A crash course in Feminism (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Psychosplodge]

any of these work better for ya?
[url]http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01490.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5563/2215.full[/url]
[url]http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/martini10/chapter28/custom3/deluxe-content.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm[/url]

Not quite sure what the point of the first one is,
The second and third seem quite detailed, particularly like how a lone rabbit is dead, and it does touch an important point that you've made me consider just how difficult it is to define "life"
T
he last one listing developmental stages makes me consider, IMO that the UK cut off at 24 weeks is the correct point at which to distinguish from something that you can terminate, and a viable life form. Other people may look at the list and judge differently, but if they'd like to demonstrate lving without working lungs...(for a person, obviously many things in nature don't have lungs....)

[DarkLink]

The problem with GG&S is that it seems to posit a purely mechanistic explanation of human history: [url]http://www.scifiwright.com/2007/10/germs-guns-and-steel-or-doctors-gunsmiths-and-steelworkers/[/url]

Well, aside from the poor articulation of that article (he used way too many words to say what he was trying to say), that's exactly what GG&S is supposed to be. Why did certain regions of the world advance so quickly? Because some of them had unique access to agriculture and beasts of burden, which freed up individuals to make technological advances as well as unwittingly providing relative immunity to a number of deadly diseases. When those advantages all found their way to the same place (Europe), the Europeans advanced quickly and when the spread to the rest of the world, superior technology and aforementioned diseases allowed them to conquer most of it with relative ease.

The human element is outside the scope of his argument, and he clearly states that. Any one of the places that had agriculture and beasts of burden could have advanced similarly, it was politics that determined that Europe was the one who gained the advantages. If any of the great ancient empires in Asia, Europe or the Middle East had stuck around, it could have been them with colonies everywhere. The point is, though, that they all came from an area with good agriculture and numerous large domesticated animals.

[Grenadier]

I don't believe I ever suggested nor intended to suggest you called for race based extermination. I merely believe that the cold view you have towards an unborn child, that is likening it to an unwanted parasite (in your words) hints at an attitude not unlike that of the PP founder and others. And having studied these issues extensively I've seen plenty of evidence that suggests most in the abortion industry share the same views of Sanger's. Albeit more refined since things have changed a lot since the 1920's.

As for England's right or left I really wouldn't know. I've not taken much time to study the ideology of England's political parties. But if there are representatives their similar to our extreme left you have my condolences.

I'm sorry but a thrown together page on an Ecollage website has little more credibility than a wikipedia page as a valid source...



You're right I made conclusions based on the available evidence where you'd spoken in support of religion, and public religious observance on the politics thread, I personally don't think it's a big stretch to then suppose that someone with such views would attend church.

If you show me where I called for selective breeding, and the extermination of a race of people....

Regardless of who set up one particular (I assume "planned parenthood is a brand) brand of clinics, It doesn't mean people who provide similar, or seek the services of such share their views!

TBH I get the impression that the average member of your left (not the fanatics) is more rightwing than our centre-right conservative party...

[Psychosplodge]

If it is unwanted, it is essentially little more than a parasite. Obviously if it's wanted it's the most wonderful thing in the world for those involved.
But not everyone who requires an abortion is irresponsible, but even with the best will in the world and multiple methods of contraceptive in use accidents happen. I just don't understand why it anybody's decision but the potential mothers?

[Grenadier]

Of course not all who'd partake of abortion are irresponsible. But there are those who are. And anyone who'd have an abortion simply because motherhood would be an inconvenient burden shouldn't ever have children in the first place.

So only the mother's decision matters to you? What about a father? One myth pushed by the abortionists is the notion that most men would abandon the child and mother. Just another effort to make abortion easier to swallow. And while it is true a great many do so there are those who wouldn't. So potential fathers have no rights at all regarding their unborn child?

If that is to be the case then I feel ALL women who'd consider abortion are morally obligated to have a little chat with any man they sleep with. And inform the man that they would consider abortion. No doubt a great many men, thinking with their lower head instead of their upper one, will still engage in sex with the woman. But decent men may think twice. And what if a man is with a woman who doesn't share this information with him? They have a relationship and then a pregnancy. And she goes off to have an abortion?

I was forced to end a rekindled relationship with a woman I loved for 15 years when she made it clear if she got pregnant she'd abort. If I got a woman pregnant I would want my child to come into the world. Even if the mother and I do not last. This girl could have had the theoretical child and given it to me to raise. Not willing to risk having my offspring murdered without any regard to my rights or the child's it was better to kick her to the curb.

In the more fascist feminist circles a man never will have any rights regarding the unborn child. If you can't understand why a father should have some decision I pity you.

If it is unwanted, it is essentially little more than a parasite. Obviously if it's wanted it's the most wonderful thing in the world for those involved.
But not everyone who requires an abortion is irresponsible, but even with the best will in the world and multiple methods of contraceptive in use accidents happen. I just don't understand why it anybody's decision but the potential mothers?

[DarkLink]

If it is unwanted, it is essentially little more than a parasite.

Oh, well I guess if a person is unwanted then murder is fine. That clears up a whole lot of things, now. Plus we'll save a whole lot of money by releasing all those people from prison that killed someone they didn't like. That'd sure make the world a better place. You could use all that money to feed starving orphans... Oh, wait, orphans aren't wanted so they're not really people I guess. Well, I'm sure you could find plenty of other good causes to spend that money on.

[Psychosplodge]

Really? you think that's an accurate comparison?

[eldargal]

Few if any murderers are parasitic lifeforms reliant on their host for survival.

Oh, well I guess if a person is unwanted then murder is fine. That clears up a whole lot of things, now. Plus we'll save a whole lot of money by releasing all those people from prison that killed someone they didn't like. That'd sure make the world a better place. You could use all that money to feed starving orphans... Oh, wait, orphans aren't wanted so they're not really people I guess. Well, I'm sure you could find plenty of other good causes to spend that money on.

[DarkLink]

Few if any murderers are parasitic lifeforms reliant on their host for survival.

I'm... not quite sure what that was meant to imply.

Really? you think that's an accurate comparison?

Never heard of reductio ad absurdum?

Regardless, my point is that I cannot see abortion as anything but murder. If you cannot dispute this, you will convince me of nothing.

Pro-life doesn't mean that we don't believe the the mother has a choice of some sort. All it means is that we believe that murder is unacceptable, and we find the argument that babies aren't alive yet to be bull****.




The crux of the argument has nothing to do with parasitism or whatever this has gotten sidetracked to. It is exclusively about when a fetus can be considered 'alive'. Medical complications of pregnancy are a separate argument as well. At some ill-defined point, that little tumor turns into a human being, after which killing it is murder.

[eldargal]

You likened an unwanted foetus to an unwanted person. An unwanted person is not a parasite wholly dependent on its host for survival like a foetus (to to 6 months or so anyway) is.

Oh, well I guess if a person is unwanted then murder is fine.

Life does begin at conception, but as that life cannot be sustained without a host until at least 6 months have passed until that time the future of that life should be wholly up to the host. I don't like abortion and I am certainly opposed to late term abortions (ie abortions after a point when the foetus has a chance of surviving outside the womb), but that doesn't change the fact what a woman must be able to have control over her own body.

Even if I were impregnated during a rape I personally wouldn't have an abortion, but if we say that abortion is murder then no woman would be able to. This amounts to punishing a woman for a crime committed against her. Even in the case of an unwanted pregnancy during consensual sex, the woman is still being punished for a mistake that isn't wholly hers, or in somecases isn't hers at all (breaking condom, faulty contraceptive pill, etc). This issue is too complicated for blanket statements like 'abortion is murder'.