LIIs-INTjs: your views on abortion

[tcaudilllg]

I hypothesize thus, that under the conclusions of this thread "Logic vs Principle" (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=21094) that LIIs have reached consensus that the right of individual women to abort before the 3rd trimester is inherent and involiable. This poll is intended to test that hypothesis.

Although of course anyone has the capacity to vote in this poll, only recognized LIIs on this forum will be considered in the context of the hypothesis.

[consentingadult]

where is the middle ground?

[tcaudilllg]

where is the middle ground?

How could there be such a thing on this issue? The choices are stark.

[consentingadult]

Perhaps not for LIIs, but for a lot of people the issue is not at all a made-out case. I myself am opposed to take away women's right to control their own bodies. On the other hand, we are dealing with life here, human life, and I sometimes think that in these days of sexual education and birth control methods, which are good ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, it's sort of a disgrace that it still exists (not speaking of the proverbial cases, of course).

[tcaudilllg]

Perhaps not for LIIs, but for a lot of people the issue is not at all a made-out case. I myself am opposed to take away women's right to control their own bodies. On the other hand, we are dealing with life here, human life, and I sometimes think that in these days of sexual education and birth control methods, which are good ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, it's sort of a disgrace that it still exists (not speaking of the proverbial cases, of course).

First of all, the use of morning-after pills would be covered by the first choice. I don't think it's a disgrace at all that it exists, just human nature. It's not the fault of the woman, but of the uncaring society in which she lives.

I said the second trimester: the fetus does not develop to a point of self-sufficiency until well into the third. You can't really call anything that is not developed to the point that it can live outside the womb "human".

[tcaudilllg]

Great, we've got two apparent non-LIIs who voted, and Subterranean who of course....

Where are the rest of the LIIs? MysticSonic? Carla? Logos? thehotelambush? Ms. Kensington? Oyyburger?

[consentingadult]

First of all, the use of morning-after pills would be covered by the first choice. I don't think it's a disgrace at all that it exists, just human nature. It's not the fault of the woman, but of the uncaring society in which she lives.

I said the second trimester: the fetus does not develop to a point of self-sufficiency until well into the third. You can't really call anything that is not developed to the point that it can live outside the womb "human".

Elborate for me: how many months is 2nd trimester?

Some people would argue against your argument on the basis that people are increasingly taking these things lightly, and that there are more factors involved than just legal ones, or the argument of a stage of development, because human being are born way to early into their development in comparison to many other mammals. a human infant is totally helpless and not self-sufficient for a very long time. Would that be a reason to dump them if you want to get rid of them?

Also, what to think of the following situation, which is currently the most common reason for teenage pregnancy in the Netherlands: 12 year old girls from 'immigrant' backgrounds being yelled at by their moms: "NO DON'T YOU DARE COME HOME PREGNANT!". Typiclly such a girl doesn't even know what brings about pregnancy. Two years later she does get pregnant, she's ashamed, she hide it from her parents until it's too late to do anything about it. Unspeakable tragedy. Now you can say: "what has that got to do with it?" I say: a lot. It's the kind of b&w thinking that prevents us from thinking about the issue. I say thinking about the issue and all its complexities is the first step towards reducing unwanted pregnancies to the smallest numbers possible. It starts with awareness.

[consentingadult]

Great, we've got two apparent non-LIIs who voted, and Subterranean who of course....

Where are the rest of the LIIs? MysticSonic? Carla? Logos? thehotelambush? Ms. Kensington? Oyyburger?

Just to make sure, I didn't vote.
As insecure as I am about my type, it definitively is not LII

[Not A Communist Shill]

Elborate for me: how many months is 2nd trimester?

4th to 6th months.

[consentingadult]

4th to 6th months.

okay, that's what I thought. Fuck, 6 months is a long way into pregnancy!

[Not A Communist Shill]

okay, that's what I thought. Fuck, 6 months is a long way into pregnancy!

You have to bear in mind that the growth is exponential, though.

[tcaudilllg]

That's two LII votes and four non-LII votes. In leu of a further explanation of his position (beyond what he's already offered by the above ("the growth is exponential")) I'm going to assume that Subterranean voted insincerely.

I'm highly supposing that given the logic of the situation he would assert principle observing its necessity. "Given the choices, the answer is obvious".

[Not A Communist Shill]

Just because I made that point doesn't mean I am in favour of abortion.

[tcaudilllg]

Just because I made that point doesn't mean I am in favour of abortion.

Why wouldn't you be?

Or are you a critic and nothing else? Do you not observe the need to modify principle to reflect the logical situation? If you avoid taking the logical course, then you ain't gonna last long unless you rely on other people like yourself. Why ever would anyone not use logic which is shaped on the principles of the situation? And I mean the valid principles which have been proven by experiment, not the flatly false constructions of the Old Testament.

If you try to embrace an inherent potential of something, and the situation does not permit it, then it behooves you to grasp a different inherent potential. Or you can take the cynical path and say "oh the world is so terrible" and "it's so terrible because of the cold calculus of the situation" and "I will resist engaging in this cold calculus on basis of my principles". Instead of that you should try to realize what you can realize -- that which the situation does afford you -- and then you'll observe the good logical sense which underlied the situation and make obedience to that good logical sense a principle in itself.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Deciding a position on abortion is not like deciding what I am going to eat for breakfast.

[tcaudilllg]

Deciding a position on abortion is not like deciding what I am going to eat for breakfast.

So you aren't decided.

[Not A Communist Shill]

So you aren't decided.

No, I am decided.

[tcaudilllg]

No, I am decided.

Whatever your personal decision, you have no right to interfere with others' use of logic in the conduct of their own bodies.

[tcaudilllg]

I've thought long and hard about the issue, and my conclusion is that I really can't consider bringing up a child in conditions which are unfavorable to them. Adoption wouldn't be a better answer. Live life well, or don't live it at all I say. The parent must intend for their child to live well; if the child is a burden to the parent's goals then I would say not to have it. A life lived meaningfully is important.

These things have a way of manifesting in the larger scheme of things. I suspect that somehow, someway children come to understand that they are unwanted if they are, and that just maybe this trait is sealed in fate by an early death. Similarly, a child wanted too much could end the same way. Energy has a way of dealing those blows, and I think the intentions of the parents do manage to represent themselves in the hereditary outcome of the child.

[tcaudilllg]

Allow me to share what I truly feel about the intentions of the Right:
I suspect that the mother gets a vibe about the political orientation of her child. This may play a role in her intentions either to abort or not to. The Right takes an anti-abortion stance, therefore their children are statistically even across the political spectrum: the Right mother does not discriminate, because the fire of Jehova threatens her otherwise, or it means being in harmony with nature or some such... yeah. Trying to do good for the other side (speaking strictly liberal vs conservative here) typically entails lowering your own guard in such manner that all the energies of conflict seep right to what you're trying to do, and try to stop it. I remember there was a very strong national consensus before 9/11 that Bush would be a failure as president. Our guard was unquestionably lowered on that day. I think there are signals that the energy of your child may not completely be at peace with yours early on, and I think that signs of that conflict play a role in liberal rejection of a developing fetus. (I think other factors play a role, too, but my point is that there is probably a bit higher rejection rate of Right-leaning babies than Left-leaning babies). Energy really does run that deep, right to the irrational....

So we have a situation where the judgment of God is actually working pretty well: the Right is culling their own numbers by giving equal precedence to both liberal kids and non-liberal kids (assuming no miscarriages), while the Left is profiting from a persistant population advantage in nations which allow abortion. We can absolutely argue that the Left is God as the conservatives reckon Him because they only infer the existence of God from the varying degrees of civilizational advancement they observe, coupled with a defensive position that any change which is sustained must have been sactioned by a higher power. (God himself was an erroneous observation of harmonic dualization energy as having distinct human form, courtesy of Abraham's possession of an "animist" personality trait which personalizes everything). But certainly the will of that omnipotent tendency, to the degree it has wanted to differentiate itself further, has been fulfilled by the unwitting dimwits. More power to them.

[tcaudilllg]

Allow me to share what I truly feel about the intentions of the Right:
I suspect that the mother gets a vibe about the political orientation of her child. This may play a role in her intentions either to abort or not to. The Right takes an anti-abortion stance, therefore their children are statistically even across the political spectrum: the Right mother does not discriminate, because the fire of Jehova threatens her otherwise, or it means being in harmony with nature or some such... yeah. Trying to do good for the other side (speaking strictly liberal vs conservative here) typically entails lowering your own guard in such manner that all the energies of conflict seep right to what you're trying to do, and try to stop it. I remember there was a very strong national consensus before 9/11 that Bush would be a failure as president. Our guard was unquestionably lowered on that day. I think there are signals that the energy of your child may not completely be at peace with yours early on, and I think that signs of that conflict play a role in liberal rejection of a developing fetus. (I think other factors play a role, too, but my point is that there is probably a bit higher rejection rate of Right-leaning babies than Left-leaning babies). Energy really does run that deep, right to the irrational....

So we have a situation where the judgment of God is actually working pretty well: the Right is culling their own numbers by giving equal precedence to both liberal kids and non-liberal kids (assuming no miscarriages), while the Left is profiting from a persistant population advantage in nations which allow abortion. We can absolutely argue that the Left is God as the conservatives reckon Him because they only infer the existence of God from the varying degrees of civilizational advancement they observe, coupled with a defensive position that any change which is sustained must have been sactioned by a higher power. (God himself was an erroneous observation of harmonic dualization energy as having, courtesy of Abraham's possession of an "animist" personality trait which personifies everything). But certainly the will of that omnipotent tendency, to the degree it has wanted to differentiate itself further, has been fulfilled by the unwitting dimwits. More power to them.

[Creepy-bg]

Allow me to share what I truly feel about the intentions of the Right:
I suspect that the mother gets a vibe about the political orientation of her child. This may play a role in her intentions either to abort or not to. The Right takes an anti-abortion stance, therefore their children are statistically even across the political spectrum: the Right mother does not discriminate, because the fire of Jehova threatens her otherwise, or it means being in harmony with nature or some such... yeah. Trying to do good for the other side (speaking strictly liberal vs conservative here) typically entails lowering your own guard in such manner that all the energies of conflict seep right to what you're trying to do, and try to stop it. I remember there was a very strong national consensus before 9/11 that Bush would be a failure as president. Our guard was unquestionably lowered on that day. I think there are signals that the energy of your child may not completely be at peace with yours early on, and I think that signs of that conflict play a role in liberal rejection of a developing fetus. (I think other factors play a role, too, but my point is that there is probably a bit higher rejection rate of Right-leaning babies than Left-leaning babies). Energy really does run that deep, right to the irrational....

So we have a situation where the judgment of God is actually working pretty well: the Right is culling their own numbers by giving equal precedence to both liberal kids and non-liberal kids (assuming no miscarriages), while the Left is profiting from a persistant population advantage in nations which allow abortion. We can absolutely argue that the Left is God as the conservatives reckon Him because they only infer the existence of God from the varying degrees of civilizational advancement they observe, coupled with a defensive position that any change which is sustained must have been sactioned by a higher power. (God himself was an erroneous observation of harmonic dualization energy as having, courtesy of Abraham's possession of an "animist" personality trait which personifies everything). But certainly the will of that omnipotent tendency, to the degree it has wanted to differentiate itself further, has been fulfilled by the unwitting dimwits. More power to them.

so liberals can tell when their fetuses are conservative and that's why they abort them? oh tcaud... tcaud... tcaud...

[Lotus]

Allow me to share what I truly feel about the intentions of the Right:
I suspect that the mother gets a vibe about the political orientation of her child. This may play a role in her intentions either to abort or not to. The Right takes an anti-abortion stance, therefore their children are statistically even across the political spectrum: the Right mother does not discriminate, because the fire of Jehova threatens her otherwise, or it means being in harmony with nature or some such... yeah. Trying to do good for the other side (speaking strictly liberal vs conservative here) typically entails lowering your own guard in such manner that all the energies of conflict seep right to what you're trying to do, and try to stop it. I remember there was a very strong national consensus before 9/11 that Bush would be a failure as president. Our guard was unquestionably lowered on that day. I think there are signals that the energy of your child may not completely be at peace with yours early on, and I think that signs of that conflict play a role in liberal rejection of a developing fetus. (I think other factors play a role, too, but my point is that there is probably a bit higher rejection rate of Right-leaning babies than Left-leaning babies). Energy really does run that deep, right to the irrational....

So we have a situation where the judgment of God is actually working pretty well: the Right is culling their own numbers by giving equal precedence to both liberal kids and non-liberal kids (assuming no miscarriages), while the Left is profiting from a persistant population advantage in nations which allow abortion. We can absolutely argue that the Left is God as the conservatives reckon Him because they only infer the existence of God from the varying degrees of civilizational advancement they observe, coupled with a defensive position that any change which is sustained must have been sactioned by a higher power. (God himself was an erroneous observation of harmonic dualization energy as having, courtesy of Abraham's possession of an "animist" personality trait which personifies everything). But certainly the will of that omnipotent tendency, to the degree it has wanted to differentiate itself further, has been fulfilled by the unwitting dimwits. More power to them.

so liberals can tell when their fetuses are conservative and that's why they abort them? oh tcaud... tcaud... tcaud...

ahahahahahahahaha

[Lotus]

okay, that's what I thought. Fuck, 6 months is a long way into pregnancy!

oops. i wish i saw this before i voted.

[cracka]

I suspect that the mother gets a vibe about the political orientation of her child. This may play a role in her intentions either to abort or not to.

Did you just go there? Seriously? I mean... Seriously????!?!?!?
WOW.

[tcaudilllg]

Did you just go there? Seriously? I mean... Seriously????!?!?!?
WOW.

What do you think? I mean my mom has told me about the quite frankly mystical connection between mother and child -- something Jung echoes in his own work -- and it seems to me that the mother would probably get such a vibe. These vibes... I mean you think about it, the mother has a serious accident; and if the baby survives then she starts asking herself, "should I really be having this baby?" It's a legitimate question whether chance happenings seem to present a kind of "sign" to mothers. The unconscious works very hard to keep contrary beliefs apart from each other, this I know from extensive experience.

[diljs]

their own bodies.

Not an LII (well probably not), but I've gotta say, I hear this argument about a woman "choosing what to do with her own body" a lot and it's bs.

It stop beings only her body when her child takes residence inside it! That's like saying you can kill kids who live with you because "it's my right to choose what to do with my own house".

Of course this is why we've made them "fetuses" instead of children...

[BurntOrange]

Why are you guys taking this thread seriously? Just vote the opposite of what tcaud wants to spite him

[tcaudilllg]

I told you idiots this thread is a test of a hypothesis, and ONLY LIIs are supposed to vote.

[cracka]

I told you idiots this thread is a test of a hypothesis, and ONLY LIIs are supposed to vote.

Let this be an example of how your life will be from here on out... Nobody will ever listen to you or take you seriously. Sorry to break it to ya.

[tcaudilllg]

Let this be an example of how your life will be from here on out... Nobody will ever listen to you or take you seriously. Sorry to break it to ya.

Right, labcoat doesn't take me seriously; crazedrat doesn't take me seriously; jxrtes doesn't take me seriously; FDG does not take me seriously; UDP does not take me seriously; my gf doesn't take me seriously.

I think you need to broaden your definition of how "people" think.

[cracka]

Right, labcoat doesn't take me seriously; crazedrat doesn't take me seriously; jxrtes doesn't take me seriously; FDG does not take me seriously; UDP does not take me seriously; my gf doesn't take me seriously.

You know... you're probably right...
But anyway, good job getting a few people to take you seriously... Now if you could only get those people at school to do the same.

[Suomea]

...

[Suomea]

...

[crazedrat]

a live fetus, a dead fetus, a live turkey, a dead turkey ...

[Rubicon]

Not an LII (well probably not), but I've gotta say, I hear this argument about a woman "choosing what to do with her own body" a lot and it's bs.

It stop beings only her body when her child takes residence inside it! That's like saying you can kill kids who live with you because "it's my right to choose what to do with my own house".

Of course this is why we've made them "fetuses" instead of children...

+100

[Phaedrus]

When the typings methods have been considerably improved in the future -- abort all LIIs.

[Creepy-bg]

When the typings methods have been considerably improved in the future -- abort all LIIs.

lolz

[tcaudilllg]

Just to be fair, I don't take anyone's ideas seriously until these can be proven empirically in a lab. But I enjoy playing in the garden, and I'm actually a nice guy, so I will treat you like I treat everyone else.

Fair enough.

So how do you plan to prove them? LIIs can do testing, but ILE needs first to show them how it's done. (-Ne <- +Ne)

[Logos]

When the typings methods have been considerably improved in the future -- abort all LIIs.

Since you do not what a real LII is, this thankfully means that LIIs will continue to thrive in numbers at the cost of other types.