This is just sick...

conorhal wrote: »

strawman nonsesense. The VAST majority of people that are pro life would not applaud this. The vast majority of people that are pro choice however have no problem with abortion as a lifestyle choice and thus can have no argument with her actions.

It's no more straw man nonsense than your attempt to paint a (possibly fake) story of a misguided and deluded woman having an abortion for an absurd reason as the face of the pro-choice movement, or to use it to try and trivialise the reasons people may choose to have abortions or mischaracterise that decision as simply a lifestyle choice.

At least I was being up front about how absurd my argument was.

Your attempts to paint pro-choice advocates as wanting to toast champagne to baby deaths is also pathetic, and reveals more about your own inability to engage reasonably with people of opposing views than anything else.

Nobody ever celebrates an abortion, and 99% of pro-choice advocates would say that having an abortion is not a desirable outcome for anybody concerned.

The difference is that we see the rights of a woman to be supersede those of a foetus who may or may not make it to term.

jimgoose wrote: »

This just in. According to Snopes, this is "probably false":

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/abortedboy.asp

'Tis true for Judy Sheindlin - if it don't make sense, it ain't happening!

Inconsistencies aside, the site Injustice Stories was virtually unknown before the implausible story of Lana's abortion was published. That's probably because a domain lookup revealed the domain was registered on the same day Lana's story was posted. Furthermore, in order to read the entirety of the article, site visitors were forced to share the page on social media (which in turn boosted its visibility incrementally before it caught the eye of larger news sources). The tale's lack of plausibility, combined with the use of a brand-new site to publish it, indicated the account was likely a troll for pageviews, not a real-life account representing the sordid state of feminism.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/abortedboy.asp#spKkW0HY9dHMByII.99

lol

The Corinthian wrote: »

If one believes that it's a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, then it's really none of their business whether someone has an abortion because of the gender of the child or any other reason. Indeed, gender-based, selective abortions in places like India or China are none of our business, only the business of the woman making the decision. And anyway, isn't it just a ball of cells anyhow?

I've reached an age now where I frankly no longer care about the morality of abortion. But I do get pissed off when some declare principles, then change them when it no longer suits, which is what this thread has demonstrated.

Stick to your principles or STFU.

I don't know who it is you think is changing their principles.

You can think a woman's reason for having an abortion is stupid, absurd or even down right evil and still fully support her right to do so.

Personally I can't see any non-medical reason which would justify any (hypothetical) child I might help conceive to be aborted, but that doesn't mean I should be able to impose my value judgments on others or dictate their reproductive choices based on my beliefs.

strobe wrote: »

Apparently the story is bollox. But threads like this always make me giggle. The same posters that argue tooth and nail that it's a woman's choice decrying them as monsters when they exercise it. Want an abortion because you don't want kids, don't want a kid right now, don't want the fathers kid, just started a new job, have a holiday booked in 8 months time - her body, her choice, it's just a bunch of cells. Want one because kid is a girl or has down syndrome - she's worse than Hitler!

Wasn't Hitler more about sterilisation?

bjork wrote: »

Some cultures must be full of "mentally ill people" (a phrase borrowed from this thread) as female feticide is widely practiced by some

What makes this woman mentally ill and the other "cultural"?
What makes the girl wanting to go on holidays less mentally ill than this woman?

I brought up the matter of "Lana" possibly not being the full bob. My reasoning for this was threefold:

A) Concluding that all human males, including her own baby boy, were monsters that didn't deserve to exist because some eejit barked at her on an aeroplane. Regardless, in this culture a dog with a mallet up his ass wouldn't come out and say that the reason for an abortion was the baby's gender. I have no doubt that's common enough, by the way.

Screaming "Assault" after the incident above, together with statements like this: "...pregnancy made her feel her body had betrayed her so much she experienced "crying, sobbing, uncontrollable weeping, mental anguish the likes of which may only be experienced by those who have had their lives destroyed by war.""

C) "Lana" doesn't exist. The whole thing is a load of hooey.

floggg wrote: »

Nobody ever celebrates an abortion, and 99% of pro-choice advocates would say that having an abortion is not a desirable outcome for anybody concerned.

Well that's clearly untrue as there are many people who celebrate the fact that they've had an abortion, and as for your 99% figure, I don't know where you get that from when an abortion is a desireable outcome for a woman who does not want to continue her pregnancy.

The difference is that we see the rights of a woman to be supersede those of a foetus who may or may not make it to term.

Special circumstances much? Either the argument is that a woman is entitled to choose to terminate her pregnancy under any circumstances, or she isn't, and then your argument changes to when she is or isn't allowed to choose, according to your standards. No different then from those people you claim have no right to impose their standards on anyone else.

bjork wrote: »

Some cultures must be full of "mentally ill people" (a phrase borrowed from this thread) as female feticide is widely practiced by some

What makes this woman mentally ill and the other "cultural"?
What makes the girl wanting to go on holidays less mentally ill than this woman?

Well, one is an individual with an irrational bias against a gender and the other is a culture with an irrational bias against a gender. I do consider such societies to be "sick" in their gender bias tbh.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No you can't, because you're trying to claim that you care about people, while claiming that people should be allowed to behave in a morally repugnant fashion. That's either not caring about people, or abdicating your responsibility towards other people. You can't have it both ways.

That is some eloquent sounding nonsense. You can care for people whilst still respecting them enough to make their own choices - even if they choose to act in a morally repugnant way.

We allow people the choice to do so everyday - we are all free to commit adultery, refuse to parent our children, to use others for sex and dump them when we want etc (and that's only considering the sexual realm).

I have neither the right nor the responsibility to control others lives - not would I want it. I can offer my opinions and assistance, and would do that if a friend or loved one found themselves facing an unplanned pregnancy, but any attempt by my to dictate their actions of impose my subjevtive judgments on them would be far more morally pregnant than most choices they could make.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Imposing your value judgments on other people is exactly what you're doing by dictating that other people have a right to reproductive choices based on your beliefs. Otherwise your stance is utterly meaningless because you're neither in nor out, you just want to have everything your own way when it suits you.

That sort of idealism doesn't work in the real world.

My stance is that each woman should have the right to choose for herself. To say I am imposing a value judgment on anybody is oxymoronic.

I wish them to have the right to make their own judgment and make whatever decision they decide is best.

You cannot impose a right to choose on anybody - you can grant it to them.

In order to impose a view on somebody you must either require or prohibit them from doing or believing something. I am doing neither - I am leaving the matter for them to decide.