Abortion

[Dan Rowden]

I would argue that Rhett's posts constitute open, actual misogyny. Frankly, the blithe whimsy with which this matter, involving significant human suffering, is being discussed is rather sickening sadism justified with some sort of bullshit implied philosophical detachment.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You might be right. But it's just one interpretation of how Rhett presents his case. If all his topics and posts involved graphic depiction of human suffering, it might indicate something that should not be given a platform. To imply that the graphic examples demonstrate a violent hatred towards women is simply a stretch of your imagination. It might be true even but you have to take responsibility for your own deduction and not impose it.

[Dan Rowden]

I am taking responsibility for my deduction by imposing it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

All I see so far is a possible lack of knowledge on what's happening in the world and some confusion based on that. Rhett's basic points are reflecting real life discussions in many developed countries. If for example 70% of the trained, educated and employed medical doctors in Italy refuse abortion based on reasoning around fetal awareness and person-hood, as a mixture of religious belief and scientific interpretations, then it's clearly not as simple. Assigning malign motives, sadism or hatred to people is not something I'd do so quickly.

Rhett's arguments appear to be only relevant to those believing there's some awareness or persoonhood assigned to the fetus at any stage before e.g. 20 or 24 weeks. Because only then, the crude removal processes could be seen as something a woman should be considering in a moral framework.

[Rhett]

It sounds like it might be an idea to add abortion education into sex education classes in schools, particularly to reduce any incidence of out-of-sight-out-of-mind irresponsibility amongst women.

I think women also need to accept that being pro choice should extend to pro choice for doctors, institutions, voters, politicians, etc. Men created medical abortion, its only available to women because of men. If some men dont want to offer that service to some women under some circumstances, the pro choice of those men should be respected. Having medical abortion offered to women is a privilege, not a right, and it should be fully paid for by the woman and father.

Hi Rhett, do you have any indication that abortion methods are not being taught at school right now? Or not graphic enough?

In any case, your worry on "pro choice" is a bit overblown considering abortion is in many countries usually done at abortion clinics and a doctor first has to apply for a job there, I suppose? But you are raising an potential problem for hospitals especially those with a Christian signature. There are still actual, big discussions about the right to refuse, also in my country. It might differ per country but I know in Italy 70% of the practicing doctors still refuse to perform it and the number is growing. On the island of Sicily it's even 80%, it's the Catholic view and the Pope at play.

The point of making it a "right" would be that otherwise it would be near impossible for especially poor people, who might be statistically more in need of one, because they would be forced to travel and, like you suggest, pay large costs. Now we could say that this would put the fear of debts in them and prevent pregnancies but this is not how it works. It's very hard to know why or how someone got pregnant. And perhaps this should also not be the government's business. But unwanted pregnancies are a real social problem. Providing abortions as basic right elevates the problem but does not pretend to solve all the underlying problems leading up to unintended pregnancies. Perhaps just look at it from a more practical perspective?

I am totally or almost totally in agreeance with your perspective. I havent intended to specifically disagree with any of your points. It seems like general discussions in Europe around this topic are far more advanced than they are in other places.

As i have stated, i havent intended to provide a full and balanced treatise on this topic. I have aimed to counter specific aspects of ignorance i have come across. The nature and extent of Dan's bizarre reaction shows that i have hit the mark. On top of Dan's unreliable and worthless contributions to this thread, he wants to shut down freedom of speech, on the basis of his emotional turmoil from having his prejudices smashed.

I have provided a wonderful example of how irrational, immoral, dangerous and despotic the left is in this present age.

[jupiviv]

My impression is that a significant proportion of women are pro choice regarding abortion. But, they arent saying they want to kill their baby, they are saying, they want someone else to kill their baby. If those same women were given the ability to safely kill their own baby, would they do it? Even if it was almost nine months old? Why do they think it is okay to kill an 8.5 month old baby in the womb but not if it is born premature?

That's not what "choice" means. Other than that the only thing I'm getting from this is that you have a problem with abortion. I suggest henceforth limiting your "arguments" to single sentences. That way there's a slim chance you'll actually understand what your "argument" is, even when you haven't stared at it for more than five minutes.

We have vegetarian and vegan mothers that dont want to even touch a piece of meat never mind be responsible for killing or eating it, yet they will happily have other people slaughter their child.

My personal stance has always been pro abortion, but i tended to figure it would be done within the first three months.

This is the same fake-objective shit as before - (failing at) justifying your actual reactionary opinions then adding a bunch of random qualifiers that are supposed to prove you don't hold those opinions. There is no way someone who supports abortion would equate it with slaughtering babies. One doesn't approve of something because one interprets it in exactly the same way that its opponents do, dumbass.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

My impression is that a significant proportion of women are pro choice regarding abortion. But, they arent saying they want to kill their baby, they are saying, they want someone else to kill their baby. If those same women were given the ability to safely kill their own baby, would they do it? Even if it was almost nine months old? Why do they think it is okay to kill an 8.5 month old baby in the womb but not if it is born premature?

That's not what "choice" means. Other than that the only thing I'm getting from this is that you have a problem with abortion. I suggest henceforth limiting your "arguments" to single sentences. That way there's a slim chance you'll actually understand what your "argument" is, even when you haven't stared at it for more than five minutes.

You're missing the larger point. Your can critique the usage of the term "baby" or state that 34 weeks abortions are very illegal and undesired. But probably not many could easily destroy their own baby shaped tissue in cold blood after projecting the idea of being or becoming on it, no matter what the scientific view on this would be. And as such they choose to end the pregnancy but what if they had to do some action directly towards it?

There is no way someone who supports abortion would equate it with slaughtering babies.

And yet in the real world this sometimes happens: some women who supported it and had one, feeling before, during or afterwards like killing their own. Plus supporting abortion for 12 weeks, 16 or 20 week terms are different possible perspectives.

[Dan Rowden]

As i have stated, i havent intended to provide a full and balanced treatise on this topic.

Treatise? You haven't yet provided a remotely sane and informed opinion on the subject you self-aggrandising moron. All you've done is expose your own whiny MRA moralising sook-face bullshit.

I have aimed to counter specific aspects of ignorance i have come across.

How? What ignorance? What facts have you provided? Your ignorance on this subject is as breathtaking as your staggering belief that your ignorance on the subject is less than breathtaking.

The nature and extent of Dan's bizarre reaction shows that i have hit the mark.

Yes, you've hit the mark, the mark of a standard this place has long abandoned in place of some ridiculous application of the Charity Principle.

On top of Dan's unreliable

What do you even mean by this? WTF does 'unreliable' mean? You can totally rely on me to call you out on your patent fatuity. How is that unreliable?

and worthless contributions to this thread, he wants to shut down freedom of speech, on the basis of his emotional turmoil from having his prejudices smashed.

If it weren't for Diebert's ineffably frustrating habit of trying to play the Devil's Advocate and apply the Charity Principle all the time I'd just call this for the demented rubbish that it is. I'm seriously thinking of using the word filter to change 'freedom of speech' to 'I'm a dumb cunt'. It's so tedious.

You are in someone else's home on this board, Rhett. The owners set a standard. Accept that standard or get the hell out. This place may be as loose as a '20s jazz bar after midnight, but don't push your fucking luck.

[jupiviv]

Your can critique the usage of the term "baby" or state that 34 weeks abortions are very illegal and undesired. But probably not many could easily destroy their own baby shaped tissue in cold blood after projecting the idea of being or becoming on it, no matter what the scientific view on this would be. And as such they choose to end the pregnancy but what if they had to do some action directly towards it?

That's not what "choice" means.

There is no way someone who supports abortion would equate it with slaughtering babies.

And yet in the real world this sometimes happens: some women who supported it and had one, feeling before, during or afterwards like killing their own.

No women who genuinely thought that about abortions in *general* would endorse it outside of whatever specific, personal circumstances may convince them to have one. Besides, even if they did it wouldn't be a fair representation of pro-choice.

Plus supporting abortion for 12 weeks, 16 or 20 week terms are different possible perspectives.

Sure, but they're all wrong. The logic of abortion necessitates extending reproductive rights *unconditionally* to the point of delivery. The only moral alternative is every piece of human genetic material being sacrosanct.

[jupiviv]

If it weren't for Diebert's ineffably frustrating habit of trying to play the Devil's Advocate and apply the Charity Principle all the time

Diebert is a ruthless hypocrite who has banned me 1000s of times just for asking permission to post pictures. Also he suspends me once per fiscal quarter for having a profile pic. I hereby demand he be V& 4 Lyf.

[Dan Rowden]

Personally I'm glad Diebert continues to impose the picture ban. For me it remains sensible for the reasons originally given, though I suppose the bandwidth thing is less relevant now that the place is so quiet.

And to be clear about something, I'm riding Rhett for a reason (and I fully admit to riding him quite harshly). I'm hoping to reveal what I believe is an underlying motive and psychological drive behind this topic and the manner in which he's approached it. The entirely extraneous references to how little men are shown appreciation for their apparent greatness by women is, for me, somewhat revelatory.

Advances in medical science generally, but specifically in obstetrics and safe-abortion practice are obviously laudable, but it's also true that when it comes to abortion and things like midwifery, it's been the wimmins at the forefront and largely still is. I also find it interesting but troubling that someone like Rhett can find all the compassion in the world for, and empathy with, a certain group of people (those that he judges to be victims of oppression in relation to certain freedoms like the right to express one's 'truths' - a right that I entirely support) but can simultaneously speak of something like abortion as though the difficulties and trauma thereof were matters to be the subject of jibes and samurai-sword jokes. It's kind of weird. It suggests an underlying but unspoken moral position that somehow involves women not appreciating the gifts of men. Presumably, though it's not been stated, that includes the fetuses they carry.

And as something of an aside, but still kind of relevant to the point about whether women would want an abortion if they had to carry out the abortion themselves, that same question might be asked of parents who have the misfortune of Fetal Anomalies Incompatible with Life. For that percentage of babies who are actually born alive why don't we expect the parents, including the fathers, to euthanise them? Why do we expect medical practitioners to do it?

Chile bans abortion even in cases of congenital malformation. Seems grotesquely cruel to me to force a women to give birth to an already dead or about to be dead child if there is no compelling medical reason for it. I mention this only for the provision of an example of where an extreme anti-abortion agenda takes us.

On the other side of that coin we have Norway, who has now developed a method of detecting trisomy 21 in the earlier stages of pregnancy making the choice to abort legally viable. It seems that choice is being made. Over time the Down Syndrome population of Norway will fall to zero. But there remain questions regarding the efficacy of the testing. It seems there is a meaningful number of false positives happening. Should we care about that? Is Eugenics via abortion a thing to be concerned about? In this instance probably not, but more broadly?

And when Rhett poses the question: 'when and under what circumstances abortion is reasonable and when it isnt' he's asking something that is reasonable enough considering the above examples. Forced abortion under a policy like 'One Child Only' is also a serious topic to consider in this context.

As far as I'm concerned in a country like Australia we've got the matter pretty much spot-on and we're lucky to not have the religious freak-show that besets the US. But I'm enormously hesitant to approach an issue like abortion with a background attitude of 'if a woman does not show sufficient gratitude to her male obstetrician he should punch her in the belly a few times and teach her some goddamn respect'. For me this thread is quite malodorous in that sense.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If it weren't for Diebert's ineffably frustrating habit of trying to play the Devil's Advocate and apply the Charity Principle all the time

Diebert is a ruthless hypocrite who has banned me 1000s of times just for asking permission to post pictures. Also he suspends me once per fiscal quarter for having a profile pic. I hereby demand he be V& 4 Lyf.

LOL! Now you mention it, your profile pics are becoming increasingly worse taste wise. Put back the birthday boy! Or else! And be careful with the fake news jokes as it's not your job to test people's mind to see if they can distinguish between a tongue and a cheek.

[jupiviv]

And as something of an aside, but still kind of relevant to the point about whether women would want an abortion if they had to carry out the abortion themselves, that same question might be asked of parents who have the misfortune of Fetal Anomalies Incompatible with Life. For that percentage of babies who are actually born alive why don't we expect the parents, including the fathers, to euthanise them? Why do we expect medical practitioners to do it?

It's an obviously fallacious argument that can only appear valid within the context of pro-life rhetoric. No consciously preferred/chosen outcome can be isolated from things and people other than the subject.

And when Rhett poses the question: 'when and under what circumstances abortion is reasonable and when it isnt' he's asking something that is reasonable enough considering the above examples. Forced abortion under a policy like 'One Child Only' is also a serious topic to consider in this context.

That question is moot if "reason" means "I am correct", which it does in Rhett's case. I wasn't joking earlier. Either women exercise full control over their bodies during pregnancy or they don't. Any talk of limiting such control on "ethical" grounds is either misguided or malicious.

A more interesting discussion would be men being allowed to preemptively disown children born of pregnancies carried to term without their consent. I certainly think so, as do many feminists especially from my generation and later.

As far as I'm concerned in a country like Australia we've got the matter pretty much spot-on and we're lucky to not have the religious freak-show that besets the US.

Australia is the settler-colonial Nineveh to Amerikkka's Babylon, hence freer and suppler in the motions of Romantic adjudication athwart the fantasy-bubble of prosperity loaned from Mammy ~100 yrs ago. The flip-side of course being a much deeper aversion to class-consciousness than Amerikans, ultimately (=right now) evolving into variants of heroic solipsism. Men have to support their biological children, shared parenting unheard of, aggrieved white settler reaction (incl trad-fem) applying Deleuzian inversion to the very forces pandering to it at rest of world's expense.

[Rhett]

In case there are any sensible readers of this thread that didnt understand the questions and comments i made about the method of death, the point was to challenge any notion held that a surgical death in extreme abortion circumstances is necessarily ethical and acceptable, and in particular, due to it being an out-of-sight-out-of-mind surgical death. The ethics of the method of death revolve around the presence and duration of any suffering, the reliability, the presence and magnitude of any side effects, etc. The ethics of abortion itself, are a different matter.

It may be that there are some people that think its perfectly fine to conduct abortions at any time during a pregnancy and for any reason, and yet, think its not fine to talk about it.

Kevin has quite a quandary on his hands. This forum has serious problems.

[Rhett]

And when Rhett poses the question: 'when and under what circumstances abortion is reasonable and when it isnt' he's asking something that is reasonable enough considering the above examples. Forced abortion under a policy like 'One Child Only' is also a serious topic to consider in this context.

That question is moot if "reason" means "I am correct", which it does in Rhett's case. I wasn't joking earlier. Either women exercise full control over their bodies during pregnancy or they don't. Any talk of limiting such control on "ethical" grounds is either misguided or malicious.

If i raise a topic point about what is and isnt reasonable, i am raising a topic point about what is and isnt reasonable.

It seems that discussions can rarely if ever get off the ground in this forum at present.

[Pam Seeback]

In case there are any sensible readers of this thread that didnt understand the questions and comments i made about the method of death, the point was to challenge any notion held that a surgical death in extreme abortion circumstances is necessarily ethical and acceptable, and in particular, due to it being an out-of-sight-out-of-mind surgical death. The ethics of the method of death revolve around the presence and duration of any suffering, the reliability, the presence and magnitude of any side effects, etc. The ethics of abortion itself, are a different matter.

It may be that there are some people that think its perfectly fine to conduct abortions at any time during a pregnancy and for any reason, and yet, think its not fine to talk about it.

Kevin has quite a quandary on his hands. This forum has serious problems.

As I understand the role of the Worldly Matters forum, it exists to promote rationality for the sake of wisdom's development. If I am correct regarding its purpose, it would seem as if the productive question that needs asking and answering by the founders is - is it achieving this goal? In relation to this specific topic, this question would be 'does the idea of abortion encourage rational thought?'

[Rhett]

In case there are any sensible readers of this thread that didnt understand the questions and comments i made about the method of death, the point was to challenge any notion held that a surgical death in extreme abortion circumstances is necessarily ethical and acceptable, and in particular, due to it being an out-of-sight-out-of-mind surgical death. The ethics of the method of death revolve around the presence and duration of any suffering, the reliability, the presence and magnitude of any side effects, etc. The ethics of abortion itself, are a different matter.

It may be that there are some people that think its perfectly fine to conduct abortions at any time during a pregnancy and for any reason, and yet, think its not fine to talk about it.

Kevin has quite a quandary on his hands. This forum has serious problems.

As I understand the role of the Worldly Matters forum, it exists to promote rationality for the sake of wisdom's development. If I am correct regarding its purpose, it would seem as if the productive question that needs asking and answering by the founders is - is it achieving this goal? In relation to this specific topic, this question would be 'does the idea of abortion encourage rational thought?'

I see the whole forum as having serious problems. When i rocked up quite a few moons ago it had three rational people creating a great space for the right kind of people. Nowadays, would it hook the right kind of people? What if they see great writings then meet the guy and see a big disjunction? What if they get driven away by the distaste and tedium of nasty politics?

There are some topics in the main forum that shouldnt be there, maybe that is a bigger issue than whether "worldly matters" is being productive. I dont know.

Becoming enlightened is primarily about shedding delusion, and worldly delusion can be shed in "worldly matters". Illogic can also be pointed out, which might create motivation towards higher attainment.

I dont know if you can say that any empirical topic is better or more relevant than any other empirical topic. I guess if people started talking about bubble gum flavours it wouldnt be very appropriate. However, it seems to me that some people are absorbing leftist rhetoric to such an extent that it is polluting their intellect and preventing more enlightened thought. Therefore, unravelling leftist rhetoric can be a positive step towards more rationality and enlightenment.

For a period of time postmodernism was one of the prominent blockages towards wisdom, nowadays that seems to have been replaced with leftism.

[Dan Rowden]

In case there are any sensible readers of this thread that didnt understand the questions and comments i made about the method of death, the point was to challenge any notion held that a surgical death in extreme abortion circumstances is necessarily ethical and acceptable, and in particular, due to it being an out-of-sight-out-of-mind surgical death. The ethics of the method of death revolve around the presence and duration of any suffering, the reliability, the presence and magnitude of any side effects, etc. The ethics of abortion itself, are a different matter.

It may be that there are some people that think its perfectly fine to conduct abortions at any time during a pregnancy and for any reason, and yet, think its not fine to talk about it.

Kevin has quite a quandary on his hands. This forum has serious problems.

How about you Google 'abortion methods' and gain insight form proper medial resources into how the procedure occurs across the spectrum of what is a relatively complex issue. Once you have a remedial understanding, which you currently, glaringly, don't possess, we'll talk about the supposed ethical issues you perceive.

[Pam Seeback]

Rhett: There are some topics in the main forum that shouldnt be there, maybe that is a bigger issue than whether "worldly matters" is being productive. I dont know.

Rhett: Becoming enlightened is primarily about shedding delusion, and worldly delusion can be shed in "worldly matters". Illogic can also be pointed out, which might create motivation towards higher attainment.

But if the nature of higher attainment is not included or at least implied in a forum primarily devoted to reasoning the good and evil (lower things) of world events, how will the the lower be lifted into the higher? For this reason, it seems more logical to have one forum that includes the totality of the human experience with the thrust being one of 'being lifted up'. It seems to me that dividing the forum aspect of the absolute.net site into 'Genius' and 'Worldly' is akin to an existential disconnect.

I dont know if you can say that any empirical topic is better or more relevant than any other empirical topic. I guess if people started talking about bubble gum flavours it wouldnt be very appropriate. However, it seems to me that some people are absorbing leftist rhetoric to such an extent that it is polluting their intellect and preventing more enlightened thought. Therefore, unravelling leftist rhetoric can be a positive step towards more rationality and enlightenment.

Are you denying rightest rhetoric?

For a period of time postmodernism was one of the prominent blockages towards wisdom, nowadays that seems to have been replaced with leftism.

I state the obvious by pointing out that leftism cannot exist without rightism.

Can you experience an ism?

[Rhett]

Rhett: There are some topics in the main forum that shouldnt be there, maybe that is a bigger issue than whether "worldly matters" is being productive. I dont know.

Rhett: Becoming enlightened is primarily about shedding delusion, and worldly delusion can be shed in "worldly matters". Illogic can also be pointed out, which might create motivation towards higher attainment.

Pam: But if the nature of higher attainment is not included or at least implied in a forum primarily devoted to reasoning the good and evil (lower things) of world events, how will the the lower be lifted into the higher? For this reason, it seems more logical to have one forum that includes the totality of the human experience with the thrust being one of 'being lifted up'. It seems to me that dividing the forum aspect of the absolute.net site into 'Genius' and 'Worldly' is akin to an existential disconnect.

Rhett: I dont know if you can say that any empirical topic is better or more relevant than any other empirical topic. I guess if people started talking about bubble gum flavours it wouldnt be very appropriate. However, it seems to me that some people are absorbing leftist rhetoric to such an extent that it is polluting their intellect and preventing more enlightened thought. Therefore, unravelling leftist rhetoric can be a positive step towards more rationality and enlightenment.

Pam: Are you denying rightest rhetoric?

For a period of time postmodernism was one of the prominent blockages towards wisdom, nowadays that seems to have been replaced with leftism.

Pam: I state the obvious by pointing out that leftism cannot exist without rightism.

Can you experience an ism?

If you look again at my posts in Worldly Wisdom you will often see references to matters relating to higher wisdom.

Becoming enlightened isnt specifically about good and evil.

I think its desirable to have the two forum categories, one whose topics are more focused on enlightenment than the other. One more focused on the logical, the other more focused on the empirical.

I have already acknowledged and been fighting against errors made by the right. The right is mistaken about gun control, the environment, etc, etc, but i generally find them to be less flawed than the left right now. Thats coming from someone that was more left than right in the past, until the left shifted a long way, and hasnt kept itself open to changes in the world and globalisation.

Leftism can definitely exist without rightism. Leftism is the irrational, unbalanced, unresearched pursuit of flawed ideologies.
Ideologies that are either fundamentally flawed, or flawed in the current context. Similarly, people can believe the world is flat, regardless of any other views.

[David Quinn]

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I, for one, am glad that Little Kooky Rhett has spoken up for our values:

“Vee shall not have any polluting of ze mind! Anyone to the left of ze great Ginger Hanson and ze even greater Gropenfuhrer should henceforth leave and not continue to sully ze great space vee have made for all right thinking blonde beta-men! All heil purity and free speech!"

We can all sleep more soundly in our beds.

[David Quinn]

As I understand the role of the Worldly Matters forum, it exists to promote rationality for the sake of wisdom's development. If I am correct regarding its purpose, it would seem as if the productive question that needs asking and answering by the founders is - is it achieving this goal? In relation to this specific topic, this question would be 'does the idea of abortion encourage rational thought?'

Before your time here, the forum known as "Worldly Matters" was called the "The Brothel". Originally, there was only the one forum here - namely, Genius Forum - but after a while "The Brothel" was created for the purpose of siphoning away all the threads that did not deal directly with philosophy and spirituality. It was our way to keep the main forum focused on what was truly important.

If I recall correctly, we ended up changing the name to "Worldly Matters" because a certain diabolical woman (and I say this affectionately) called Marsha Faizi considered being a member of "The Brothel" a badge of honour and liked to hound us about how proud she was to be its leading contributor.

[Dan Rowden]

Leftism is the irrational, unbalanced, unresearched pursuit of flawed ideologies.

'Leftism' is to politics what 'curry' is to cuisine. i.e. a largely meaningless term.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Before your time here, the forum known as "Worldly Matters" was called the "The Brothel". Originally, there was only the one forum here - namely, Genius Forum - but after a while "The Brothel" was created for the purpose of siphoning away all the threads that did not deal directly with philosophy and spirituality. It was our way to keep the main forum focused on what was truly important.

For completeness sake, the Worldly Matters was closed by some admin around 2013 or 2014 since it, I guess, attracted too much diversions and maintenance? Around 2016 Russell and myself worked towards recreating it and even some older topics were moved back from the archive. By then it was also a different, quieter forum and the new moderation queue helped also to keep certain over-productive sign-ups away from the hotter topics.