The Abortion Thread

[Einherjar86]

@Einherjar86 If you hold anti-humanist views and I hold mostly humanist views, I don't know that we can convince one another or even really meet in the middle, except that we both agree that first trimester abortion is fine and you vaguely agree that while it shouldn't be illegal, second and third trimester abortion is probably inadvisable. This might be an exercise in futility haha.

I understand your perspective, honestly I do. You feel that life is more important that freedom of choice, and that viable/potential life should be protected. I see numerous things wrong intellectually speaking with this position; but then, there are also intellectual pitfalls with my position too. To go back to Grant's comment, I don't think reason plays a determining role in anyone's ethical stance on abortion; the only role it plays is when certain people (who shall remain nameless) feel they possess the profound, sacred, universal truth about childbirth and abortion. Then we can administer reason to critique that stance. If someone says "This is how I feel about abortion, but when it comes down to it I can't really articulate why," that's fine. It's the people who say "You're evil for supporting abortion" or "Abortion is wrong, period" that I have a problem with (intellectually speaking).

As far as anti-humanism goes (posthumanism is the actual term), I think it's critically eye-opening because it challenges us to question the distinctions and binaries that we choose to follow. So for instance, I don't think there's a fine line distinguishing an unborn child from the mother's body. I understand the practical reasons for distinguishing between the two, but I don't accept it quite so eagerly.

Additionally, I'm skeptical of the whole discourse of rights surrounding "the human." It doesn't mean I wish harm upon humans, I'm just critical of the way we've constructed the human over the centuries. And it is a social construct as much as it is a biological organism. There's a human i.e. homo sapiens--a biological organism--and a human i.e. homo economicus, homo legalis, etc. which are social constructs.

So when it comes to abortions, I think there are a lot of gray areas and ambiguous boundaries that most people gloss over too quickly.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

@Einherjar86 now it's all starting to make sense. So how many unborn children have you and your wife murdered?

 

[Einherjar86]

Thousands. We literally impale them on spikes along our street. Lets the neighbors know right where we stand, you know?

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

i don't think i've mentioned this anywhere on ultimatemetal yet
i actually had an ex-girlfriend abort a fetus that was made with my sperm
and i was totally okay with that
i didn't see it as murder, and she was psycho where i wouldn't have wanted her to raise a kid anyway

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

A fetus behaves much like a parasite does

Ugh. What a disgusting mindset do you have to have to compare unborn babies to parasites. Says everything about you.

the cancer-curing Einsteins are more likely to come from the families that want their children and don’t feed them into the foster system.

again, all you're doing here is once again displaying your simplistic and shallow thought process. bravo

Thousands. We literally impale them on spikes along our street. Let's the neighbors know right where we stand, you know?

well im pretty sure most of your argument stems from the fact that you're trying to convince yourself that you guys did "the right thing".

 

[Einherjar86]

Ugh. What a disgusting mindset do you have to have to compare unborn babies to parasites. Says everything about you.

https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-between-mother-and-baby

In most mammals, the mother’s blood supply remains safely isolated from the foetus. It passes its nutrients to the foetus through a filter, which the mother controls. The mother is a despot: she provides only what she chooses, which makes her largely invulnerable to paternal manipulation during pregnancy.

In primates and mice, it’s a different story. Cells from the invading placenta digest their way through the endometrial surface, puncturing the mother’s arteries, swarming inside and remodelling them to suit the foetus. Outside of pregnancy, these arteries are tiny, twisty things spiralling through depths of the uterine wall. The invading placental cells paralyse the vessels so they cannot contract, then pump them full of growth hormones, widening them tenfold to capture more maternal blood. These foetal cells are so invasive that colonies of them often persist in the mother for the rest of her life, having migrated to her liver, brain and other organs. There’s something they rarely tell you about motherhood: it turns women into genetic chimeras.

Perhaps this enormous blood supply explains why primates have brains five to ten times larger than the average mammal. Metabolically speaking, brains are extremely expensive organs, and most of their growth occurs before birth. How else is the fetus to fund such extravagance?

Given the invasive nature of pregnancy, it’s perhaps not surprising that the primate womb has evolved to be wary of committing to it. Mammals whose placentae don’t breach the walls of the womb can simply abort or reabsorb unwanted foetuses at any stage of pregnancy. For primates, any such manoeuvre runs the risk of haemorrhage, as the placenta rips away from the mother’s enlarged and paralysed arterial system. And that, in a sentence, is why miscarriages are so dangerous.

In a nutshell, the relationship between mother and fetus is highly parasitic in nature. It simply doesn't qualify as an actual parasitic relationship because both organisms are of the same species.

again, all you're doing here is displaying your simplistic and shallow thought process again here

As opposed to your complex and deep thought process. Got it.

well im pretty sure most of your argument stems from the fact that you're trying to convince yourself that you guys did "the right thing".

Well, I was joking. We didn't impale any babies, we didn't kill any, and we haven't had any abortions. So I'm not sure where that leaves you.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

doesn't qualify as an actual parasitic relationship because both organisms are of the same species.

oh you dont say?! Ive always looked at it as two people getting togeher and making a parasite

Me and my dog both eat food and take shits, so i guess we're both human "in a nutshell". The dots you connect are amazing.

As opposed to your complex and deep thought process. Got it.

It's just that i couldn't give any less of a shit about "changing peoples minds" by acting like some kind of know-it-all pretender on a internet metal forum.

Well, I was joking. We didn't impale any babies, we didn't kill any, and we haven't had any abortions. So I'm not sure where that leaves you.

... you totally convinced me.

Also, can you please give me lessons on how to change minds since you're so good at it?

 

[Satanstoenail]

It's somewhat disingenuous to conflate veganism and vegetarianism.

Fair enough. I only mentioned both because the discussion started with TB saying we "have to" eat beef.

I'd say being vegetarian is healthier but it's not always possible to do properly. I live in a city and I guess even being vegan would work fine in here, in terms of having options of what to eat. There's specialized shops and bistros where you could get a proper lunch during the lunch break and stuff. However, I can't fucking imagine what toil it is to do this outside of the city.

In my previous job I was driving around the countryside and for one week I took my vegetarian colleague with me and she just had nothing to eat in those villages. There were bistros on the way, pubs in the villages and stuff, offering lunch menu, but the only fucking vegetarian meal was always fried cheese. You can have that once in a week if there's no other option but eating that daily doesn't really help the case. And she was fed up with it. In some places there were 10 meals and all the czech classics. Meat+gravy+dumplings.

I mean, I don't complain, but being a vegetarian on the road here? No thanks.

Of course there are cases of people who have strong principles regarding not eating things with faces but don't realize how much calories their body needs. I had a classmate at the uni who was vegan and she was fainting all the time. We got used to it and there was always someone around catching her.

Goddamn Czechs are your fried cheese haha. I totally agree with your post though, it's ridiculously difficult to eat good veggo or vegan if you're out on the road and/or travelling. I would become vegetarian without any hesitation if good vegetarian food was more readily available.

not talking about vegetarians, but like i said most vegans i know are the furthest thing from healthy and look like they're about to drop dead. A lot of them have also resorted back to eating meat for those very reasons. I have this one friend who literally started going nuts and couldn't even think straight and was basically clouded for like 2 years when he "went vegan". He also started looking like he just stepped out of a death camp and would have probably shattered every bone in his body if he tripped and fell. There's also a bunch of youtube videos on vegans who really didnt want to go back to eating meat but were forced to because of health issues they ended up with because of their vegan diets. I cant comment on who lives longer because i dont know many vegans in their 80's or 90's. And actually most of the really older people i know love their red meat. Humans are ideally meant to have well balanced diets so imo i think the key to staying healthy and living long(diet wise) is to eat your meat and veggies.

I think it's totally doable to eat a vegan diet and be healthy. I also have friends that tried to go vegan and couldn't handle it and went back to meat but I also have friends that have been vegan for years that look much healthier than you or me. I've also known vegans that are overweight because they mainly eat vegan "fast food". You ster

those studies forget the millienia old correlation of rich people tend to live much longer than poor people

Yeah it mentions that in the article.

 

[CiG]

We will never change each others mind so I'll just say I reject this all completely, exit the thread, and leave it at that.

You have no answers man and you're unwilling to even specify the limits of your position (again, if it's solely the woman's choice because muh wombz, do you think an 8 month old unborn fetus should be allowed to be aborted) so I'm not sure why you bothered to begin with. You have a feminist meme position that falls apart with even the smallest of prodding.

You feel that life is more important that freedom of choice, and that viable/potential life should be protected.

Kind of a good example of how you don't understand my perspective, because I don't agree that killing a viable fetus falls under the category of things we should be free to choose. This is also the weird way in which pro-infant circumcision people frame it: that if you think a child's genitalia should be left in tact you're against freedom of choice.

So for instance, I don't think there's a fine line distinguishing an unborn child from the mother's body. I understand the practical reasons for distinguishing between the two, but I don't accept it quite so eagerly.

Strange, as far as I'm concerned whether the fetus and the mother are separate entities is pretty much settled science at this point.

Additionally, I'm skeptical of the whole discourse of rights surrounding "the human." It doesn't mean I wish harm upon humans, I'm just critical of the way we've constructed the human over the centuries. And it is a social construct as much as it is a biological organism. There's a human i.e. homo sapiens--a biological organism--and a human i.e. homo economicus, homo legalis, etc. which are social constructs.

So when it comes to abortions, I think there are a lot of gray areas and ambiguous boundaries that most people gloss over too quickly.

Fair enough, it's your world and in your nature to do that with any given subject. I'm more interested in the legal aspects personally. This is why I'm not some rabid anti-abortion activist protesting clinics and waving signs. I personally think with more and more development in science and technology on this subject, society will gradually shift to represent new knowledge.

I'm not particularly interested in dismantling decades of established discourse on human rights because the concept of "human" has some holes or some shit. Just interested in making sure defenseless unborn humans have at bare minimum the right to not be killed.

In a nutshell, the relationship between mother and fetus is highly parasitic in nature. It simply doesn't qualify as an actual parasitic relationship because both organisms are of the same species.

And then you get bothered by people like Arg who talk about people on welfare as parasites, yet by your definition they have a parasitic relationship with the state. Really makes ya think.

 

[Einherjar86]

Kind of a good example of how you don't understand my perspective, because I don't agree that killing a viable fetus falls under the category of things we should be free to choose. This is also the weird way in which pro-infant circumcision people frame it: that if you think a child's genitalia should be left in tact you're against freedom of choice.

Then I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you. I'm not sure you've always been clear though.

Strange, as far as I'm concerned whether the fetus and the mother are separate entities is pretty much settled science at this point.

Biologically speaking, it is. Not socially speaking though.

And then you get bothered by people like Arg who talk about people on welfare as parasites, yet by your definition they have a parasitic relationship with the state. Really makes ya think.

We all have a parasitic relationship with the state.

I'm happy to go through my understanding of the parasite as a symbol of social/economic relations, but probably not in the abortion thread. This book is my starting place:

https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/the-parasite

 

[CiG]

Then I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you. I'm not sure you've always been clear though.

I think I've been pretty clear that I don't agree that aborting a viable fetus is a choice. It's kinda my fundamental disagreement with most people who support post-first trimester abortion...

We all have a parasitic relationship with the state.

I agree, if we use it metaphorically it can be applied to so many things. However, though we have a parasitic relationship with the state that doesn't give the state the right (or power, or privilege, or however you wish to word it) to exterminate us. Even if you support the death penalty there are still requirements to be met before they can do that to us.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think I've been pretty clear that I don't agree that aborting a viable fetus is a choice. It's kinda my fundamental disagreement with most people who support post-first trimester abortion...

You also said that you don't believe in any kind of state-mandated regulations or prohibition on abortion--which kind of contradicts your claim that it isn't a choice... so all in all, I'm confused. But I'm rapidly losing interest.

I agree, if we use it metaphorically it can be applied to so many things. However, though we have a parasitic relationship with the state that doesn't give the state the right (or power, or privilege, or however you wish to word it) to exterminate us. Even if you support the death penalty there are still requirements to be met before they can do that to us.

Thank goodness human bodies aren't countries.

 

[CiG]

You also said that you don't believe in any kind of state-mandated regulations or prohibition on abortion--which kind of contradicts your claim that it isn't a choice... so all in all, I'm confused. But I'm rapidly losing interest.

I didn't say that, I said exceptions should be made if the mother will die. Everything after the first trimester should be illegal.

Thank goodness human bodies aren't countries.

And a fetus isn't a parasite.

 

[CiG]

You're either being inconsistent or unclear. Pick one.

Are you being purposely obtuse? In the very comment you quoted I explained why my position isn't a universal ban because I think aborting a fetus should be legal if the mother will die. It's crystal clear mate. People who believe in a universal ban wouldn't have such a caveat.

 

[Einherjar86]

I deleted my post because I'm sick of this. But no, I'm not being obtuse.

I didn't say that, I said exceptions should be made if the mother will die. Everything after the first trimester should be illegal.

I've already stated that I don't believe in a universal ban of abortion at any stage.

Maybe you think you're being clear, but if you turned this in as a paper in class I'd write that you need to be clearer. Because you're argument is a shitshow.

If everything after the first trimester is illegal, that includes dangers to the mother's life; and you've positioned that claim as though it's universal and definitive.

 

[CiG]

Highlights everything after the first trimester should be illegal, ignores the sentence directly preceding it that says exceptions should be made if the mother will die.

Also, how can it be a universal ban on abortion if I have stated endlessly that I support access to abortion for the first trimester?

But no, you're not being obtuse. Just a cunt.

 

[The Ozzman]

you're argument

bruh

 

[Einherjar86]

Highlights everything after the first trimester should be illegal, ignores the sentence directly preceding it that says exceptions should be made if the mother will die.

Also, how can it be a universal ban on abortion if I have stated endlessly that I support access to abortion for the first trimester?

But no, you're not being obtuse. Just a cunt.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. By the way, you should read this: https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-between-mother-and-baby

In most mammals, the mother’s blood supply remains safely isolated from the foetus. It passes its nutrients to the foetus through a filter, which the mother controls. The mother is a despot: she provides only what she chooses, which makes her largely invulnerable to paternal manipulation during pregnancy.

In primates and mice, it’s a different story. Cells from the invading placenta digest their way through the endometrial surface, puncturing the mother’s arteries, swarming inside and remodelling them to suit the foetus. Outside of pregnancy, these arteries are tiny, twisty things spiralling through depths of the uterine wall. The invading placental cells paralyse the vessels so they cannot contract, then pump them full of growth hormones, widening them tenfold to capture more maternal blood. These foetal cells are so invasive that colonies of them often persist in the mother for the rest of her life, having migrated to her liver, brain and other organs. There’s something they rarely tell you about motherhood: it turns women into genetic chimeras.

Perhaps this enormous blood supply explains why primates have brains five to ten times larger than the average mammal. Metabolically speaking, brains are extremely expensive organs, and most of their growth occurs before birth. How else is the fetus to fund such extravagance?

Is this unfettered access to maternal blood the key to the extraordinary brain development we see in young primates?

Given the invasive nature of pregnancy, it’s perhaps not surprising that the primate womb has evolved to be wary of committing to it. Mammals whose placentae don’t breach the walls of the womb can simply abort or reabsorb unwanted foetuses at any stage of pregnancy. For primates, any such manoeuvre runs the risk of haemorrhage, as the placenta rips away from the mother’s enlarged and paralysed arterial system. And that, in a sentence, is why miscarriages are so dangerous.

 

[Dak]

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. By the way, you should read this: https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-between-mother-and-baby

The tone on this thing is comedy gold, but it makes a pretty good case against abortion.

 

[CiG]

Biology is gross and cool.