Pro-life Teen Defiant After Alleged "Attack" by Feminist Professor
202 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44269963]Go look at pictures of aborted infants[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44269963]You can throw around all this scientific stuff about how it's not technically a person[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44269963]to me, it sure looks like a person.[/QUOTE]
apply the exact same arguments in the case of braindead people (who definitely do look like people and their bodies are definitely alive in a sense) and suddenly we have no organ donors
how is disregarding any sort of knowledge about foetal development and going solely on people's emotional response to the fact that foetuses look like people a good approach at all?
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;44270231]A parasite is external to the host....the foetus is not.[/QUOTE]
[quote=the definition for parasite]1. an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.[/quote]
also surely birth control fucking up is also out of someone's control? these things do happen, even if you use it correctly
[QUOTE=supersnail11;44270412]1. an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.[/QUOTE]
Oh, my bad. Then add the section to wikipedia.
The nervous system in a fetus isn't formed enough to control much of anything until about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development]25 or 26 weeks[/url]. Current research says that it can't feel pain until [url=http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429]at least the third trimester[/url].
However, [url=http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html]only about 1%[/url] of abortions take place after 20 weeks, even less after 24 weeks.
On the topic of rape: how exactly would you go about only allowing abortions for rape victims? [url=https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates]Less than half of rapes are reported, and few of those even lead to an arrest, let alone a conviction.[/url]
[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44269963]Umm... guys... there's a fine line between a woman doing what she wants with her body and essentially killing another human being. Yes, they are human beings. Go look at pictures of aborted infants and tell me it's humane to kill them. [B]You can throw around all this scientific stuff about how it's not technically a person yet, but [I]the [U]fact[/U] is it [U]will [/U]become[/I] a person[/B], and to me, it sure looks like a person.[/QUOTE]
We don't really have to go any farther than this.
The probability of a pregnancy going to full term without being spontaneously aborted by natural biological means turns out to be about a coin flip. The reported rate is something like 22% when you average out each age group and weigh them by frequency, but the actual rate is thought to be somewhere in the high 40s.
You're trying to equate the value and rights of a fully developed human being with a potential human being. It isn't as definite as you are trying to sell it, and even if it were your position is still shitty when you factor in cases where other primary forms of birth control fail. How does a couple have control over a faulty product or other unforeseen actions? With the state of sex ed in the US it's pretty hard to justify punishing people for such mistakes, especially if they've been deliberately misinformed in school or in crisis pregnancy centers. Why punish someone for being a statistical improbability? This isn't even getting into all of the scientific evidence we have on early development that you're just trying to hand waive away.
Plus, you aren't even taking into account the actual reasons people elect to get abortions. Just saying that 'women don't want the babies because they will be negatively affected by it' doesn't tell anyone anything about the situation at all.
Here's an actual study on the reasons women elect to get abortions from 2005:
[URL="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf"]http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf[/URL]
Page 113 details the responses to the survey. From table 2, 32% of the respondents cited concerns about their other children or dependents. 38% claim they already have as many children as they want. 38% cite interference with work or school, and 28% claim they don't even have enough money to afford meeting basic life essentials such as food, water, and shelter. A quarter of respondents cited health concerns for either the fetus or themselves.
When you factor in the reasons women choose to have abortions generally you'll find that most reasons are overall pretty responsible, and morally justifiable. Choosing not to have a kid that you can't afford and preventing them from growing up in poverty and potentially your other children as well is a good thing. Preventing the need for abortions in the first place is optimal, but having abortion as a fail-safe to prevent such undesirable situations is necessary, and access to abortion is strongly correlated with if not causally responsible for economic and human development. Being born and raised in poverty, having poor access to education or contraceptives, and being deliberately mislead constitute as things outside of the control of a potential mother as well, and these things generally contribute to the reasons women choose to have abortions in the first place.
I'm going to start rambling more if I keep at this, but your post doesn't make any sense. It isn't internally consistent, it isn't backed up by leading academics, and it heavily relies on some assumptions and gross oversimplifications that prevent it from being representative of reality.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;44270390]If you think they're people, and that killing them is the same as murder (as you allude to in your post by mentioning "legalizing murder"), why is it suddenly okay to abort just because you were raped?
This is a glaring inconsistency I see pop up all the time and one I've never gotten a straight answer for. A rape victim can't and shouldn't get away with murder. So if you think abortion is murder, why make the exception?[/QUOTE]
We allow the killing of other human beings in certain situations (death penalty, self-defense, etc.) If it's necessary and essentially not your fault, then I see no problem with it.
[editline]18th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=1legmidget;44270626]We don't really have to go any farther than this.
The probability of a pregnancy going to full term without being spontaneously aborted by natural biological means turns out to be about a coin flip. The reported rate is something like 22% when you average out each age group and weigh them by frequency, but the actual rate is thought to be somewhere in the high 40s.
You're trying to equate the value and rights of a fully developed human being with a potential human being. It isn't as definite as you are trying to sell it, and even if it were your position is still shitty when you factor in cases where other primary forms of birth control fail. How does a couple have control over a faulty product or other unforeseen actions? With the state of sex ed in the US it's pretty hard to justify punishing people for such mistakes, especially if they've been deliberately misinformed in school or in crisis pregnancy centers. Why punish someone for being a statistical improbability? This isn't even getting into all of the scientific evidence we have on early development that you're just trying to hand waive away.
Plus, you aren't even taking into account the actual reasons people elect to get abortions. Just saying that 'women don't want the babies because they will be negatively affected by it' doesn't tell anyone anything about the situation at all.
Here's an actual study on the reasons women elect to get abortions from 2005:
[URL="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf"]http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf[/URL]
Page 113 details the responses to the survey. From table 2, 32% of the respondents cited concerns about their other children or dependents. 38% claim they already have as many children as they want. 38% cite interference with work or school, and 28% claim they don't even have enough money to afford meeting basic life essentials such as food, water, and shelter. A quarter of respondents cited health concerns for either the fetus or themselves.
When you factor in the reasons women choose to have abortions generally you'll find that most reasons are overall pretty responsible, and morally justifiable. Choosing not to have a kid that you can't afford and preventing them from growing up in poverty and potentially your other children as well is a good thing. Preventing the need for abortions in the first place is optimal, but having abortion as a fail-safe to prevent such undesirable situations is necessary, and access to abortion is strongly correlated with if not causally responsible for economic and human development. Being born and raised in poverty, having poor access to education or contraceptives, and being deliberately mislead constitute as things outside of the control of a potential mother as well, and these things generally contribute to the reasons women choose to have abortions in the first place.
I'm going to start rambling more if I keep at this, but your post doesn't make any sense. It isn't internally consistent, it isn't backed up by leading academics, and it heavily relies on some assumptions and gross oversimplifications that prevent it from being representative of reality.[/QUOTE]
So what you're trying to tell me is when the actual abortion is being performed, the baby only has a 22% survival rate? That's the way I'm interpreting that. If so, could you provide a source for that?
[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44277410]We allow the killing of bother human beings in certain situations (death penalty, self-defense, etc.) If it's necessary and essentially not your fault, then I see no problem with it.
[editline]18th March 2014[/editline]
So what you're trying to tell me is when the actual abortion is being performed, the baby only has a 22% survival rate? That's the way I'm interpreting that. If so, could you provide a source for that?[/QUOTE]
But at that point it gets really subjective. If we make abortion ONLY allowed after rape that won't be good. There are hundreds of thousands of women with legitimate reasons for getting an abortion besides rape. What if their protection didn't work? What if they literally cannot support the baby financially? What if her doctor tells her that she might DIE if she has this baby? There are countless legitimate reasons for abortion, so it has to be completely allowed for everyone no questions asked.
And I really hate when people say "but what about the baby." Why do the rights of an unborn blob of flesh supercede those of the actual human being that's hosting it? If we're going to go down the psuedo morality route, we gotta consider the woman's rights too. Its fucking terrible that we have these bullshit regulations on women's bodies. Imagine if somebody proposed body restrictions on men, it would get fucking shot down immedietly. Hell, body restrictions on fucking dogs would probably get shot down just the same.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;44277516]But at that point it gets really subjective. If we make abortion ONLY allowed after rape that won't be good. There are hundreds of thousands of women with legitimate reasons for getting an abortion besides rape. What if their protection didn't work? What if they literally cannot support the baby financially? What if her doctor tells her that she might DIE if she has this baby? There are countless legitimate reasons for abortion, so it has to be completely allowed for everyone no questions asked.
And I really hate when people say "but what about the baby." Why do the rights of an unborn blob of flesh supercede those of the actual human being that's hosting it? If we're going to go down the psuedo morality route, we gotta consider the woman's rights too. Its fucking terrible that we have these bullshit regulations on women's bodies. Imagine if somebody proposed body restrictions on men, it would get fucking shot down immedietly. Hell, body restrictions on fucking dogs would probably get shot down just the same.[/QUOTE]
For one, protection works literally 99% of the time (or last time I checked it did). Secondly, while I sympathize for the baby for having to be raised in an environment that wasn't financially sound, I do not sympathize for the woman. It was her choice. She had control of the situation. She knew the risks. Furthermore, adoption is always an option in these kinds of situations. In the event that a woman might die, I could see abortion being an option if the risks are significant enough.
I believe that there are exceptions to every rule. Just because I do not support abortion in the typical "it's a woman's body so who the fuck cares" fashion, I do not fully disapprove of it.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44255979]Universities should be a place where all ideas and beliefs should be allowed to be expressed. Conservatives do have a point when they say that universities are generally hostile towards more right wing beliefs, especially when it comes to social issues.[/QUOTE]
maybe they just aren't expressed in universities because they don't last there
[QUOTE=juhana;44256561]Pro-abortionist viewpoint:
"BAH BAH BAH! I need my 100% consequence-free sex as promised by the 1960s counterculture!!! But wait, what's [I]THIS[/I]? An uwanted pregnancy? Sex isn't a 100% safe activity? Could it be that those people were wrong??? Nah, I'll just dehumanise the unborn child (and accept abortion) instead of re-examining my hedonist philosophy!!!"[/QUOTE]
OH I WAS RAPED AND NOW I'M PREGGERS
How can i look in the face of this bastard child, the son of a rape
Both ideologies are philosophically inconsistent
I'm against abortion but still, rapes and teen pregnancies ruin lives. I'd like it if nobody ever felt the need to get an abortion.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;44270626]The probability of a pregnancy going to full term without being spontaneously aborted by natural biological means turns out to be about a coin flip. The reported rate is something like 22% when you average out each age group and weigh them by frequency, but the actual rate is thought to be somewhere in the high 40s.[/QUOTE]
The innate ability to be a murderer without lifting a finger is the best superpower.
If you're smart and you have a lot of degrees, then you should realize how ignorant you are and that degrees mean nothing and do not equate to wisdom. The more you learn, the dumber you should feel because you keep realizing how much you don't actually know.
[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44277410]We allow the killing of other human beings in certain situations (death penalty, self-defense, etc.) If it's necessary and essentially not your fault, then I see no problem with it.
[/QUOTE]
We allow the killing of other people in the face of imminent danger, and some countries allow killing as a form of punishment, but a pregnancy as the result of rape doesn't fit either of those.
[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44277410]
So what you're trying to tell me is when the actual abortion is being performed, the baby only has a 22% survival rate? That's the way I'm interpreting that. If so, could you provide a source for that?[/QUOTE]
What even? Spontaneous abortion and miscarriage are two names for the same thing.
There's about a 40% chance that if the potential mother does nothing the pregnancy will never come to full term. That means there's a 40% chance of failure right off the bat, so there's a decent chance that the potential kid will never be born. Getting pregnant does not indicate that you are actually going to have a kid. There's a good chance, but that chance decreases with age. I think women over 49 have a 89% chance of miscarriage if I remember correctly.
As the developing embryo passes developmental checkpoints the chance of miscarriage decreases significantly, but there is still that 22% chance that the pregnancy will fail in the window most induced abortions are performed. That's over 1 in 5 and almost 1 in 4 fetuses failing to develop, which is still a pretty high rate of failure. This is why I said your claim that these fetuses will become people is a fact is bullshit.
Plus, if you want to go down the route of 'personhood' you have to deal with cases where women miscarry due to their actions from a legal perspective. There's a pretty good example that comes from my state actually.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bei_Bei_Shuai"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bei_Bei_Shuai[/URL]
This woman tried to commit suicide after she was abandoned by her boyfriend. Dude impregnated her after he brought her over from Shanghai, and then when he found out he told her that he was already married and left. She tried to ingest rat poison and paramedics revived her and gave her an emergency caesarian. The baby died three days later and the state has charged her with murder and attempted feticide. She's facing a 45-65 year sentence.
This isn't an isolated case. Personhood laws are being used to punish victims of abuse and those with poor mental health in Alabama and in other states with such laws. If you miscarry and there's even a remote chance that your actions might have led to the termination of the fetus, you are going to be held criminally liable, even if you didn't intend to terminate the fetus or lacked the knowledge of the potential risk. Young girls in low level income neighborhoods with poor access to education are being locked up for life and branded as criminals for miscarrying because of personhood laws.
As you stated in another post, there are exceptions to every rule.
'Protection' is more complicated than you've implied as there are many methods and tools used to prevent pregnancy, and they all have varying rates of success. We have evidence of state funded schools deliberately misinforming kids on sexual health issues, and even more evidence of crisis pregnancy centers doing so.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center#False_medical_information"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center#False_medical_information[/URL]
You've yet to provide an adequate explanation as to why women should be held accountable for decisions made on faulty information being provided from 'trusted' sources. How can someone be in control of a situation when they don't actually know the risks? If people are being deliberately misinformed and being told that condoms have a 40% chance of failure, lead to cancer, and can cause permanent infertility, and that 'natural family planning' is more effective, why should women and children be forced out of the educational system and forced into poverty? This isn't a hypothetical, this is actually happening in plenty of communities across the United States. Your whole idea of morality and justice seems to be centered around punishing people, which is pretty barbaric, and the system you seem to be advocating for actually increases the likelihood of women performing unsafe self-administered abortions and encourages other risky behavior.
Also, the WHO, UNICEF, World Bank, UNDPA, UNFPA, UNESCO, the Guttmacher institute, and loads of other highly respected institutions are in favor of expanding access to abortion globally. This post is also going to expand beyond the point of control, but putting more roadblocks in the way of abortion hurts more people than it helps, and is overall detrimental to society. This isn't disputed by the majority of reputable academics and institutions.
[QUOTE=Swagalackin;44269963]and to me, it sure looks like a person.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/4/43/Human-_fetal_week_10_bf02.jpg[/t]
You need glasses.
[QUOTE=lavacano;44289790][t]http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/4/43/Human-_fetal_week_10_bf02.jpg[/t]
You need glasses.[/QUOTE]
Looks pretty human to me. Maybe you need them?
[editline]22nd March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=1legmidget;44289181]What even? Spontaneous abortion and miscarriage are two names for the same thing.
There's about a 40% chance that if the potential mother does nothing the pregnancy will never come to full term. That means there's a 40% chance of failure right off the bat, so there's a decent chance that the potential kid will never be born. Getting pregnant does not indicate that you are actually going to have a kid. There's a good chance, but that chance decreases with age. I think women over 49 have a 89% chance of miscarriage if I remember correctly.
As the developing embryo passes developmental checkpoints the chance of miscarriage decreases significantly, but there is still that 22% chance that the pregnancy will fail in the window most induced abortions are performed. That's over 1 in 5 and almost 1 in 4 fetuses failing to develop, which is still a pretty high rate of failure. This is why I said your claim that these fetuses will become people is a fact is bullshit.
Plus, if you want to go down the route of 'personhood' you have to deal with cases where women miscarry due to their actions from a legal perspective. There's a pretty good example that comes from my state actually.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bei_Bei_Shuai"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bei_Bei_Shuai[/URL]
This woman tried to commit suicide after she was abandoned by her boyfriend. Dude impregnated her after he brought her over from Shanghai, and then when he found out he told her that he was already married and left. She tried to ingest rat poison and paramedics revived her and gave her an emergency caesarian. The baby died three days later and the state has charged her with murder and attempted feticide. She's facing a 45-65 year sentence.
This isn't an isolated case. Personhood laws are being used to punish victims of abuse and those with poor mental health in Alabama and in other states with such laws. If you miscarry and there's even a remote chance that your actions might have led to the termination of the fetus, you are going to be held criminally liable, even if you didn't intend to terminate the fetus or lacked the knowledge of the potential risk. Young girls in low level income neighborhoods with poor access to education are being locked up for life and branded as criminals for miscarrying because of personhood laws.
As you stated in another post, there are exceptions to every rule.
'Protection' is more complicated than you've implied as there are many methods and tools used to prevent pregnancy, and they all have varying rates of success. We have evidence of state funded schools deliberately misinforming kids on sexual health issues, and even more evidence of crisis pregnancy centers doing so.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center#False_medical_information"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center#False_medical_information[/URL]
You've yet to provide an adequate explanation as to why women should be held accountable for decisions made on faulty information being provided from 'trusted' sources. How can someone be in control of a situation when they don't actually know the risks? If people are being deliberately misinformed and being told that condoms have a 40% chance of failure, lead to cancer, and can cause permanent infertility, and that 'natural family planning' is more effective, why should women and children be forced out of the educational system and forced into poverty? This isn't a hypothetical, this is actually happening in plenty of communities across the United States. Your whole idea of morality and justice seems to be centered around punishing people, which is pretty barbaric, and the system you seem to be advocating for actually increases the likelihood of women performing unsafe self-administered abortions and encourages other risky behavior.
Also, the WHO, UNICEF, World Bank, UNDPA, UNFPA, UNESCO, the Guttmacher institute, and loads of other highly respected institutions are in favor of expanding access to abortion globally. This post is also going to expand beyond the point of control, but putting more roadblocks in the way of abortion hurts more people than it helps, and is overall detrimental to society. This isn't disputed by the majority of reputable academics and institutions.[/QUOTE]
I know that different methods have different success rates. However, as I recall, there are a couple that are 99% successful and are readily available. My idea of justice IS somewhat based around punishment. They made a mistake. They knew it was risky. They face the consequences. I hate this whole tree hugging shit you guys do. Not everything is about "rehabilitation." Punishment is a necessary evil to ensure that bad things don't happen. Without punishment, you're just going to run around and do whatever the fuck you want. Yes, let's just let slutty teenagers get pregnant all the time and let them use our tax money so WE can fix their mistake. I mean really, let's just give those hos a get out of jail free card every time they get knocked up. Who cares if we as a society pay for their slutty ass?
[IMG]http://evoled.dbs.umt.edu/docs/similarity.gif[/IMG]
Yeah, simply looks is enough to determine it, right?
And do you think 99% means it never fails? Nope.
So they should have the kid and face the consequence and thus leave another human being unwanted in the world who has a very good chance of growing up into some form of delinquency? This punishment fixes shit?
Yeah, you're off of it man.
The professor has been charged
[QUOTE]
Mireille Miller-Young, an associate professor who teaches feminist studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara, faces misdemeanor charges of theft, battery and vandalism, Santa Barbara County District Attorney Joyce Dudley said in a statement.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]In an interview with the Santa Barbara Independent newspaper on Friday, Miller-Young said she was "triggered" by the graphic images on the sign and pamphlets carried by the protesters.
She added that she was especially offended by the protesters' cause because of her focus of study and because she is currently pregnant.[/B]
Miller-Young is scheduled for arraignment in Santa Barbara Superior Court on April 4, it said.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/22/us-usa-california-professor-idUSBREA2L03920140322[/url]
It's okay guys. She was triggered
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44316393][IMG]http://evoled.dbs.umt.edu/docs/similarity.gif[/IMG]
Yeah, simply looks is enough to determine it, right?
And do you think 99% means it never fails? Nope.
So they should have the kid and face the consequence and thus leave another human being unwanted in the world who has a very good chance of growing up into some form of delinquency? This punishment fixes shit?
Yeah, you're off of it man.[/QUOTE]
I never said looks alone should determine whether abortion is morally justified or not. And no, 99% does not mean it never fails. What it does mean is that statistically only 1 out of 100 cases in which the female claims that the method they used failed is actually legit. As stated earlier, adoption is a very viable option in any circumstance.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.