Discuss my article about the recent murder of Dr. Tiller

[Invictus_88]

Tell us, abortions for women pregnant through non-consensual sex make up approximately what percentage of total abortions?

I think you'll find that the percentage is tiny, and consequently that the "not in control" argument a null one.

I do not follow your reasoning. Are you saying majority rules where females (remember females include infants-adults who are sexually abused) are concerned? When should the males be held responsible for their participation in creating life and the horror of abortion? It is seldom on the table. Because there are always exceptions to every scenario, and as you say a low percent, society still has to provide an answer. Where do you get your statistics? Do you listen to or read the everyday news? Sorry, you have lost me.

I'm sorry that I lost you, I'll try to clarify.

You quoted a comment by Juice which broadly opposed abortion as an appropriate response to conception. Your response broadly defended abortion by appealing to scenarios in which women have no control and use of an example of conception through rape. I am countering by rhetorically drawing attention to the miniscule proportion of abortions which are in response to situations the mother did not consent to, in order to establish that the abortion industry does not exist to extinguish the types of pregnancy you referred to in your argument, and consequently that your argument is null.

-- Updated Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:21 pm to add the following --

Invictus_88, I also don't understand your reasoning. You aren't claiming that no women get pregnant from rape, but your conclusion only seems to follow if no woman get pregnant from rape. Saying that the number of women who get pregnant from rape is "tiny" doesn't mean that it is non-existent. It seems to me you have committed the No True Scotsman fallacy. Consider this (...)

No. My argument was countering the legitimacy of her defence of abortion, pointing out that her defence of abortion wrongly positioned it as primarily something for women who did not consent to their pregnancy. In fact, it is only to a very miniscule degree for such women and the numbers of such women would not be able to sustain the pro-abortion campaigns or the industry we see in the world.

This is a true and fair rebuttal, and is only a fallacy if I have intended it to be a rebuttal of all pro-abortion arguments. Clearly, I have not, as my comment is directed only against the argument to which I responded!

[Misty]

I do not follow your reasoning. Are you saying majority rules where females (remember females include infants-adults who are sexually abused) are concerned? When should the males be held responsible for their participation in creating life and the horror of abortion? It is seldom on the table. Because there are always exceptions to every scenario, and as you say a low percent, society still has to provide an answer. Where do you get your statistics? Do you listen to or read the everyday news? Sorry, you have lost me.

I'm sorry that I lost you, I'll try to clarify.

You quoted a comment by Juice which broadly opposed abortion as an appropriate response to conception. Your response broadly defended abortion by appealing to scenarios in which women have no control and use of an example of conception through rape. I am countering by rhetorically drawing attention to the miniscule proportion of abortions which are in response to situations the mother did not consent to, in order to establish that the abortion industry does not exist to extinguish the types of pregnancy you referred to in your argument, and consequently that your argument is null.

-- Updated Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:21 pm to add the following

I am sorry Invictus_88, but you have just muddied the water more. There is no clarity to what you are saying. I hate abortion but it happens, not from your experience but from the experiences of others. While society has come to view abortion as a matter of convenience, which I oppose, one would have to personally know each female and their reason for said abortion. I am not advocating abortion. I do not know for instance if you are male or female so what right do I have to make assumptions about you that may affect your life? Do you know what an etopic pregnancy is? Would you insist a woman carry it until it burst and caused her to lose her life? Abortion is sometimes spontaneous - should we put those women in jail and make them pay because sometimes spontaneous abortions cannot be proven? Please state your entire position on abortion without other posts - then maybe I can understand you, so further debate is possible with clarity.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Invictus_88, In the world or in the USA? Marital rape was still legal even in parts the United States until 1993 and is still legal in numerous countries today. Sure nowadays we mostly see sex and pregnancies as consensual in the USA with the exclusion of criminal rape. Historically and in other parts of the world, feminism has not been able to make so much progress at liberating women (not to say they are fully liberated even now in the USA where a man could still rape his wife legally less than 10 years ago in North Carolina leaving us with couples married over 10 years with a broken woman who was raped legally by her husband 10 years ago). The idea that women consent to sex and pregnancy ever in these not to distant times or countries is suspect. In some countries and historically in the USA, I would say that in a sense 100% of abortions involved a pregnancy via non-consensual sex because the consent of slaves to do any one request by their slave-owner is arguably illegitimate because the apparent consent is made in the context of slavery. I think an interesting article on the matter of patriarchy, marriage and procreation is by my favorite writer, who was American: "Sex Slavery" by Voltarine de Cleyre. The number of women who are pregnant via non-consensual sex globally -- or historically in the USA -- is not tiny. It may be "tiny" proportionally in the USA now, in that it represents a single digit percentage of actual abortions in the USA, but I wouldn't describe hundreds or thousands of rape-induced pregnancies as tiny; I wouldn't describe a single rape as tiny. It's a big deal, but that's just semantics.

I think it's possible a big motivator for the 'pro-choice industry' is a belief in fundamental patriarchy that calls into question the consent of women who have an unwanted pregnancy to have had sex, probably unprotected, and get pregnant from it on the grounds of an overarching patriarchy. Even if one disagrees with the feminists that this patriarchy in such a way, that does not mean the belief in it isn't the reason the abortion industry's existence is supported by who supports it.

Dr. Tiller gave an abortion to a 13-year-old girl. That was a pregnancy that was not consensual, since a 13-year-old is below the age of consent. If Dr. Tiller only performed late-term abortions on girls who got pregnant under the age of consent (who could have crossed the age of consent in the mean time which explain why they didn't get an abortion earlier if getting an abortion requires legal consent) or who were raped, would that change your views on the incident with Roeder or your desire for Dr. Tiller's activities to have been legal? If not, then Juice's original point is rebutted; and then consent is irrelevant to why Roeder murdered Tiller and why you want what Dr. Tiller did to be illegal.

Either the anti-abortionist's case rests entirely on the issue of consent in which case he must make an exclusion for rape, or consent is moot and we might as well talk specifically about why the anti-abortionist wants rape victims to not be allowed to get an abortion -- or in the case of Tiller a late-term abortion.

[Invictus_88]

I'm sorry that I lost you, I'll try to clarify.

You quoted a comment by Juice which broadly opposed abortion as an appropriate response to conception. Your response broadly defended abortion by appealing to scenarios in which women have no control and use of an example of conception through rape. I am countering by rhetorically drawing attention to the miniscule proportion of abortions which are in response to situations the mother did not consent to, in order to establish that the abortion industry does not exist to extinguish the types of pregnancy you referred to in your argument, and consequently that your argument is null.

-- Updated Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:21 pm to add the following

I am sorry Invictus_88, but you have just muddied the water more. There is no clarity to what you are saying. I hate abortion but it happens, not from your experience but from the experiences of others. While society has come to view abortion as a matter of convenience, which I oppose, one would have to personally know each female and their reason for said abortion. I am not advocating abortion. I do not know for instance if you are male or female so what right do I have to make assumptions about you that may affect your life?(1) Do you know what an etopic pregnancy is?(2) Would you insist a woman carry it until it burst and caused her to lose her life?(3) Abortion is sometimes spontaneous - should we put those women in jail and make them pay because sometimes spontaneous abortions cannot be proven?(4) Please state your entire position on abortion without other posts (5) - then maybe I can understand you, so further debate is possible with clarity.

So, you say you weren't making an argument? Ok, then. I'll just answer your questions.

1. I'm not convinced my sex is relevant. 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. I don't know what it'd achieve if you weren't actually making any argument, and it's too big a topic anyway.

You say you're not advocating it, but the tone of your posts suggests otherwise. Explain?

-- Updated Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:09 pm to add the following --

Invictus_88, In the world or in the USA? Marital rape was still legal even in parts the United States until 1993 and is still legal in numerous countries today. Sure nowadays we mostly see sex and pregnancies as consensual in the USA with the exclusion of criminal rape. Historically and in other parts of the world, feminism has not been able to make so much progress at liberating women (not to say they are fully liberated even now in the USA where a man could still rape his wife legally less than 10 years ago in North Carolina leaving us with couples married over 10 years with a broken woman who was raped legally by her husband 10 years ago). The idea that women consent to sex and pregnancy ever in these not to distant times or countries is suspect. In some countries and historically in the USA, I would say that in a sense 100% of abortions involved a pregnancy via non-consensual sex because the consent of slaves to do any one request by their slave-owner is arguably illegitimate because the apparent consent is made in the context of slavery. I think an interesting article on the matter of patriarchy, marriage and procreation is by my favorite writer, who was American: "Sex Slavery" by Voltarine de Cleyre. The number of women who are pregnant via non-consensual sex globally -- or historically in the USA -- is not tiny. It may be "tiny" proportionally in the USA now, in that it represents a single digit percentage of actual abortions in the USA, but I wouldn't describe hundreds or thousands of rape-induced pregnancies as tiny; I wouldn't describe a single rape as tiny. It's a big deal, but that's just semantics.

I think it's possible a big motivator for the 'pro-choice industry' is a belief in fundamental patriarchy that calls into question the consent of women who have an unwanted pregnancy to have had sex, probably unprotected, and get pregnant from it on the grounds of an overarching patriarchy. Even if one disagrees with the feminists that this patriarchy in such a way, that does not mean the belief in it isn't the reason the abortion industry's existence is supported by who supports it.

Dr. Tiller gave an abortion to a 13-year-old girl. That was a pregnancy that was not consensual, since a 13-year-old is below the age of consent. If Dr. Tiller only performed late-term abortions on girls who got pregnant under the age of consent (who could have crossed the age of consent in the mean time which explain why they didn't get an abortion earlier if getting an abortion requires legal consent) or who were raped, would that change your views on the incident with Roeder or your desire for Dr. Tiller's activities to have been legal? If not, then Juice's original point is rebutted; and then consent is irrelevant to why Roeder murdered Tiller and why you want what Dr. Tiller did to be illegal.

Either the anti-abortionist's case rests entirely on the issue of consent in which case he must make an exclusion for rape, or consent is moot and we might as well talk specifically about why the anti-abortionist wants rape victims to not be allowed to get an abortion -- or in the case of Tiller a late-term abortion.

I think the liberty of women is a much broader and more important matter than one to be judged on the bases of rape law.

And the problem of abortion cannot be resolved by alterations to the law, so I'll decline that red herring as well.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

the problem of abortion cannot be resolved by alterations to the law

Does this mean you want abortion to be legal?

[Invictus_88]

Does this mean you want abortion to be legal?

Odd sort of question.

Parallel:

I disagree with theft, and feel we should work in society to prevent people from thieving or feeling the need to thieve.

I accept that theft cannot be resolved by alterations to the law.

Therefore, it follows logically that I want theft to be legal.

Is that really a logical conclusion you've made there, or is it just a camouflaged leading question?

[Belinda]

Anyone who thinks Dr Tiller's action was wrong must also be prepared to take on the entire and perhaps lifelong care which incidentally involves huge outlay of money in a country such as the US, and the more demanding emotional expenditure involved, of two disadvantaged children, the very young mother and her child.

[Misty]

So, you say you weren't making an argument? Ok, then. I'll just answer your questions.

1. I'm not convinced my sex is relevant. 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. I don't know what it'd achieve if you weren't actually making any argument, and it's too big a topic anyway.

You say you're not advocating it, but the tone of your posts suggests otherwise. Explain?


I was thinking of abortion in the broader sense - abortion on demand, used as contraception, when I said I don't advocate abortion. I do think there are many scenarios that abortion is needed. It is unfortunate and awful but a real dilemma for individuals and society.

Your sex does not matter per se for this discussion, I was just saying that I don't know you or your situation so what right would I have to make personal decisions for you. You in this sense is anyone another does not know.

I also wonder if the 13 yr old girl who went to Dr Tiller had a choice in her own pregnancy? Was it her choice or that of a parent/guardian?

There will never be answers on abortion that will please the whole of society. There will always be husbands and other males that rape and impregnate women and children. There will always be abortions done for the sake of money. There will always be abortions used as contraception. There will always be doctors willing to break the laws of medicine. There will always be doctors willing to perform illegal abortions. There will always be poor women. There will always be aborted babies, spontaneous or performed. There will always be a medical need for abortion. There are no perfect answers but there can be reasonable guidelines. Essentially, pregnancy care and abortion decision is between a woman and her doctor, and the guidelines provided by law. It will always be questioned. It will always be sad. The alternative is to deny women the most basic freedom, decisions that affect her own body, mind, life.

[Thought_Hurricane]

Reading your article I found it fascinating, you've posed many questions that most people wouldn't put much thought about it. Especially since in this time and age things such as abortion is an every-day activity, quite sadly I might add that more and more people are doing this.

To answer the question, what is murder and if we always oppose it. Well, murder is when you kill another living creature right? Whether it be human or animal. In certain situations people feel like murder is acceptable. For example, something horrible happens and your sister gets raped. At that point someone might think it's perfectly reasonable to want the rapist dead and goes about to do this.

We get murder in all different sorts of ways, such as if you've heard of the use of embryonic stem cells. Although it's used in a way that's supposed to help us you can't help but look at the unethical views of it. Animals are killed to feed us, we kill each other for a number of relatively stupid reasons and people kill their own babies. Murder is all around us and yet we have grown to accept it. "A young man is shot in an alleyway", people hardly flinch. It's not right, each persons life is their own and whatever they might have done it's their choose whether to live it or not.

A book I was reading, Kiss Me First (don't judge it by it's title), said in it "freedom to choose how and when we die is a fundamental right...Life is about quality, not quantity, and it's up to each individual whether theirs is worth living or not". You have an abortion you are denying that child that right, you kill a guy and you deny him that right and killing animals, although meat sometimes is essential to our survival killing can be done two ways - humanely or mean and merciless.

(p.s I'm new so forgive me if I've said or done something wrong or I've completely babbled away from the point)

[Ami]

I live in a country where abortion is illegal and it would be very difficult to find anyone who is "pro-choice". It takes a very big person to put aside their dreams of a fancy car and a big house, or their shame, or take the effort to raise a child with developmental problems; most "Americans" are not that big, don't have that big a heart. But amazingly, once stepping out of the tiny bubble of "America", most of the World's people are "pro-life", they would be willing to live a modest life, to face shame, and to endure the struggle of raising a difficult child. For people who live in "America" and don't get out much, where the majority of people are "pro-choice", the "pro-choice" arguments almost seem to start to make sense; but when we get a little fresh air, get away from the 'monoculture' and the high stress judgmental society, and the barrage of media, the "pro-choice" line stops seeming so sturdy, it starts to sound just made-up and selfish, in fact heinous; out of touch with the realities of real life. It makes sense that Roeder's defense team argued for "a voluntary manslaughter conviction, which in Kansas is defined as killing with "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.""

[Belinda]

Ami, are you perhaps ignoring that ending the life of a badly disabled child might be in the best interests of the child? For instance, parents don't want their child to live with unremitting severe pain.(Other examples available). In such sad cases the parents who would choose to end the life of their child hurt their own feelings, and they might as a result live with life-long remorse, but they would be acting from wise compassion.

It is strange that you brand all Americans with selfish motives, because this is obviously not true, and you should look to facts.

[Ami]

Ami...

...live with unremitting severe pain.

and you should look to facts.

"Facts"? The fact is, the vast majority of American abortions are elective; there is no health issue. I just spoke with my co-worker not a week ago, an "American", he had supported two different girlfriends having elective abortions, it's very sad, it's possible that his addiction issues are resultant of his repressed grief. Another "American" friend, two of his girlfriends had abortions against his wishes, this has left him with serious mental health and addiction issues at the loss. Facts are maybe not so much the issue as life realities are? And as someone who is living with a chronic pain condition, I definitely am glad I am alive, and if I choose eternity, it will be my choice, not one made by a mother or doctor uncertain about the long term out come of a condition, possible medical advances in the future, or the boundless value of living despite pain.

[Belinda]

But you, Ami, are an adult who is equipped to choose for himself. There are poor little foetuses who cannot choose between pain and freedom from pain. I agree that elective abortions are horrible. I doubt if anyone denies this. The lesser evil sometimes.

[Misty]

I live in a country where abortion is illegal and it would be very difficult to find anyone who is "pro-choice". It takes a very big person to put aside their dreams of a fancy car and a big house, or their shame, or take the effort to raise a child with developmental problems; most "Americans" are not that big, don't have that big a heart. But amazingly, once stepping out of the tiny bubble of "America", most of the World's people are "pro-life", they would be willing to live a modest life, to face shame, and to endure the struggle of raising a difficult child. For people who live in "America" and don't get out much, where the majority of people are "pro-choice", the "pro-choice" arguments almost seem to start to make sense; but when we get a little fresh air, get away from the 'monoculture' and the high stress judgmental society, and the barrage of media, the "pro-choice" line stops seeming so sturdy, it starts to sound just made-up and selfish, in fact heinous; out of touch with the realities of real life. It makes sense that Roeder's defense team argued for "a voluntary manslaughter conviction, which in Kansas is defined as killing with "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.""

Ami, may I ask what one does in your country when a woman has an etopic pregnancy? It is still an embryo but has no chance to survive if left in the fallopian tube where it will burst the tube of the mother. Does your country allow these women to have the necessary operation that will abort the pregnancy to save the mother?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

It takes a very big person to put aside their dreams of a fancy car and a big house, or their shame, or take the effort to raise a child with developmental problems;

This seems like a red herring. It seems like the instances being discussed are much less materialistic such as instances where the pregnant person was raped, or is poor, or the unborn child has health issues or worst of all a combination of all of those.

most "Americans" are not that big, don't have that big a heart.

This is racist and false. Do you have any evidence or for such wildly racist and disagreeable claims? What evidence do you have that Americans have smaller hearts, metaphorically speaking, than non-Americans?

The fact is, the vast majority of American abortions are elective; there is no health issue. I just spoke with my co-worker not a week ago, an "American", he had supported two different girlfriends having elective abortions, it's very sad, it's possible that his addiction issues are resultant of his repressed grief.

The two Americans your co-worker allegedly knows don't represent a majority of Americans. Your argument thus fails. It's anecdotal and not statistically significant. I might know a man who played golf and then got hit by a train, but that doesn't support the conclusion that most golfers get hit by trains or that playing golf makes one more likely to get by a train.

Ami, what do your comments about abortion have to do with the specific topic at hand, which isn't merely about a women getting an abortion so she can buy fancy cars rather than pay for a child? Ami, what are your answers to the questions asked in the article to which this topic is about:

What is murder? Do we oppose murder always? If not always, when do we want it to be illegal to murder something or someone? When do we want it to be illegal to kill something or someone? What about animals, human embryos, human fetuses, brainless creatures? What about killing one innocent person to save the life of another innocent person? What about when a person lets another person die when the first person could have saved the second? Do we support forcing another person to help another person? Do we want an embryo or fetus to have the right to use a woman's body against her will if the embryo or fetus needs to use her body to live? What about if the woman was made pregnant against her will? What about if a woman wants to abort a fetus late-term because carrying it to term will cause significant harm to her? What about if the baby was already born but needs a transplant from her to live? When if at all would we force a person to provide a transplant to another person? What if providing a transplant poses significant danger or will cause significant harm?

?