anti-abortion question, at your convenience.
Repeatedly refusing to identify your position or your answer to this question will result in a ban. Answering zero will result in an immediate ban. Vague textual answers (such as “hundreds or a few thousands” or “infinite”) will be accepted.
For example, you may start a comment like this:
“Hello, my name is Rathford. I am leaning towards pro-choice but against abortions in the second trimester, and my answer to the pro-choice question is seven billion.”
***
This is not a trick or a joke, but a very serious request. Don’t whine that I am censoring you. I will do everything I can to help sincere people who wish to comment but find themselves unable to do so. In such a case, please post a comment here and I will try to help you out.
Note that this entry is not part of the pro-abortion series, and comments are not subject to the rules. Please post requests for clarification, requests for help answering the questions, etc. I am open to changing the questions if they are too unclear for you.
![[Valid RSS]](http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a339/Franc28/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Why would a pro-choice woman wish to take away choice from women (by forcing them to take abortions)?
Why would a pro-abortion theme result in back-alley abortions?
Your questions are confusing given the people they are addressed to.
“Why would a pro-choice woman wish to take away choice from women (by forcing them to take abortions)?”
… what? I never assumed pro-choice people would force anyone to take abortions.
“Why would a pro-abortion theme result in back-alley abortions?”
You must have misread. That’s in the ANTI-abortion section (“If you are anti-abortion”). I am implying that an anti-abortion scheme would create back-alley abortions.
“Your questions are confusing given the people they are addressed to.”
I dunno about mine, but yours sure are confusing me…
I slightly clarified the questions. I hope that helps?
I may have misread the first one, but the second one is still confusing. You’re asking the pro-choice crowd to tell you how many children with birth defects would be a “fair tradeoff” to make up for the distress of women who would not be allowed to have a child.
… yes?
How does this even make sense?!
Can you perhaps reword this question?
“What maximum number of children afflicted with spina bifita/Tay-Sachs/leukemia/cancer/Downs Syndrome/etc a year born under a pro-choice scheme do you consider a fair and just tradeoff to prevent the distress of women who would not be allowed to have a child under a pro-abortion scheme?”
Well it’s very simple. Under a pro-abortion scheme, a number of woman would be allowed to have children, who would have otherwise. Those women would be distressed. How many children born with spina bifita would be allowable to prevent that distress from happening?
Says who?
I am. I am strictly differentiating pro-choice (being in favor of choice) from pro-abortion (being in favor of abortions, not choice). Pro-abortion is symmetrical to anti-abortion. The actual definitions are coming in the next entry.
But why are you asking pro-choice persons an argument from an anti-choice perspective?
Huh?
You’re asking pro-choice people to answer a question about a theoretical scenario where women are forced to take certain actions (anti-choice)
What actions are those?
Have an abortion?
No. I am asking the pro-choice to balance the fact that there will be children born with terrible diseases under their scheme, with the distress that a pro-abortion scheme would give some women. The fact that children would be born with terrible diseases doesn’t imply that women are forced to have abortions, so I don’t understand your objection.
As opposed to a theoretical scenario where women are forced to have abortions if it’s decided that the child will be born with a birth defect?
You are in short asking how many children with birth defects are the rights of women over their own body worth. The question is loaded. One is allowed to answer 0.
Well, I have to tell you that if you actually answer zero on any post where the comment rule is in effect, I will have to ban you on sight.
You are the last person I want to ban (well maybe second to David), but I have to be fair.
That’s like saying that answering “I never beat my wife” to the question “when did you stop beating your wife” is banworthy.
No… it means that you’re not actually pro-*choice*. How is my question a loaded question? Either you support the “right” of women to give birth to children with birth defects or diseases, or you don’t. That’s the question I am trying to get pro-choice people to confront.
I’m pro-choice and I don’t support the right of people to give birth to children with birth defects. However, I support a treatment to remove those birth defects rather than removing choice from women.
That’s great, but unless we have treatments for all these conditions in the womb or for the days after they’re born or whatever, you’re still admitting that some children should be born and live with defects or diseases. The question is just how many.
None. We should continuously strive to find treatment for all those children and educate and peer-pressure women not give birth to children with severely debilitating birth defects (and of course, not all birth defects are the same).
So you’re not pro-*choice*.
Of course I am.
How are you pro-choice if you think all women who will give birth to untreatable debilitating diseases or defects should be pressured to abort? That’s a lot of people you’re trying to get to abort.
Again, my question is formulated so that if you answer zero, you are not pro-choice. Being pro-choice includes letting women choose to give birth to compromised children.
Your question is loaded, I said that already. I answer 0 and I am pro-choice. Peer-pressure is an acceptable and natural human act. It’s the primary way I envision how anarchist communities would enforce their rules. Exercising peer-pressure does not mean that you take away choice which implies actual coercion. If I stop being your friend because of your drug habits, does not mean that I’m I want to take away the freedom to do drugs.
You’re trying to make your pro-choice position fit with your desired answer of zero. I understand the dissonance going on here. But look, even if you use peer pressure on people, there will still be more compromised children born under your scheme than under a pro-abortion scheme. You really can’t escape that fact.
I understand what you’re trying to do, but I’m not convinced.
Please define what you believe is acceptable peer pressure.
I just realized that The Spanish Inquisition was just a peer pressure thing.
All possible forms would be impossible to think of and list, but as an example social ostracism comes to mind.
: exclusion by general consent from common privileges or social acceptance
To explain my objection some more, your question is implying that the only possible alternative to giving children with birth defects is to take away women’s choice altogether. That would be like saying that the only way to stop rape is to sterilize all men and if someone is against sterilizing all men, they have to tell you how many women they consider acceptable to be raped.
“To explain my objection some more, your question is implying that the only possible alternative to giving children with birth defects is to take away women’s choice altogether.”
Well, there is no other choice. Your objection that children could be cured after birth does not deny the fact that you either give birth to them or abort them.
“That would be like saying that the only way to stop rape is to sterilize all men and if someone is against sterilizing all men, they have to tell you how many women they consider acceptable to be raped.”
I don’t see the relation between sterilizing men and stopping rape. Men would still rape either way.
If men are sterilized (to the point where they cannot feel any sexual drive), then by default they cannot rape. This is how convicted child molesters are sometimes prevented from doing so.
So the analogy still stands.
I think you’re thinking about castration, not sterilization.
Whatevs, the point remains.
Okay, then I agree that your question makes sense, yes. So… how does my question not make sense compared to your castration one?
One of the most horrific rapes that I remember happening in the are that I live involve three teenaged boys raping an elderly woman to death with a broom handle. I once had a co worker boast of him and his friends gang raping a girl with a old school Coke bottle. It does not always involve genitalia. Sexual drive is not the only motivator for rape, sometimes it is just based on mental illness or just plain hatred.
That’s all fairly tangenial to the point I was making.
“If men are sterilized (to the point where they cannot feel any sexual drive), then by default they cannot rape. This is how convicted child molesters are sometimes prevented from doing so.”.
It was a statement based from one of yours, my apologies for the misunderstanding.
I know it was a sentence based on what I said. I just explained it was tangenial to the point.
The point is that none of you seem to want to be honest about what you believe…
Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
If children are cured after birth, then you’re getting stuck on a technicality for rhetorical points.
And children can also be cured pre-birth.
That’s fine, but until the time we’re able to cure all compromised children at birth or pre-birth, your point remains purely hypothetical.
Your point remains purely hypothetical as well. A hypothetical answer to a hypothetical scenario is perfectly acceptable.
How is my point hypothetical?
You can’t escape a lot of the facts of life. But I’m pointing out that your question is loaded as I explained with my rape/castration example. It’s entirely consistent to answer 0 and be pro-choice.
Again, how is my question loaded? I accept your castration example as valid so I don’t see how you’ve proven anything.
I agree that it is consistent to be pro-choice and to WANT the answer to be zero, but I don’t think it’s consistent to say your answer IS zero. Whatever scheme you come up with, it still involves some children being born compromised.
The loaded part is asking me to tell you how many children I consider acceptable to be born with birth defects, or asking me how many women are acceptable to be raped.
Your solution is not the only solution that is theoretically valid in reducing those numbers to 0.
So you’d rather bite the bullet? OK. Then yes, your question is consistent with that one, and unfortunately just as loaded. I was hoping to make you see that.
What, are you accusing me of accepting your example for rhetorical purposes? Look, just tell me what the loaded nature of my question is. I already understand what a loaded question is so it shouldn’t be too hard.
I already did
It is not a loaded question to point out the logical consequences of a belief system. Sorry, but I don’t accept your argument.
Then you do not understand loaded questions, contrary to your statement.
So do you think all men should be castrated? If not, how many women are acceptable to be raped. I will accept “inifinite” as an answer.
I don’t know enough about the effects of castration to answer or, if negative, give a number, but I certainly see no reason to automatically answer “no,” if that’s what you’re going for. There are many different kinds of castration, for one thing.
I am talking about a (theoretical even) castration method which reduces a male’s sexual drive (physically and emotionally) to nil. Stop dancing around the question and tell me if you’d promose that all men be castrated as an appropriate solution to rape.
More hypothetical nonsense. Let’s say my answer was yes to your hypothetical future technological castration method. So what?
Nothing. At this point you would have lost almost all credibility in the eyes of the audience to any public debate, thus condemning all your ideas, good or bad, to the dustbin on memetic history.
*of memetic history
Wonderful. If that’s what you think of me, why do you even talk to me, dude? You and Gomi both. What is your point in hanging around here?
I like you and your blog, but you seem to love to shit on my head on the basis of our disagreements. One can get tired of this.
By the way db, unlike you, I don’t give a shit what credibility I have in the eyes of “the audience.” The subtitle of this blog has been, for a long time, “you probably shouldn’t be here.” I only care about trying to find out what the truth is.
If that’s not your goal, then I don’t give a shit about what you have to say, db. Fuck you.
Because there is no (and has never been a) society which forces women to take abortions when they have children with birth defects?
I am asking people to compare their belief to mine. Of course the implementation of any belief system is hypothetical. There has never been a purely pro-choice society any more than there’s been a purely pro-abortion or anti-abortion society. Your point is like saying you can’t compare statism to anarchism because there’s never been any purely anarchist society.
Not at all. I’m comparing your hypothetical scenario to mine and consider them both just as valid.
Your hypothetical scenario is an anti-choice, forced-abortions society where there are 0 children with birth defects born. My hypothetical scenario is a pro-choice society where there are 0 children with birth defects born.
Sorry, but I don’t accept that your scenario is even logical. Your scenario relies on technology that does not exist. Sorry, but I have to reject it.
That not illogical. That’s unrealistic with the current technology levels. But then again, your scenario is unrealistic with the current technology level AND the current sociopolitical climate. So if you reject mine on reason of being unrealistic, you have to reject yours just as well.
That’s fine, we can agree to disagree… but these are my rules, not yours. Sorry.
You don’t have to apologize as long as you understand that your rules are illogical and inconsistent.
No, that’s your opinion. I do not share it.
It’s not a matter of opinion anymore. I have logically shown you how you are comparing two contemporarily unrealistic hypothetical scenarios, but choose to reject one arbitrarily.
The reasons for your rejection can be reduced to it not allowing you to moraly condemn people for allowing children to be born with birth defects.
I.e. you are being inconsistent (you do not accept two hypothetical scenarios with the same amount of validity) and you are being illogical in insisting that forming loaded questions out of such an exclusion would make for a rational argument rather than recognise your attempts to poison the well.
And as I pointed out, you can say the same about ANY comparison of belief systems, including capitalism v anarchism, Christianity v atheism, etc.
The main difference being that your scenario invokes technology that doesn’t exist to mask the fact that you support compromised children being born right now in the name of choice. My scenario is entirely coherent, apart from the fact that it does not actually exist… which makes it like exactly any other social ideal.
Indeed. When you compare ideals – you compare ideals. It’s not at all consistent to use an ideal scenario on one hand and then reject another ideal for being unrealistic. All ideals are unrealistic to some extent.
Not really. Your scenario not at all coherent as neither the technological level exists (you cannot detect all birth defects nor monitor all pregnancies), nor a sociopolitical system that could enforce any woman to have forced abortions. Even the worst kind of totalitarianism would not be able to achieve that one. So unfortunately your ideal is double as unrealistic as mine.
What are you even talking about? I never said anything about detecting birth defects. I said that forbidding compromised children from being born is a pro-abortion scheme, but dude! I am an antinatalist! Why the fuck would I want ANY children to be born? Do you not realize that I am against procreation yet? Have you not been following this blog at all?
You are not arguing for an natalist society, but rather for an anti-choice “pro-forced-abortions” society. In short, that was quite irrelevant.
And I countered that it isn’t (even though wording is very biased). In short, I’ve challenged your premises, and rather than argue on those, you decided to go all “Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.” on me.
PS: “Compromised children”? Shit dude, this is not the zombie apocalypse.
That’s not what I think of you. I am pointing out the situation you will end up in (i.e. immediately dismissed as a nutjob) if you ever try to bring up your ideas to a larger audience. I mention this because I hope you’ll understand that people will dismiss you because you harbor some very bad ideas and possibly discard those bad ideas and thus allow your good ones to reach some audience they wouldn’t otherwise.
In matters or ethics, “truth” is a social construct. You cannot discover the truth in isolation. It is not about making the audience like you but ranting in your personal echo chamber and calling those rants truth because you’ve driven out everyone who was willing to posit a counterpoint, well, let’s just say that would be approximately as accurate as “truth” as Objectivism…
“I am pointing out the situation you will end up in (i.e. immediately dismissed as a nutjob) if you ever try to bring up your ideas to a larger audience. I mention this because I hope you’ll understand that people will dismiss you because you harbor some very bad ideas and possibly discard those bad ideas and thus allow your good ones to reach some audience they wouldn’t otherwise.”
I am not “bringing my ideas to a larger audience.” This blog is more than big enough. I don’t WANT a bigger audience because otherwise I will get margins-enforcing shit like THIS COMMENT YOU JUST WROTE! You are trying to push the very syndrome that I am trying to avoid on this blog. Thank you for proving my point.
If you seriously think that an antinatalist antitheist radical-feminism-supporting Anarchist like me is worried about being a nutjob… what the fuck is wrong with you?!
“In matters or ethics, “truth” is a social construct. You cannot discover the truth in isolation. It is not about making the audience like you but ranting in your personal echo chamber and calling those rants truth because you’ve driven out everyone who was willing to posit a counterpoint, well, let’s just say that would be approximately as accurate as “truth” as Objectivism…”
If you are so close-minded that you are unwilling to even consider a possibility because it’s too outside the margins, then you’re not someone who’s going to help anyone “discover the truth.” That’s intellectually useless and malignant.
If you’re simply after intellectual masturbation then why have a public blog in the first place? I mean, Anarchism (and any ethical propositions really) is about changing the world and you obviously don’t care for that, since you’re not even try to reach the amount of people who would do that, so what’s the point?
I have no idea what “margins-eforcing shit” is, but it sounds like something Rothbard would say.
Who says I did not consider the possibility? Do not confuse me considering and subsequently rejecting your scenario with being close-minded. Not everyone who points out that you’re wrong is close-minded. Open Minded does not mean agreeing with Francois Tremblay.
“If you’re simply after intellectual masturbation then why have a public blog in the first place? I mean, Anarchism (and any ethical propositions really) is about changing the world and you obviously don’t care for that, since you’re not even try to reach the amount of people who would do that, so what’s the point?”
Why the fuck would I hold to the delusion that I can change the world? It’s not that I don’t WANT to, but I don’t have the talent for it. My blog is here so I can communicate ideas to the few people who are willing to listen to them. I don’t expect anything more than that.
You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that we should whore ourselves out as much as we can to gain as wide an audience as possible. And yet I am not seeing you do that with YOUR blog. Does that mean you don’t “care” enough…? You hypocrite ASSHOLE.
“I have no idea what “margins-eforcing shit” is, but it sounds like something Rothbard would say.”
Margins of discourse. I thought it was obvious enough,
“Who says I did not consider the possibility?”
You rejected it out of hand. If you did consider it, you sure as hell didn’t show it.
“Not everyone who points out that you’re wrong is close-minded.”
I never said that, you fucking dickhead. As for pointing out I’m wrong… you did no such thing. You just rejected the possibility out of hand, you fucking shamer.
If you don’t like what I do here, then get the FUCK out. No one’s asking you to stay. That’s the very last I’ll say about this.
Dude, you sound like an MRA. No, I did not reject the possibility out of hand. I pointed out that your question is loaded and it’s illogical to expect the audience to answer it and yet have an open minded discussion.
Being willing to reconsider one’s premises and discuss counterpoints with the audience does not mean “whoring oneself out”. But it does imply that you’re provide reasonable members of the audience a welcoming platform to discuss. It does not imply diluting your ideas to fit the ideas of the audience.
Discussing with your audience with an open mind, improves both yourself and them.
What you’re doing otoh is attempting to drive out members of the audience that challenge your premises. I.e. you’re reinforcing your own groupthink, which is why is harmful in one’s quest to find truth.
I can’t imagine any of the studies vindicating abortion’s psychological impact have contemplated forced abortion. It seems like such a thing would be pretty traumatic. Why not require pro-abortion advocates to state how many consequent suicides by disallowed mothers they would be willing to accept as a trade-off for preventing the compromised births in the pro-choice example?
That’s a fair question, yes. I am not planning on forcing any pro-abortion advocate to answer it, because this is my blog after all. The point is to get anti-abortion and pro-choice people to have to grapple a bit with the issues before commenting.
I gather you see the suicides as net negatives, as a counter-point. Unfortunately, since I am pro-suicide as well (I have an entry coming on this after the very end of this series), this premise doesn’t hold in my case, and the question doesn’t make much sense. It would be far more applicable to a pro-abortion person who is also anti-suicide, although that seems rather unlikely.
Now if you want to talk about the distress or depressed that would ensue, that’s fine, but to me that’s a question rather more appropriate for pro-choice people… since giving birth to people who will suffer for their whole lives seems to me a rather harsher offense than making a woman distressed or depressed. There are a lot of things that make people distressed or depressed (such as economic hardships, unemployment, war, misogyny, etc), but we don’t use that as an argument against those things.
I actually don’t see any deaths as net negatives. I see the suffering preceding suicide as a negative, with the suicide being an index of the severity of the suffering. And there is also the suffering that follows it, since it occurs in a social matrix where death is interpreted incorrectly so as to cause more suffering.
Seriously digging the back and forth here. Any way to get an RSS feed on the comments for the site?
I have no idea how one would do that.
That may have been a spambot, but just in case they weren’t, the comment feed for this article is here: http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/commenting-rule-for-the-pro-abortion-series/feed/
Huh. I didn’t know that.
Pingback: Introduction to the pro-abortion position. | The Prime Directive
Gratitude flows as wine. Also, I am not a spambot to my knowledge, but my programming might preclude that.
Pro-choice can be a natalist position. Pro-abortion is anti-natalist.
I disagree with you on this thing: your pro-abortion poisition not exactly the opposite of anti-abortion. Anti-abortion is about an authority who bans abortions, so the opposite is not exactly your position
David, read the new entry and tell me what you think.
“pretty much the opposite of the pro-abortion position.”
hummm…okay, that’s fine for me.
I assume my comment was not accepted in “Introduction to the pro-abortion position.” so I will give a try over here :).
Hello, I am pro-life (anti-abortion) and I’ve read your comment rule, however the question you are asking in terms of argumentation falls into category called “poison well”, which means that it is build in a way that suits you.
There is hardly someone that would say that it is “fair and just tradeoff” to kill X number of women “to prevent all abortions.” When we speak about human life there is hardly something like “fair and just tradeoff”, instead it can be called necessary evil that arises from the situation. (This would throw a slightly different light on my answer)
In the same way you could question other things e.g. “What maximum number of drug users dead from infected needles in back alleys per year under an anti-drug scheme do you consider a fair and just tradeoff to prevent all drug usage that would happen under a pro-drug scheme?”
The number here is not important; for it only makes the person who answers it look insensible. The laws in effect will always have “back alleys”, yet the alternatives could result in much worse consequences. Thus please understand why I will not give you and exact number since that would be too much of an oversimplification of this whole issue. While “women dead from botched back alley abortions” would be surely the necessary evil of such regulation, the current alternative is much worse (seeing life as something worth protecting).
Now I see that your position is probably founded in Antinatalism. As, perhaps this could be the root of all the divergence, please show us on what ground is Antinatalism the objective “default”?
I hope we will have here a discussion in a decent manner :).
“Hello, I am pro-life (anti-abortion) and I’ve read your comment rule, however the question you are asking in terms of argumentation falls into category called “poison well”, which means that it is build in a way that suits you.”
Of course it is built in a way which suits me. After all, I am the one building the argumentation, and therefore it suits me very well.
“There is hardly someone that would say that it is “fair and just tradeoff” to kill X number of women “to prevent all abortions.” When we speak about human life there is hardly something like “fair and just tradeoff”, instead it can be called necessary evil that arises from the situation. (This would throw a slightly different light on my answer)”
No matter what you call it, it is a factual consequence that women will die for any anti-abortion scheme that passes muster. Whether you think it is just or evil does not change the fact (and besides, calling something a “necessary evil” is an oxymoron: how can something evil be necessary?).
“In the same way you could question other things e.g. “What maximum number of drug users dead from infected needles in back alleys per year under an anti-drug scheme do you consider a fair and just tradeoff to prevent all drug usage that would happen under a pro-drug scheme?””
I think that’s a fair question, no? Whatever you call it, there are drug users that die every day from infected needles- in big Western cities, it is now the main vector of HIV transmission. I think that’s a pretty important ethical point to bring in the issue.
“The number here is not important; for it only makes the person who answers it look insensible.”
That is the problem of holding an insensible position, yes. How is that my problem?
“The laws in effect will always have “back alleys”, yet the alternatives could result in much worse consequences.”
Ah well let’s hear what you think are “worse consequences” than women dying.
“Thus please understand why I will not give you and exact number since that would be too much of an oversimplification of this whole issue.”
I am not asking you to give an EXACT number, just an approximation.
“While “women dead from botched back alley abortions” would be surely the necessary evil of such regulation, the current alternative is much worse (seeing life as something worth protecting).”
Ah yes, the old anti-woman screed that fetuses are more important than women’s lives. If that’s your idea of a counter-argument, sorry but no cigar. I don’t see that the alternative is worse at all. But anyway, one of the reasons why I ask this question is to show that anti-abortion people like you have no respect for actual people’s lives, and you’ve already proven that in your comment here, so nothing further is really necessary! You’ve already proven my point! Another reason was to make you think, but this, sadly, seems to have failed.
“I hope we will have here a discussion in a decent manner :).”
This is the end of the discussion as far as I’m concerned. You’ve made my point eloquently. I don’t really see what else is left to say. As I said, in the abortion series you either follow the commenting rule or I can’t let your comments through; that’s all there is to it.
For the first part, of course it is your right to build your argumentation on anything you want, however the nature of it will then reveal what are your intentions behind. If one wants to be fair and present only real arguments and valid thoughts in attempt to seek or be open for the truth he will surely avoid strategies of distraction like the “poison well” is, that only creates apparent advantage and those who do not recognize it are shabbily mislead.
Your second technique of argumentation to dismember individual parts from the whole again does not create an impression that you really are in fact seeking to answer my objections, for answering these stand alone statements (some taken out of paragraph) appears to be merely an effort of ridicule or another distraction which confuses the real answer. Thus If it is possible I would appreciate if you avoided this manner of responding for next time.
Thirdly, you based your entire concluding part of your comment on a mere assumption (“If that’s your idea of a counter-argument…”), that I hold an “anti-womans creed” (that fetuses are more important than womens lives). However if you read through my comment again, you will see that in fact I have not made a single statement where I would grant or unequivocally agree with this view. Therefore again, if I may politely ask you next time it would be beneficial for our discussion if you were slower to make your conclusions and perhaps ask me if something is unclear as I did before.
In fact, I believe you forgot to answer my question, so I attach it again:
“Now I see that your position is probably founded in Antinatalism. As, perhaps this could be the root of all the divergence, please show us on what ground is Antinatalism the objective “default”?”
At last to elaborate a little more on the question of seeing life as something worth protecting, I see life of a woman and baby as equal. If this is considered to be a foundation for this issue then truly deaths of millions (babies) are worse consequence than the alternative. Not mentioning that a fetus or baby has never any other option in this debate whatsoever, while many woman would have at least two (decision to be sexually active [considering the possible consequences] & voluntarily going under known risk of botched back alley abortion).
Just to have a look how it could look reversely…
What maximum number of babies dead from abortions per year under a free abortion scheme do you consider a fair and just trade off to prevent some women dying from botched back alley (illegal) abortions that would happen under an anti-abortion scheme?
Please surely do not feel obliged to answer it :), for it is only to show how absurd the entire question is. Why should babies face sure death for the irresponsibility and possible foolishness of their mothers who would even act illegally in pursuing such a treatment, that might end the lives of both? Such action could be legally called a murder, no?
If you asked someone to give you only an approximation to it, it would still serve as a “poison well” that makes the writer insensible…
Neither way, to move forward you need to answer my question regarding Antinatalism or you need to show on what ground life of a baby is not equal to womans life?
Thank you for your timely response and if you were interested in finding more about my perspective please click on my name “factorysense” and find the article “Abort Abortions?” on the right side of the page. I would surely value your comments to it as well (without any admitting questions ;) ).
“What maximum number of babies dead from abortions per year under a free abortion scheme do you consider a fair and just trade off to prevent some women dying from botched back alley (illegal) abortions that would happen under an anti-abortion scheme?”
Infinity.
See, that was easy enough. Your turn with the anti-abortion question.
Hello Francois
I appreciate the brevity of your response, however it does not necessarily help us to understand your position. I stipulated that a life of a baby is equal to life of a woman. Since you did not challenge this statement one could fall under the impression that you have nothing against it. Thus if you agree with it and yet your answer for my initially intended only rhetorical question is “Infinity” than it appears that you would agree with this genocide for sake of this significantly lower number of woman (comparing to infinity), who after all acted illegally or foolishly. If we only switched babies for Jews and woman for Germans, than this would pretty much make you a mass-murderer of the highest class in Nuremberg Trials (…that might appear slightly insensible).
Now, with all respect if I may ask you please do not make us conform to this demonstrated “poison well” question, but rather offer us some real arguments, for as far as I can see you again have chosen to answer one minor part of my comment, but entirely neglected other including my question regarding Antinatalism.
Hope to hear from you soon again :).
Seriously? I refuse to dignify some lunatic who not only believes that fetuses’ lives are more important than women’s lives, but also believes that killing fetuses is the same as the Holocaust. You are way out of bounds in terms of both sheer offensiveness and complete lack of logic, and I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt.
If you want a formal argument in response to nonsense of this nature, you’ll have to wait for the upcoming entries against the anti-abortion position (see the master list here: http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/introduction-to-the-pro-abortion-position/ ). But of course you won’t be allowed to comment on them because you obstinately refuse to follow the commenting rule. Such is life.
If you have any more questions on how I can help you follow the commenting rule, then please post them… otherwise I am not interested in continuing this discussion. Go talk to a lamppost.
Pingback: “No one is for abortion!” | The Prime Directive
Pingback: Sense the nonsense « factorysense
Pingback: Anti-abortion Q&A [part 1] | The Prime Directive
Pingback: Anti-abortion Q&A [part 2] | The Prime Directive
Pingback: Anti-abortion Q&A [part 3] | The Prime Directive
Pingback: Secret Confessions: How great is it to have a child? | The Prime Directive
Pingback: Can one be an anti-abortion atheist? | The Prime Directive
I don’t really lean one way or another, I’m not a woman. I once went toe to toe with Morton Downey Jr. when he was in Dallas. Although I believe that a women should make her own decisions I went extreme anti-abortion to try to get some people to think. I suggested that all pregnancies should be registered and and that any pregnancy not carried to term should be investigated and appropriate charges be filed. People didn’t understand my sarcasm and I received plenty of verbal abuse for it.
I think that you have been more than patient wit the above people, I wish that the above people would look through the options that you give and make a comment instead of arguing.
“I’m the one that’s gonna have to die
When it’s time for me to die
So let me live my life the way I want to.” Jimi Hendrix.
When I first read this I thought it was some of the most crazy shit that I had ever read. I kept re reading it trying to make sense of it and it finally soaked in.
I currently have a sixteen year old Daughter that is pregnant and I wouldn’t want to be part of a society that would force her to have or abort a child.
There is nothing that my Daughter will not talk to me about so I welcome comments about my parenting skills.
It just really seems to me that in a society where you could force these decisions on women there wouldn’t be much regard for anyone’s life. Men would be castrated and someone would decide who regardless of age would live or die.
I just wanna be able to grow my own weed.
Well, I think what you’re saying is the crazy shit. We all have different opinions, huh? Will you be able to defend your position against the upcoming entries, however, is another matter.
I don’t understand your answer, I thought that part of your point was to make people think. I honestly thought that I had gotten your point.
I’m not trying to argue.
I’m going over your comments, I’m sorry that I misunderstood you.
Why the fuck would I want ANY children to be born? Do you not realize that I am against procreation yet? Have you not been following this blog at all?
You want all people to die off?
“die off” as in humanity going extinct? Well, that would be the desirable end result of the end of procreation, yea. See:
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/mankind-must-perpetuate/
Thanks for directing me there, I’ll just kind of pop in and out of here and keep to myself.
I apologize for not reading more or paying more attention before commenting.
Pingback: The humbug of “reproductive rights”… | The Prime Directive
I actually think that the bible supports evolution and that the book would be a lot different if they had the knowledge we have today but I don’t quite buy the big bang theory.
Do you have a blog that deals with this?
I’m not trying to start an argument, I grew up in a so called Christian family and learned to use the bible to keep them off of me.
Found your videos on Youtube, you are just a fat loser beat off king. I would be against procreation if I had to look at you in the mirror.
I actually thought that you might have something viable to say.
You’re not an anarchist, you are nothing but a spectator.
I could shoot you in the face and know that I was making the world a better place.
Admit it by deleting this comment, you hate yourself and want to drag down other people because of your sickening wimpy life.
Using my identity to egg other people on, you are pathetic.
What a nice Christian you are. And I have no idea what you are going on about re: your identity. Did you forget to take your pills, godboy?
I’m not a Christian, I have studied the Bible and use it against so called Christians to get them to leave me alone. I told my Atheist friend that it’s all some people have and to leave them alone and focus on the jerks. The creation crap in the Bible is just a old story, when Christians tell me that I’m going to Hell I ask “How long will I burn in Hell” they say “Forever” and I just tell them that sounds like eternal life to me. By the same right I don’t like it when a person starts talking to me in person about why they are an Atheist.
I think that the Jehovahs and Mormons around here put me on a Do Not Knock list after letting them into my house.
About the meds, I rarely forget to take my Zoloft in the morning but I sometimes forget to take my Ambien at night.
Look at your blog that deals with stretchmarks, for the identity issue. I guess that you have another Bagworm on here that has the same Icon as me. I would think that the other person would have to have the same Email address as me to pull that off but I guess that it could happen.
I’m not here for the right reasons, I need to go find something that I like.
Pingback: Body ownership is semantic gobbledygook. | The Prime Directive