Abortion

First let’s get one thing on record: when an abortion is performed, knives and chemicals are inserted into a woman’s body to kill the most precious thing there exists.

I am going to straightforwardly block everybody who doesn’t agree on that very basic fact. They are either cowards, morons, or psychopaths. There are no psychopaths on this website, so the previous two will apply.

Let us restate for the record: when an abortion is performed, knives and chemicals are inserted into a woman’s body to kill the most precious thing there exists.

The argument, between civilized peoples, will not be about this fact which obviousness makes a mockery of redundance. It will be about the following:

1. Does anybody have a right to take not only a life, but the single most precious form of life known to man?

2. If someone does, is it only the mother, or is this a modernist conception that holds that a father is only a sack of semen incorrect, and the father have some rights? Even equal rights? Does the suffering a woman endures during a preagnancy, plus the financial, emotional and social burden this tiny life will pose her give her special rights over this the most precious form of life?

3. Is there a gradient, a form of legality for this snuffing that does not fall on simple unhindered right?

4. Does the right apply for the woman carrying the child, or the person effectuating the killing? That is, in the case of illegality, is the burden of punishment or restraint on the woman or on the murderer?

5. If these rights do not in fact exist, or exist only in gradients, does the state have any rights to impose restriction or punishment?

Being this not only a fairly complicated, but also significantly painful subject to explore, I will start off with some rough ideas.

In Rome, fathers had the legal prerrogative to murder their son at any point of their lives. In Sparta, the state itself imposed the killing of any newborns that presented significant disabilities. I will withdraw these from consideration, as they pertain to forms and ideas of honor that, though real, exist outside of the scope of the experience of any of us.

Whatever the case, in the case of an absentee father, having been already made aware of the existence of the child, he loses any rights. But if a man, made aware of the existence of a child, assumes fatherhood, it must not under any conception be deprived of him the right to prevent the child’s killing. Even taking into consideration the hardships of the mother, her biological role in maintaining that life for 9 months and, realistically, the creature’s entire childhood, it must be seen criminal, and definitely dishonorable and despicable, even giving the man the right of retributive murder and long mourning, to violate his wishes for the life of the child. I cannot be convinced otherwise. A man is not a sack of semen, any more than a woman is a sack of ovaries. Fathers have rights, families exist, however much modernists consider families to be stupid. It is beyond obvious that it is they who are stupid. There exist circumstances where a family cannot remain together, but this is a thing that went wrong, not a given or starting set of circumstances. To say a father is a sack of semen, with no rights, is to say that families should not and in real terms do not exist.

The only question here is if the state has any place enforcing anything in regards to this. The short answer is no, according to me. The long answer is that the state also is what gets in the way of the paternal family taking serious reprisals against the maternal family in the case of an abortion. As well as even more serious reprisals against the actual person committing the, I apologize ladies, but unthinkable murder.

The state is involved. And in fact, this is the Republican conception of a state. Not an ideal thing that should exist and should exist in a certain way, but something that does exist, and which existence must be dealt with with a prejudice to its diminishment. Obviously no free man can seriously desire a group of men outside their families having any bearing on any aspect of their existence. Given the historical contingency of states, a Republican state must be employed. Among other things, to strike fear in the heart of expansionist totalitarians. Possibly that is an aspect of what Rome was and is, of what Cesar’s great expansion meant, but that is outside of our scope. We are dealing with the most precious thing that exists here.

One example is the financial markets. Externally, of course, an interventionist foreign policy is needed due to the interventionist attitude, unavoidable, of less freedom-minded states. But even internally: a Republican’s idea is that there should be absolute 0 intervention. Given the actual state of things, Republicans must devise opinions regarding the forms of intervention, seeking always to enforce sanity and a prejudice against state presence.

In this case, considering the state is involved in family affairs, and that for example medicinie is a highly regulated practice, it is my opinion that abortion should not be legal. If it is unavoidable that it be made legal, it is my opinion that fathers must absolutely have equal rights with the mother. If a father, duly informed, is absentee, then he cannot have any rights, and the mother must be left to the nefarious business of snuffing out the single most precious thing in existence. It must be highly regulated, doctors must have to meet rigorous conditions, and the state absolutely cannot be allowed to fund any initiatives actively encouraging abortion. As well, any rights that pro-abortion initiatives enjoy, anti-abortion initiatives must also enjoy. It cannot, whatever the end state of affairs be, be treated as a light matter. Simply to buy a fiearm, citizens are forced to wait a number of days. A girl, usually very young, very confused, and very scared, cannot be offered a simple way to commit an act that will mark her for ever, and that will snuff out such a very precious thing. It strikes me as deeply racist, or honestly classist is the word, to suggest that poor people’s lives are worth less, that it is better they be aborted. Fuck you Harvard motherles cunts, it is you that should never have existed, and somebody should do you that favour right now. I would feel much better. But a single ghetto or country soul being lost, actually does hurt me. Call me crazy.

Life is beautiful. Even for the most penurious human lives. To steal that away, must be the greatest crime. Must be. Better to take a gulp of air than none. No matter what.

Having said all this, if it is determined that it is dishonorable and further illegal, because the penury a mother endures simply with a preagnancy, let alone the hormonal and post preagnancy implications of caring for a child, is very real, whatever restriction or punishment that exists cannot be punitive for the mother. Cannot. It is one of those things, where even though it is a crime, its commition cannot sanely be punished. It simply cannot. Unless, i do believe, the paternal family sues. In that case, some form of reprisal must be allowed. Must be. A person, by condition of being a man, cannot be asked to take the murder of their child and be quiet. This must be obvious.

In the real world, where political decisions are made not by individuals but by groups, I will support the group that is against abortion. And the above are my reasons. Let’s have your answer.

K: wow… what a confused and mixed message you just sent… to be honest, I can’t
really even answer you because you were so “all over the map”, as it were…

I will send you my answer later… within a couple of days as I am working some serious
hours due to the super bowl…

Kropotkin

I have no time for propagandists. Blocked.

Or, from the other end of the political spectrum, the equally authoritarian assumption that when a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy – due to rape or incest or a faulty contraceptive or changes in her circumstance – to force her to give birth is to rob her of her own precious right to control her body.

Then they are “going to straightforwardly block everybody who doesn’t agree on that very basic fact. They are either cowards, morons, or psychopaths.”

Period. End of story. The objective truth. Both of them.

Of course many on either end of the objectivist, ideological political spectrum will insist their own frame of mind has nothing whatever to do with the manner in which I came to embody my views on abortion here…

On the contrary, they are entirely in sync with the only possible ego here attached to the only possible superego they could embody. Their very soul may be on the line here.

And then this thing:

Sure, I may be misunderstanding his point here, but he seems to be arguing that after “knives and chemicals are inserted into a woman’s body to kill the most precious thing there exists” she should not be punished?

Unless the paternal family sues?

EDIT:

Really, think through the consequences of what some are aruing here when they insist that abortion is murder.

If it’s murder, then should not women who choose to have them [and doctors who choose to perform them] be charged with premeditated first degree murder?

And since all unborn babies are themselves inherently innocent then that would include those women who were raped, or raped by their male relatives, or were victims of a defective contraceptive, or find themselves in new circumstances where motherhood would become an agonizing experience.

Charge them with murder, try them and, if convicted, sentence them to death row in, say, Texas.

Your wife, your mother, your sister, your daughter, your lover, your friend. Kill a baby and pay the price for it.

almost every abortion occurs
when either the man is pressuring the woman to abort
or when the men simply fucked off
and the woman is alone with the burden
even though the man was there to make the baby
and there isn’t anybody talking why didn’t he just
not spunk into the goddamn vagina
and then fuck off
like a fucking drone that he is
just about how the girl should have been more responsible
so since there doesn’t seem to be much accountability on the side of men
just a constant nagging to tell women what to do
so lets do this instead
pass a law mandating that all men get a vasectomy
it’s cheaper than women sterilization
less invasive
and men apparently have no issue with a government
making a decision on one’s body
so that should pass without any resistance, right?
right, guys??
besides it’s reversible
for when the man put his fucking shit together
and then he can fucking beg a woman to have his baby
and he better fucking be nice to her
because it is OUR gift to give
and it is OUR gift to take
you cross the mother of your children
then you don’t have any fucking children
that’s that
the feminine is a loving and nurturing force
but it is also terrible and devouring
the same nature that brings life to all things
is the nature that swallows them when they’re dead
you want to talk about reproductive rights
stop fucking jizzing everywhere
like it’s a trivial thing
because it fucking isn’t
you don’t want to be treated like a sperm sack
stop acting like one
and when it comes to the body of a woman
you don’t make that call

(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

It bothers me that you ignored every point I made.

If you are arguing for a woman’s right to devour life… Let me just ask you this:

Do you believe, in your heart, that having a clear mind, any woman in any situation would make that decision?

To make Pezer not happen?

Because the feeling I get, from what you wrote and from every pro-snuffing of life argument I have heard from a woman, is that you are offended by many things, to a degree that you forget what you are actually talking about.

Or at least I hope you do.

I’m gonna shut up for a second.

That’s the problem with this debate. What can arouse stronger emotions than snuffing out a life, before it even begins?

I’m gonna leave this thread, and chill out.

what the fuck kind of question is that
any woman in any situation
won’t always act the same way
because we’re human beings

On the contrary, many different people have many different reactions to the act of having or performing an abortion and expressing opinions about the morality of it. Yours may be similar to hers…or very much at odds.

The main difference being that in either having or performing an abortion, there are facts that either can or cannot be established. Whereas in regard to the ethics of abortion, my contention is that this is embedded more in the subjective and subjunctive parameters of the life any particular individual actually lives.

The embodiment of dasein as I call it.

And that when philosophers, ethicists and political scientists come together and acknowledge this [in order to prescribe and proscribe enforced laws], they do not seem able to take that into account in order to establish a demonstrable argument regarding how all rational and virtuous men and women ought to react to abortion in terms of conflicting goods.

The part that she and Pedro basically ignore. Being [in my view] more or less objectivists in their thinking here.

Indeed, what she provides us is basically just an emotional “outburst” of seething indignation about men this and men that.

If this is addressed to me, let’s just say that given my past experiences with you here, what seems to bother you is not others ignoring the points you make but others not agreeing with them.

After all, you basically present your argument above by first noting this:

Again, there are any number of basic facts that can be established in regard to the biological parameters of human sexuality, pregnancy and abortion. And in regard to the circumstantial parameters of the unwanted pregnancy itself. Individuals are not just entitled to their own personal opinions here…unless of course they have the power to force others to accept them. Or else.

Besides, I am not arguing against the points you make. Many of them seem quite reasonable to me. But: only given a set of assumptions that revolves around the “natural” right of the unborn to live rather than the “political” right of women to control their own bodies.

You know, in a world where women and only women get pregnant, want or don’t want to be and have or do not have the option to terminate it.

Instead, my point is to focus more on the existential parameters of individual value judgments given the fact that reasonable arguments can be made from both sides. Given, in other words, William Barrett’s “rival goods”.

This is just general description intellectual gibberish to me.

Given the arguments I make on many, many posts from many, many threads regarding how I construe “hearts and minds” here at the existential juncture that is identity, value judgments and political economy, why on earth would you ask me that?!

Instead, that is the sort of question you reserve for the objectivists.

Ask yourself in other words.

Then bring your answer to the discussion that I wish to explore with you.

You didn’t address any of the points I made.

So, how can anti-abortion people think of you all as anything but fanatics?

The only argument you have made so far,

Is that men are scumbags.

So, like, kill their babies before they are being born.

That’ll, uh, show them.

I guess.

Like, seriously, you gave birth to life. You.

I can’t even bring myself to the second half of this argument.

This must be for you, phoneutria. He has nothing to say at all about the points I raise.

In fact, I have a word for that. It starts with a capital chickenshit.

Nobody’s listening to you, you fag.

We all have you on “block.”

Well, that explains exactly nothing then.

Of course the beauty of being “blocked” by the chickenshit objectivists here is that you get to hammer the arguments that they make carte blanche.

I can even note that phoneutria [Lyssa] and Pedro [Anfang] were sent here by Satyr to take the brunt of all the humiliation I used to dump on him. And neither one of them know that I’ve spilled the beans!!

Well, unless you tell them.

No, seriously.

you want to have a conversation with me
while calling me fanatical and emotionally driven
and saying that that’s taking me away from what I am actually discussing
but YOU are talking about abortion
i am not
i am talking about individual liberty
and you can be fucking sure that i am fanatical about it
and emotional

and this always comes down to the deaths of the innocent
but you hardly ever hear anything
about the nearly 2 million children that die every year
of diarrhea
of fucking diarrhea
those 2 million dead children would still be alive with a little saline!!!
and some fucking compassion
or the almost 300K women that die in childbirth
or the fact that one of the leading causes of child mortality
is miscarriage, neonatal, and congenital disorders
because a pregnancy is NO guarantee that you will have a child
it is a high fucking risk that a woman takes
every single time
for a chance, only in potential
to fulfill that role

so maybe that’s a good place to start
if you want to make an argument for the lives of the innocent
start by providing all women with proper prenatal care
and make sure that she and the baby are not malnourished
and deprived of the most essential access to health care
that the women aren’t left to their luck to deal with all of this
like they’re the only ones responsible for it
like the entire fucking civilization doesn’t benefit from it
like we wouldn’t die off if we all said no

once you get those numbers close to zero
then we can talk about abortion
but you’ll see how that’s never going to happen
because these are mostly low-income women
or brown women in some forgotten place of the world
and this really isn’t about protecting the innocent at all
this is about telling women what to do

The reproductive survival of this species is not worth your soul.

Sex sends you to hell.

Of course who am I ?

Just crazy Ecmandu.

If you treated fetuses as adults; you’d ask actual adults whether they’d endure 2 seconds worth of pain to respect their parents and the species wishes… most would say “yes”. The rest are psychopaths who want to be born no matter what.