Fundie stuff I do not get

[emmyfair]

Gizmola wins the internet today. :)

[MrsYoungie]

I totally understand irrational phobias and anxieties. I have a couple myself. Spiders and heights.

My rational brain knows that spiders are good for us and they eat evil bugs like mosquitoes and flies. My irrational brain screams "Ack! Spider!!!! getitout getitout getitout!!!!"

I know that as long as I don't go bungee jumping or sky diving my fear of heights is not rational. However, I can't look over a balcony without getting a dizzy sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.

ITOG has a similar irrational fear of socialism/communism.

The main difference is that I don't vote based on people pandering to my fear of spiders and heights. I would not support a candidate who promised to ban all buildings over 10' tall just to accomodate my fear of heights. I would not support a candidate who promised to erradicate spiders.

btw: I had an abortion in 1969. I had to travel overseas to get it legally. Thanks to my parents for being rational and relatively well off. I have never ever, not even once, regretted it. I was very young and foolish and the sperm donor was a complete moron. He basically got me preggers on purpose so I couldn't leave him. More fool he. I can't even imagine what my life would have been like if I had continued the pregnancy.

[alba]

If a man had a uterus I guarantee you an abortion would be like this:

Man enters a Fetal Freedom Center, located as an anchor store at the local shopping mall. He walks into a large waiting room, nicely wallpapered with big reclining Barcaloungers. They pick a seat and get comfy. Their favorite sports teams are playing on the big screen tvs. Other shoppers walk by and see the men being served their beverage and appetizer of choice. All their favorite magazines are on hand. If they want to listen to an ipod, there are headphones with a large selection of music waiting.

After they're nice and relaxed, a beautiful, busty nurse comes out and sits next to them. They hold their hand, take their medical information, laugh at their jokes and make them feel comforted, welcome, relaxed and important.

Then they are escorted to a small operating room. They are on soft, feather beds with soft lighting and soothing music. Or, if they choose, they can continue to watch the game. They are given the choice of a local or general anesthesia so they are most comfortable. The doctor asks if they want to know anything about the procedure, about the fetal development, etc. The men's answers determine the type of care they receive. It is customized and designed to make them comfortable, relaxed and there is no judgment for any reason.

Afterwards, they are allowed to stay as long as they wish. If they want to talk to a counselor, one can come in. If they want, someone will drive them home. They will receive a home visit from an Fetal Freedom specialist who will make sure they are recovering both physically and emotionally.

Not one politician ever questions the validity of this service. In fact, all states are mandated to have Fetal Freedom Centers every 100 miles. It is completely covered under all insurance without a co-payment or deductible. If the man does not have insurance, it is covered under the Fetal Freedom Act of 2015 and paid for by the state. No questions asked ever.

Yup. Ever wonder why some insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control, even for medical reasons?

[valsa]

I rarely get in the midst of these fundie abortion "debates." Too much stupid from the fundies.

I guess I'm writing this because I can't say it to anyone IRL.

I like and support abortion. I like that it's legal and support any effort to keep it legal.

I don't consider it a shameful choice. It is no more shameful than having a colonoscopy, an appendectomy, or a mammogram. It's a medical procedure. That's it.

I don't consider it a "last resort" choice that women should properly agonize over.

I don't think a woman should ever regret an abortion.

I don't believe in parental consent laws. If you're twelve and knocked up and show up without a parent, there is a reason your mother isn't there. And that reason is why you need the abortion privately.

I don't believe fetuses are babies. A fetus that can live independently from the mother? A baby. Not viable? Not a baby. If you miscarry at 12 weeks and want a funeral, knock yourself out. But if you want to tell me that the cells in my uterus are a baby, fuck off.

I believe waiting periods and mandatory sonograms and mandatory lectures about fetal development is misogynistic and evil.

I don't care if you have an abortion because of rape, your health, incest, financial difficulties, or because you realize you have a wedding to go to in three months and you don't want to look fat. You know why I don't give a damn? BECAUSE IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

If a man had a uterus I guarantee you an abortion would be like this:

Man enters a Fetal Freedom Center, located as an anchor store at the local shopping mall. He walks into a large waiting room, nicely wallpapered with big reclining Barcaloungers. They pick a seat and get comfy. Their favorite sports teams are playing on the big screen tvs. Other shoppers walk by and see the men being served their beverage and appetizer of choice. All their favorite magazines are on hand. If they want to listen to an ipod, there are headphones with a large selection of music waiting.

After they're nice and relaxed, a beautiful, busty nurse comes out and sits next to them. They hold their hand, take their medical information, laugh at their jokes and make them feel comforted, welcome, relaxed and important.

Then they are escorted to a small operating room. They are on soft, feather beds with soft lighting and soothing music. Or, if they choose, they can continue to watch the game. They are given the choice of a local or general anesthesia so they are most comfortable. The doctor asks if they want to know anything about the procedure, about the fetal development, etc. The men's answers determine the type of care they receive. It is customized and designed to make them comfortable, relaxed and there is no judgment for any reason.

Afterwards, they are allowed to stay as long as they wish. If they want to talk to a counselor, one can come in. If they want, someone will drive them home. They will receive a home visit from an Fetal Freedom specialist who will make sure they are recovering both physically and emotionally.

Not one politician ever questions the validity of this service. In fact, all states are mandated to have Fetal Freedom Centers every 100 miles. It is completely covered under all insurance without a co-payment or deductible. If the man does not have insurance, it is covered under the Fetal Freedom Act of 2015 and paid for by the state. No questions asked ever.

I had to quote the whole thing. Because it is truth. And I want to make sweet, sweet love to your opinion on this matter.

[emmiedahl]

I am already married, but I would happily have a torrid affair or be friends-with-benefits with Gizmola's post!

[2xx1xy1JD]

JFC - I was reading some more about Singer elsewhere, and have some more questions.

I found this article:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

In it, Singer states the following:

"In Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings. We saw in our discussion of abortion that the potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics - not, that is, unless we are also prepared to count the value of rational self-conscious life as a reason against contraception and celibacy. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time."

and

"When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him."

When you referred to agreeing with Singer, did it include agreeing with his "killing babies is fine" argument?

[JesusFightClub]

Ish, 2x. This is obviously my day for Convincing Free Jinger I Am A Bastard, between this and the DP thread. :(

He makes a couple of valid arguments here. It doesn't make sense to see a newborn baby or a foetus as the equivalent of an adult human or a toddler (if it did wherefore the prochoice argument?) Not even our pet fundie here could hold the contradiction steady in her head, she eventually had to admit emotion was involved.

There's another problem then, which is what makes a human human, and what makes a human more valuable than an animal? Singer and I would disagree on the second (because he's AR and I am not). But it doesn't make sense to say "well, baby has popped out of mummy, so has now become a full human". There is fairly obviously a grey area. Think for example of a mum struggling to give birth to a child. She does, and she and baby are both dying. If you had to save one only, you would save mum, right? You wouldn't flip a coin. That shows that on a level, babies are still not-quite for a while.

I am not sure about the healthy infants issue. It is difficult for me, as it was for ITOG, because on one hand I can see the logic of the position, completely. But the problem is taking account of feelings and basic human instinct.

Singer is *definitely* not saying "yes! kill loads of babies! especially the disabled ones!" I don't know anyone who would think that was a good plan. I think what he is trying to do is force what is a very unpalatable debate but sort of needs to be had by taking a logical position and basically challenging both sides to step up to the plate and say why he is wrong.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Where exactly is the "grey area"? I can't think of any major legal system, for example, that does NOT recognize any fully-emerged viable newborn as a human.

The only grey area concerns fetuses, prior to complete emergence from the mother. At that stage, the fetus is still having a physical impact upon the mother, and can affect her health or even her life. There's a clear distinction - fetuses physically affect their mothers, newborns don't.

Is the position that we all have this right to life merely by virtue of the fact that we are born human purely logical, or is it somehow emotional/religious/spiritual? I would say that (a) I don't see anything particularly logical about requiring a certain level of current cognitive function as a requirement for rights, and (2) if seeing all born humans as deserving of life is emotional, religious or spiritual, then maybe that's an argument against cold logic, untempered by human emotion, spirituality or religion. Dostoyevsky certainly makes the latter argument in Crime and Punishment. I don't think that you can have a meaningful discussion about human rights without first recognizing that being human, in and of itself, means that one has some intrinsic value and is deserving of rights.

While it would be nice to think that Singer is just playing devil's advocate, I don't see any indication that this isn't his genuine position. He really doesn't seem to have an issue with the killing of babies if it doesn't cause emotional distress to the parents.

[JesusFightClub]

Where exactly is the "grey area"? I can't think of any major legal system, for example, that does NOT recognize any fully-emerged viable newborn as a human.

The only grey area concerns fetuses, prior to complete emergence from the mother. At that stage, the fetus is still having a physical impact upon the mother, and can affect her health or even her life. There's a clear distinction - fetuses physically affect their mothers, newborns don't.

Is the position that we all have this right to life merely by virtue of the fact that we are born human purely logical, or is it somehow emotional/religious/spiritual? I would say that (a) I don't see anything particularly logical about requiring a certain level of current cognitive function as a requirement for rights, and (2) if seeing all born humans as deserving of life is emotional, religious or spiritual, then maybe that's an argument against cold logic, untempered by human emotion, spirituality or religion. Dostoyevsky certainly makes the latter argument in Crime and Punishment. I don't think that you can have a meaningful discussion about human rights without first recognizing that being human, in and of itself, means that one has some intrinsic value and is deserving of rights.

While it would be nice to think that Singer is just playing devil's advocate, I don't see any indication that this isn't his genuine position. He really doesn't seem to have an issue with the killing of babies if it doesn't cause emotional distress to the parents.

Yes, I don't think he's playing devil's advocate in the sense he doesn't mean what he's saying. He does like to pull tails, (er, as it were) a bit, I think, but he is not lying about his beliefs.

I struggle in a way he doesn't because I do see a human's life as being more valuable than an animal's, and he does not. Humans are capable of more than an animal is. So that's a difference there.

Human rights, however, are just as vague an issue as a born child's immediate rights. We usually accept, with humans, that the end justifies the means (nearly everyone believes this, they just don't like to say it ;)) and that it is possible in certain circumstances for humans to lose or forfeit some of their rights. We also have a concept that some things are better quietly done and not precisely spoken of.

One of the examples I have used before (and now we get into the disability part, which is the most difficult part of the debate - more difficult than the healthy infants argument) is the little girl with a severe genetic disorder who had the mind of a newborn, was on a painkilling drip and needed constant oxygen. For that circumstance, IMO there needed to be a nurse next morning saying "I'm sorry, Baby didn't make it through the night...".

The "humans have a right to live by being born human" argument I think is an emotional one (and I can think of plenty of human societies which didn't believe that way...) But of course there is another path which is dangerous for society as a whole here. Singer steers clear of that obvious pitfall by saying "what is best for baby and parents." Not "what is best for society" or "what is best in cash terms" or "what is best for the taxpayer". He's making a wee bit nuanced argument for dealing with tough circumstances. He's not Herod.

I am aware that arguing this point is one of the several topics which don't go over well, and it is partly because I am not very articulate, for which I apologise. I hope you can forgive the wording if not the viewpoint.