Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Roe vs. Wade celebrates 33 years of being the only thing that matters when confirming Supreme Court justices   (cnn.com) divider line 615
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

4123 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2006 at 11:22 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



615 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-01-23 12:30:12 PM  
trueaustinite: However, I have never really liked this argument either.

huh?

I was just saying that if you use the definitions of sentient life forms and the fact that the spinal cord or whatever upper cortex deal that forms around the 30th week....before that, you can't really call it human.

I was defending the position of early term abortions.
 
2006-01-23 12:30:24 PM  
Tjos Weel I wont debate an issue if people want to bring up outliers before the main issue is settled.

Since you're a libertarian, I'm curious to hear how you apply this rule to freedom of speech issues. You have to admit that in any day and age, politically meaningful and worthwhile speech is an outlier, and worthwhile art involving nudity is an outlier in a sea of worthless pornography. I think the significance of outliers must be extremely important to libertarianism. If you consider the typical person, they're usually better off being boxed in by tradition.

You will get married at 22 to a person chosen by your elders, and not consider the alternatives.... You will not do drugs.... You will take the highest-paying position you can get, do an acceptable job at it, and take all your vacation days.... You will have children before you're thirty....

That might make most people happier than they would be if they ran their own lives, but the outliers outweigh that -- they're important enough that we are obligated to guarantee freedom to people who just use it to screw themselves up.
 
2006-01-23 12:30:33 PM  
I"m pro-abortion (during the 1st trimester), but Roe needs to be overturned. It was just wrongly decided. What is at issue is when a fetus becomes a human being, and the constitution definitely does not mention this. Let the people of the states decide.
 
2006-01-23 12:30:36 PM  
Just for argument's sake, let me ask this:

How many of you who are die-hard pro-life currently have an adopted or foster child in your care right now?

I'm guessing not many.

And the sad part is that the pro-lifers are quick to want to make sure that all babies are born, but then don't give a crap about what happens after they're born.

Unwanted babies continue to be unwanted babies after they're born. So unless those championing to save these unwanted babies' lives step up and take responsibility for them, then who are you to decide what a woman can or cannot do with the fetus that is currently in her body?

I would love to see all babies born into this world. But only if they're going to be loved and cared for properly. Otherwise, maybe "death by abortion" is a much kinder fate.
 
2006-01-23 12:30:49 PM  
Sloth_DC

Damn your reasonable reply.
 
2006-01-23 12:31:58 PM  
Am I the only one who is puzzled about the "stupid" tag? Which part of it is stupid? Is the submitter suggesting that Roe vs. Wade is stupid or the way people are still reacting about it?
 
2006-01-23 12:32:00 PM  
Ok, now that I found out that coke is made from aborted fetuses, it's time to Godwin this thread and get it over with.

THE NAZIS COMMITED ABORTION! EVERYONE FOR ABORTION IS A FLAG WAVING, GOOSE STEPPING NAZIS! HILLARY CLINTON IS THE DEVIL! THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN WAS CREATED BY THE SS TO KILL JEWISH BABIES!
 
2006-01-23 12:32:14 PM  
If you voted for President Bush, congratulations! You've participated in abortion!

/about 130 of them!
//including a retarded person!
 
2006-01-23 12:32:34 PM  
2006-01-23 12:25:58 PM bulldg4life

Don't use that argument, because, through all scientific definitions...before 26 weeks, everything is fair game. They aren't considered human.



What about on day 26weeks + 1?

What is the magical thing that occurs at that moment in time? That is my problem with the abortion debate, there is no clear cut begining of life, except for that whole fertilization part.
 
daz
2006-01-23 12:33:10 PM  
I heard a great argument the other day:

If an embryo isn't a human and isn't worth protecting, then why do our Endangered Species laws protect the eggs of endangered birds?

Why are fertilized birds eggs worth protecting, but not human embryos?
 
2006-01-23 12:33:27 PM  
Moops:

A false characterization, I think. Most Republicans that I've met favor the repeal of "blue laws", think that not being able to buy alcohol on a Sunday is silly, wouldn't outlaw birth control, wouldn't criminalize homosexual sex, et cetera.

They would, however, like to increase regulation of, or in many cases, ban, abortion. When you ask them why, they never argue it's because the government should be regulating sex; rather, they say it's because they think the strongest philosophical arguments support viewing a fetus as a person, and that one of the duties of government is to protect a person's right to life.

Now, I don't personally agree with their whole argument. Parts of it are defensible; others less so. But there are two ways to win an argument: (1.) On the merits; (2.) By tricking the audience into not noticing the merits. One example of #2 is when one mischaracterizes the other side's assertions. That happens so much in this debate already, that, really, there's no good reason to add to it.

BTW, why'd you bring up race of all things? Part of the origins of birth control and abortion legalization in the U.S. was the racist desire that "less fit" races would use birth control and abortion more, thereby reducing themselves as a proportion of the population. (Margaret Sanger and all that rot.) So it's usually not a winning move, even rhetorically, to play the "race card" if you're pro-choice.

Regards,

-- Dr.Dipwad
 
2006-01-23 12:33:40 PM  
Sloth_DC: No, it means that the nature or existence of all possible gods are inherently unknowable.

I believe that someday we will be able to statistically show to a high degree of certainty that there is no divine intervention. While this won't answer the question whether there is some sort of deity, it will tell you that we don't need to worry about it because even if she's up there, she ain't looking down. I also believe that if such evidence piles up for millenia, it won't make a bit of difference to religious folk.
 
2006-01-23 12:34:36 PM  
simple solution: if the point of death officially is when brain waves cease, life should officially "begin" when brain waves start.
personally i'm against all abortion but at least if the fetus has no brain waves you can't say you killed a sentient human being.
 
2006-01-23 12:35:12 PM  
TheWizard: What about on day 26weeks + 1?

Again, that's probably the most intrinsic view concerning abortion. When does life begin?

I would argue that an embryo would become a human if given the opportunity to survive, even if at the current time, it is impossible for it to survive outside of the womb. Kinda like someone seriously injured in a coma in the ICU.
 
2006-01-23 12:35:16 PM  
Educational news flash for the intellectually impaired:
fetuses are not babies
mmkay.
 
2006-01-23 12:35:29 PM  
Since you're a libertarian, I'm curious to hear how you apply this rule to freedom of speech issues.

Remember, this rule only applies to me debating things. As far as freedom of speech issues, I havent had the need to debate the general rule. It seems to be agreed upon. Free speech good! Once that is agreed upon, I will debate someone over the weird cases.

That is how free speech is different than abortion. There are very few people opposed to the basic concept of free speech (at least that I run into, in the US). There are many people opposed to the basic concept of legal abortion.
 
2006-01-23 12:36:03 PM  
daz

I heard a great argument the other day:

If an embryo isn't a human and isn't worth protecting, then why do our Endangered Species laws protect the eggs of endangered birds?

Why are fertilized birds eggs worth protecting, but not human embryos?


Human embryos aren't endangered. In fact, there are millions of them produced each year at in vitro banks, hospitals, and in utero.

The bad metaphors need to stop.
 
2006-01-23 12:36:49 PM  
daz

My guess would be that we have no shortage of embryos or stupid humans to make more.



/flame on!
 
2006-01-23 12:37:23 PM  
/Sarcasm on

Well the world is dangerously underpopulated.

Therefore I don't think we as a species can afford to let any potential human lives not develop to fruition.

/Sarcasm off

Get a clue, people. If the government can tell you that you have to incubate a bunch of cells in your body for 9 months, then I guess you won't have a problem with them telling you that your extra kidney is needed for someone else and you're to report to surgery tomorrow morning at 9am for a mandatory transplant.

I for one would have a problem with that.
 
2006-01-23 12:37:25 PM  
trueaustinite: However, I have never really liked this argument either.

huh?

I was just saying that if you use the definitions of sentient life forms and the fact that the spinal cord or whatever upper cortex deal that forms around the 30th week....before that, you can't really call it human.

I was defending the position of early term abortions.


Yeah, clearly. And I do too, I just don't particularly care for that way of doing it. Was that not clear?
 
2006-01-23 12:38:12 PM  
Sorta...kinda...I dunno
 
2006-01-23 12:38:34 PM  
Someone shot me this TF account YESTERDAY, I'll have you know. Heh, I've been a liter for four years.
 
2006-01-23 12:40:11 PM  
we_hates: I believe that someday we will be able to statistically show to a high degree of certainty that there is no divine intervention.

We can do that now - whydoesgodhateamputees.com
 
2006-01-23 12:40:43 PM  
Get a clue, people. If the government can tell you that you have to incubate a bunch of cells in your body for 9 months, then I guess you won't have a problem with them telling you that your extra kidney is needed for someone else and you're to report to surgery tomorrow morning at 9am for a mandatory transplant.

I, too, would have a problem with that
 
2006-01-23 12:42:50 PM  
Overall, there are SO many more worthwhile debates that we could be having than that re: Roe v. Wade.

First, it is such bad law, made up so entirely out of whole cloth.

Second, its repeal would not make abortion illegal in the U.S. Many states already have statutes in place which would make abortion legal in the event Roe is overturned.

Third, its repeal would allow for differentiation between the states. Red states would, presumably, have greater regulation (in keeping with the desires of their populace). Blue states would have less. I imagine that Massacheusetts might allow everything up to and including late third-trimester partial-birth abortions; I imagine that Alabama might outlaw everything except "morning-after" pills. Most states would fall in-between.

One thing that's certain: After an initial burst of recriminations and dire prophecies, the whole thing would calm down to a level significantly better than the current rancor. There's a good argument to be made that Roe short-circuited the democratic process, which would have eventually legalized early-term abortions anyway had the culture and the national discussion been given another decade or so to evolve.

One of the strengths of Federalism is the ability to let one state go first, try something out, and then other states will follow if it works, or steer clear if the result is tragic.

In the case of Roe, it ought to be tried.

-- Dr.Dipwad
 
2006-01-23 12:42:53 PM  
Arnold T Pants

"It was just wrongly decided. What is at issue is when a fetus becomes a human being, and the constitution definitely does not mention this. Let the people of the states decide."

Why let the states decide? Shouldn't the person(s) decide? The whole point of the issue of privacy is so that each person can make a this moral, personal choice with out hindrance of the law. Letting the states majority decide, and let's just say they turn the law over, would take away the right to a personal decision.

I believe this is a personal decision that no one but those involved should be able to make, and am therefore pro choice.
 
2006-01-23 12:42:56 PM  
This issue is great. It seperates the superstitious redneck morons from the civilized people. The only reason any these morons are against abortion is to better their own place in "heaven".
 
2006-01-23 12:43:43 PM  
My wife was on the pill when she got preggo with our second kid. So don't pretend that simply doing what is smart will avoid this issue.

We choose to keep the baby, we're lucky, we could afford it and there was a plan to have a second one anyways.

I do believe in personal responsibility, but I also believe just as strongly that people have the right to do what they can to fix their mistakes, and that is part of being responsible.

Yes, if it were technically feasible to transplat the feotus I'd be all for that, but it is not. The state does not have the right to dicate birth policy to its citizens anymore than the state has the right to tell you how to think.

You choose, and you must live with that choice. I doubt the choice to have an abortion is an easy one, but I won't hate anyone either way.

r
 
2006-01-23 12:43:49 PM  
Something_Witty_Here: Bull.

Pro-abortion = Abortions for everyone!
Pro-choice = Abortions for those who choose.


Just more wordsmithing.

Pro-choice = Abortions for those who choose. Who choose what? Abortions? Then why not call it Pro-Abortion-Choice? Why is the word Abortion always dropped?
 
2006-01-23 12:45:40 PM  
Arnold T Pants:I"m pro-abortion (during the 1st trimester), but Roe needs to be overturned. It was just wrongly decided. What is at issue is when a fetus becomes a human being, and the constitution definitely does not mention this. Let the people of the states decide.

Exactly right. I'm pro-choice as well, but most of this group ignore the fact that abortion just might be murdering babies. If there was an objective way to determine that fetuses have a right to life, the "right to privacy" argument wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Anyone who says otherwise would be delusional. How often do you kill innocents to protect someone's privacy?

Unfortunately, there isn't an objective way to determine a fetuses "rights." This uncertainty is exactly why the people (states) should decide. Overturning Roe doesn't ban abortions - it restores the decisionmaking to it's rightful place.

/Not that anyone cares.
 
2006-01-23 12:46:25 PM  
"One of the strengths of Federalism is the ability to let one state go first, try something out, and then other states will follow if it works, or steer clear if the result is tragic.

In the case of Roe, it ought to be tried.

-- Dr.Dipwad"

By this logic we would still have slavery in the red states. Redneck fundies cannot be trusted on any human rights issues as they are inherently unqualified.
 
2006-01-23 12:46:44 PM  
Questions for pro-lifers:

When is the soul added to a fetus? If it's at the moment of conception, then what happens to the 15-20% of pregnancies that result in miscarriages?

What about identical twins? Does god put two souls in the fertilized egg knowing that it will twin, or does he wait till the twinning happens, then adds the second soul?

If full-on human cloning becomes everyday technology, would you support legislation to ban disposing of blood on bandages, since the cells could in theory be made into whole human beings?
 
2006-01-23 12:48:21 PM  
If a state made abortion against the law, would it automaticly be murder?

There were a million abortions in the united states last year.

We would have to build quite a few jail cells to put all those convicted murderers behind bars.
 
2006-01-23 12:48:32 PM  
I used the "stupid" tag because...well, read the headline and infer. It's stupid that all anyone cares about during said process is "Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade, oh nooooooooooo, Roe v. Wade!" Not implying the decision itself was stupid.

/submitter
 
2006-01-23 12:49:04 PM  
I'd guess that most babies (note the use of the word) that are aborted very late are aborted for a valid reason. I'd guess a major flaw is found and the parents realize that their child will either be horribley retarded or die a horrible death soon after birth.

Some will choose to keep the baby to full term, some won't. Since I've been *blessed* to have two perfect babies I don't know how I'd feel.

We should leave these people alone either way.

r
 
2006-01-23 12:49:49 PM  
Abortions are for pussies.
 
2006-01-23 12:50:00 PM  
Cubicle Jockey: When is the soul added to a fetus? If it's at the moment of conception, then what happens to the 15-20% of pregnancies that result in miscarriages?

What about identical twins? Does god put two souls in the fertilized egg knowing that it will twin, or does he wait till the twinning happens, then adds the second soul?

If full-on human cloning becomes everyday technology, would you support legislation to ban disposing of blood on bandages, since the cells could in theory be made into whole human beings?


These are good questions, so here's another one...if there is no God, and no soul and no afterlife (as you seem to be saying, then why is murder wrong at all, ethically speaking? Sure, it's illegal so we can all sleep at night, but how is it ethically wrong?
 
2006-01-23 12:50:12 PM  
Tjos Weel

As far as freedom of speech issues, I havent had the need to debate the general rule. It seems to be agreed upon. Free speech good! Once that is agreed upon, I will debate someone over the weird cases.

But debating the weird cases is the only way to get to "Free speech good!" in the first place. I mean, gosh, if there were a National Speech Agency that compiled a list of unspeakable thoughts, 99.99% would be things like "Let's kill Grandma!" They would also sneak in a few things here and there to affect the political process. That's how censors work. We complain about censoring Animal Farm, and they come back with, "Well, sure, there are questionable cases. But it's impossible to handle all cases perfectly and still keep out Mao, Hitler, and Bin Laden. There are two thousand violent and degrading porn films produced each year in Europe, and missing out on a few books whose worthwhile essence is available in other publications is a small price to pay for holding back a surging tide of intellectual feces."

We say that allowing violent, degrading, disgusting porn films is justified by the outlier cases of art with beauty or social and moral content, even though there's very little of such art and very few people see it, while hordes of men warp their view of women and reality by fapping to porn.

Umm..... Back in five.
 
2006-01-23 12:50:13 PM  
Bobby Gorilla

Unfortunately, there isn't an objective way to determine a fetuses "rights." This uncertainty is exactly why the people (states) should decide. Overturning Roe doesn't ban abortions - it restores the decisionmaking to it's rightful place.

It's possible that Roe could be overturned to place an outright ban on abortion, and we saw the preview to that legal argument last week in the Thomas/Scalia/Roberts trifecta decision on assisted suicide. If Congress passes a law banning certain procedures and certain medication, they would argue that abortion is a medical procedure that can be legally regulated by Congress and that federal laws would preempt state laws.
 
2006-01-23 12:50:23 PM  
Bobby Gorilla

"Unfortunately, there isn't an objective way to determine a fetuses "rights." This uncertainty is exactly why the people (states) should decide. Overturning Roe doesn't ban abortions - it restores the decisionmaking to it's rightful place."

Decision making's rightful place is with the person, not the states. R v. W allow's a person to make their own decision.
 
2006-01-23 12:50:38 PM  
rob.d,


Your wife was not on the pill when she got pregnant. Deal with it.


/99.9% sure
//Either she made a conscious decision by not taking it, or an uncounscious decision by not taking it.
 
2006-01-23 12:50:52 PM  
mrsirjojo: Pro-choice = Abortions for those who choose. Who choose what? Abortions? Then why not call it Pro-Abortion-Choice? Why is the word Abortion always dropped?

Pro-choice is less wordy. Things that get repeated over and over tend to be shortened for the sake of brevity.
 
2006-01-23 12:51:45 PM  
mrsirjojo
I identify myself as pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Yes, I support abortions, but for me it's about protecting a woman's ability to choose what she wants to do with the fetus whether that means aborting it or carrying it to term. If a pro-choice woman were to keep her child, I would have no problem with that, I wouldn't look down on her for it. I just want women to have all options available to them and are given all the information regarding the options so they can make the best choice for their particular situation.
 
2006-01-23 12:52:35 PM  
eqtworld

If a state made abortion against the law, would it automaticly be murder?

There were a million abortions in the united states last year.

We would have to build quite a few jail cells to put all those convicted murderers behind bars.


Solution: death penalty.
 
2006-01-23 12:54:08 PM  
The abortion issue was created by . . . wait for it . . . POLITICIANS.

Both sides are equally guilty of using this and other issues to piss people off and get them to the polls.

Me, personally, I'm pro-choice.

But consider the following: if you rant and rave about the ignorant redneck christians who are pro-life, then you have fallen for it (and so have they). You've had exactly the reaction the issue was designed to evoke. And you're a mouthbreather, too.
 
2006-01-23 12:54:34 PM  
mrsirjojo

Murder is ethically wrong because we are social creatures and we need to maintain society in order to survive. However, we can kill most things deemed "out of our society" with out question (ie, long ago killing a slave wasnt that big a deal cause slaves weren't part of "white society" or even capital punishment, some would argue these people did such bad things that they aren't a part to society, a threat to society, etc)

Look at a pack of wolves or chimps. They won't normally kill each other as they need to maintain society, but they have no problems killing other packs.
 
2006-01-23 12:55:23 PM  
How many "pro-lifers" are pro death penalty? Keep in mind that less than 100% or those executed are infact guilty.



/Hyporcrite??
 
2006-01-23 12:55:23 PM  
eqtworld

You do realize (actually, apparently you dont) that there is a constitutional protection against ex post facto laws.
 
2006-01-23 12:56:00 PM  
2006-01-23 12:27:07 PM krelborne
Something_Witty_Here: Pro-abortion = Abortions for everyone!
Pro-choice = Abortions for those who choose.

The pro-death-penalty folks are gonna be shocked when they hear this.


This made me chuckle. However!

Abortion - Intentional termination of any pregnancy
Death penalty - Intentional termination of life of a serious criminal.
 
2006-01-23 12:56:13 PM  
grackle
Solution: death penalty

So you propose killing people who killed people to show that killing people is wrong.
'Cause, yeah, that's sound logic.
 
Displayed 50 of 615 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report