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.

(Some Foetus)   Kansas abortion supporters hold "chili for choice" fundraiser. "Dialing for D&C" and "Pennies for Partial-Birth" in the works   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 404
    More: Silly  
•       •       •

2458 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2006 at 6:20 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



404 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-01-29 08:38:25 PM  
faethe: loose your lunch

Heheh, strike two.
 
2006-01-29 08:40:55 PM  
Rich white men can keep their noses out of my sex organs.
 
2006-01-29 08:41:15 PM  
shrapnil77: The problem is. . .?

the problem is you assign 'negligence' laws to a fetus, where they do not apply. you went off the goofy rails. i pointed and laughed.

was this instant replay good enough, or should we bring out the slo-mo?

Just like how before the Civil War, it was "all people have these rights EXCEPT. . ."

hey, look...a moose! can we just skip to the part where you opt to discuss pretzels and beer in relation to abortion?
 
2006-01-29 08:41:38 PM  
shrapnil77: That people equate the visceral reaction they provoke with some kind of cheap emotional appeal demonstrates the depth of their denial.

What do you think a visceral reaction is? Emotion, not reason.
 
2006-01-29 08:47:22 PM  
heap: hey, look...a moose! can we just skip to the part where you opt to discuss pretzels and beer in relation to abortion?

By the way, we shall now argue that since "All life has rights EXCEPT . . . a moose", then the proper course is to give moose all the same rights as a human.

(Incidentally, I'd be inclined to do that way before I would do the same for a just-fertilized egg.)
 
2006-01-29 08:48:11 PM  
img213.imageshack.us
Chili with choice.
 
2006-01-29 08:48:40 PM  
This, I'm sure, has already been covered in this (tiresome) flamewar, which I am too lazy to read in its entirety at this late hour, but ...

Pro-Choice does not mean "pro-abortion", dumbass!
Pro-choice means that you think that any woman who desires to have an abortion, for whatever reason, has the right to ask for one. It may not be the best choice, but the US government should not be in the business of deciding what is or isn't a prudent choice for a woman to make.
Abortion is not an easy choice to make, as any woman with an IQ above room temperature will tell you, but no one has the right to make that choice "on behalf of all women" other than the individual woman considering the procedure - not the government, not Ralph Reed, not George W. Bush, not James Dobson, not Sparky the Wonder Dog.
There is nothing pleasant about an abortion, just like there is nothing pleasant about a root canal (except maybe the nitrous oxide). And, unlike a root canal, women often form emotional attachments to their fetus and this makes the decision to abort said fetus even more painful. Many women suffer terrible emotional pain after they have had an abortion. As tragic as this may be, this is not a compelling reason to outlaw abortion.

By the way, the reason I have bolded the word "woman" throught this post is to point out that any man who expresses an opinion on abortion is a self-righteous jackass, both pro and anti. Men cannot make that choice and will never have to make that choice.
Abortion is the only true "women's issue". And yet, apart from Phyllis Schlafly and a few other distaff whackjobs, the most vocal anti-abortion shiat-stirrers are men. Hmm ...
 
2006-01-29 08:50:01 PM  
faethe

That's a good analogy, btw. I prefer to think of that tactic as causing you to loose your lunch because of the 'urgency' of their opinion. They have to 'assualt' you with the truth in order to 'force you to sibmit' to the obvious superiority of their cause. I took pictures of one of these trucks that had aborted fetuses and scripture quoted all over these great huge placards you just couldn't avoid - they were like 8 feet tall. Road hazard - I think that truck got banned in Florida. Anyway - I mail the pictures off to friends in Europe and they think its universally hysterical. I mean, its obvious that if you need to blow up abortion clinics and hound potential 'abortion' candidates by following them about, your agenda is something other than their best interest.

Or, one could make the argument that when a group has been utterly disfranchised by the high court, alternative methods are required. "Civil disobedince," anyone?

blahpers

I'm talking a clump of a few cells. 100%.

And I'm not. Look up partial-birth abortions and tell me that's just a "clump of cells."

shrapnil77:Again, you hit paydirt and you don't even realize it. I think people can do what they want- as long as they're willing to accept the consequences. Andrea Yates did what she wanted- and now it's time to pay the piper.

Irrelevant.


How so? She had kids, she murdered them, she pays. It's only through semantic quibbling that these laws aren't enforced for abortions.

Do you believe that a person should be required to play host to a tapeworm if the issue was approved by the voting populace?

Fatuous comparison aside, I do recognize that that would be the law. I would work against it, but I would not deny it's validity as such.

Are you serious? If Congress passed a law stating that blondes weren't people and were therefore denied all Constitutional rights, that's just peachy with you? I take it you are unfamiliar with the phrase "tyranny of the majority".

See my point above. I'm not saying that would be the RIGHT thing to do, and I would oppose it to my utmost. However, it would be the law, and would at least have the authority of being enacted by elected representatives. Abortion doesn't even have that.
And you, I see, are unfamiliar with the phrase "privlidged minority."

And who decides when allowing the child to miscarry is acceptable? If the mother knows the child will be born anencephalic and will die within a few days of birth? How about just brain-dead, unable to survive without constant feeding and care for its entire life? That's the rest of the mother's life you're condemning for a "shiat happens"--with no benefit whatsoever to the child. How about if the child will miscarry unless a procedure with a $100,000 price tag and a 10% success rate is successfully performed--should the mother be required to go for broke? That sort of question does come up.

Logical fallacy: misleading vivdness. By constructing this extreme, vastly atypical case, you attempt to discredit my argument. That being said, though, the voters would make those descisions. I do believe in just compensation, see Kelo v. New London for more on that, but that's neither here nor there. Don't get me wrong- despite having a religion, I am not some absurd fundie who thinks that the bible means what it says except where it says "wine." My primary stance on abortion is my hobby horse against legislation from the bench.
 
2006-01-29 08:52:36 PM  
By the way, the reason I have bolded the word "woman" throught this post is to point out that any man who expresses an opinion on abortion is a self-righteous jackass, both pro and anti. Men cannot make that choice and will never have to make that choice.

Sorry, the government is the government of us all, and not just of men or women. And while I agree that the ultimate decision about a fetus in her body is that of a woman, I disagree with the idea that the father of the fetus should have zero say or influence in the process. I would like to keep the government out of this process as much as possible, but even that is the decision that ultimately all of society has to make.

Extremism at any level, including feminism, is not usually a good thing for the whole of society.
 
2006-01-29 08:54:35 PM  
blahpers: Heheh, strike two.

STOP it your making me nervouse damnit - I many lose my lunch!
 
2006-01-29 08:55:50 PM  
shrapnil77: Or, one could make the argument that when a group has been utterly disfranchised by the high court, alternative methods are required. "Civil disobedince," anyone?


Yeah for sure. I understand the Klan was really pissed off about 'Brown Vs. Board of Education' too.

You're not fooling anyone.
 
2006-01-29 08:56:10 PM  
it's a chile, not a choice!
 
2006-01-29 08:58:47 PM  
shrapnil77: However, it would be the law, and would at least have the authority of being enacted by elected representatives.

The very reason that the Supreme Court exists is to strike down unConstitional acts by the other branches of government. Just because elected representatives vote for something does not make it Constitutional. It seems to me that you are missing the entire point behind the document. It is not written as a majority rules democracy. It is written as a document that restricts government and grants certain rights to human beings. What the people do within those rights as outline by the Constitution is the realm of elected representatives. The only way to deny rights is to amend the Constitution to specifically deny those rights in the Constitution.

I would suggest taking some courses on the subject of the Constitution and its intended functions.

I always find this wikipedia article to be informative when discussing how rights are viewed by the founders in regard to the Constitution:

"The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. The argument was that the Constitution, as written, did not explicitly enumerate or guarantee the rights of the people, and as such needed an addition to ensure such protection. However, many Americans at the time were opposed to the idea of a bill of rights: If such a bill were created, they feared that it would eventually come to be interpreted as a list of the only rights Americans had. In other words, if interpreted narrowly, the existence of such a bill of rights could effectively be used to constrain the liberty of the American people instead of ensuring it. For example, Alexander Hamilton opposed any such bill of rights, writing:

It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John....It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.
(Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84, 575-581, 28 May 1788)

Supporters of a bill of rights argued that such a list of rights should not and would not be interpreted as being exhaustive; In other words, the rights to be enumerated would be some of the most important rights that people had, but many other rights existed as well. People in this school of thought were confident that the judiciary would interpret these rights in an expansive fashion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
 
2006-01-29 08:59:25 PM  
WorldCitizen
I disagree with the idea that the father of the fetus should have zero say or influence in the process.

I have a hard time figuring out how I feel about that one - while I believe that ultimately the choice should be the woman's because she's the one that has to deal with pregnancy and it's after effects, I also don't feel the father's opinion is compeltely negligible.

I've seen the protest signs & bumper stickers "Just say NO to sex with pro-lifers", and I'm honestly not sure why no one on the pro-life side has the similar ones saying "Just say NO to sex with pro-choicers" - if you have a different opinion from your partner on what to do if pregnancy occurs as the result of sex (one thinking abort, the other thinking keep, regardless of which opinion is the male's and which opinion is the female's), you shouldn't be having sex with them.
 
2006-01-29 09:00:18 PM  
Abdul Alhazred: By the way, the reason I have bolded the word "woman" throught this post is to point out that any man who expresses an opinion on abortion is a self-righteous jackass, both pro and anti. Men cannot make that choice and will never have to make that choice.

Coming from someone named "Abdul"?
 
2006-01-29 09:00:44 PM  
Courtesy of Wikipedia:

The Roe effect is a theory of how the court case Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in the United States, affected the political leanings of Americans. The simple version states that, since those who favor legal abortion are much more likely to get one than those who oppose it, and since children often follow their parents' political leanings, support for legal abortions will decline over time, simply because pro-choice parents will have fewer children than they might otherwise have had. Since people frequently associate their views with political parties, those parties that oppose abortion, such as conservative parties, including the Republican Party, could gain power over time. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal named this theory and has discussed it extensively in his Opinionjournal.com column "Best of the Web Today." He cites statistics to support his case, such as evidence that current college-age students (mostly born after abortion's legalization) oppose abortion more now than students in earlier years.

Taranto coined the phrase in a brief entry in Opinionjournal.com on December 9, 2003, but first wrote about the theory in a response to analyses relating sexual mores and voting preferences on January 17, 2003. Tarnato would go on to wrote multiple op-eds and notes on his concept for Opinionjournal.com. In a April 14, 2005 piece, Taranto suggested that the Roe effect would also be a key factor in explaining that the greatest long-term declines in child poverty and single mothers predominantly occurred in Democratic-leaning regions of the United States - due to the availability of abortion to teenage mothers in pro-choice states.


Keep doing your part, guys and gals!
 
2006-01-29 09:01:50 PM  
WorldCitizen,

"...moving toward a rights based society."

I'm fine with that as long as the next generation has the right to the chance to live.

Otherwise, you're messing with "survival of the fittest".

Tigers eat their young, yes, but only humans have the ability to take ourselves out of the gene pool before we even have the chance to test the waters, so that's why I'm against abortion.
 
2006-01-29 09:04:21 PM  
Nobody'sPerfekt: Tigers eat their young, yes, but only humans have the ability to take ourselves out of the gene pool before we even have the chance to test the waters, so that's why I'm against abortion.

Well, if you want to take that line of argument, if the parents (genetic makeup) of the fetus weren't fit enough to provide for their chid, maybe you're just speeding up the process of survival of the fittest by taking out their genetic offspring early in the game.

/not necessarily the opinion of WorldCitizen
//just playing devil's advocate
///please don't eat my babies
 
2006-01-29 09:05:05 PM  
le mew wrote "What if there was a line of food products you could eat to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy?"

Well, I think that if a woman gets pregnant and wants to murder the child, she could always scarf down some cyanide or arsenic. That will solve a whole slew of problems.
 
2006-01-29 09:05:23 PM  
OK, kids, it's been fun, but I now have to go out and interact with my friends in the real world over some coffee.
 
2006-01-29 09:07:57 PM  
I'd just like to point out that while parents do have the responsibility to provide for their children, I know of no case where parents are required to use their own body to do it. Mandatory breastfeeding? Not the last time I checked. Forced live organ donation if Junior needs a transplant and Mom's the only person to be found who is genetically compatable? Nope. So if you want to give fetuses the same rights as children who are already born, go right ahead. Just don't say a damn thing to a woman who chooses not to have a fetus attached to her until you're also ready to harvest parents' kidneys at gunpoint for their kids.
 
2006-01-29 09:08:29 PM  
WorldCitizen
I disagree with the idea that the father of the fetus should have zero say or influence in the process.

I would laugh if your statement weren't so idiotic. In a make-believe perfect world where dads are all just like Ozzie Nelson or Cliff Huxtable, you might have a point. Do you seriously think that a woman who becomes pregnant by a man who then abandons her (or worse, rapes her, admittedly a rare case) should be obligated to seek the "say" or "influence" of the father? Do you seriously think they are entitled to any opinion on the subject at all?
Do you seriously think that a male legislator - and the vast majority of them are male - is entitled to an opinion on the subject? When was the last time a man became pregnant? Hmm ... I would guess NEVER. This isn't an extremist position, it's a realistic one. It's unfortunate that our legislatures are full of men bloviating about abortion, pro and con, but the tiny minority of women in our legislatures are the only ones who really might have to face this choice some day and, consequently, might have a somewhat more informed perspective on the issue. To men, abortion is an intellectual exercise. To women, it can be a matter of life or death.
 
2006-01-29 09:09:12 PM  
ZaxTrax,

"I have to agree with George Carlin on this one when he says "I can like people one-on-one, it's humanity in gerneral that I'm dissapointed with"."

I know what you mean, but do you throw the baby out with the bathwater?
 
2006-01-29 09:09:49 PM  
Nobody'sPerfekt: Tigers eat their young, yes, but only humans have the ability to take ourselves out of the gene pool before we even have the chance to test the waters, so that's why I'm against abortion.


Right. Livestock works like this. You scare a cow hard enough, you make it think its life is in danger, it will, in fact, spontaneously abort. 'Spontaneous abortion' can happen at any stage of pregnancy.

So I guess the cow is a murderer, right?
 
2006-01-29 09:10:22 PM  
shrapnil77:

By constructing this extreme, vastly atypical case, you attempt to discredit my argument.

Vastly atypical? The world isn't perfect. Nowadays, mothers can find out about deformities in their babies months before birth, which raises the difficult question: If the child is certain to die shortly after birth (1-2 days, at most) is it worth it for the mother to carry it to term?

My mother recently told me that her 5-month pregnant co-worker found out that her fetus has no kidneys. Obviously, it would be literally impossible to find a proper donor mere hours after birth. Not only that, but without the kidneys the lungs don't develop. This baby has no chance of surviving outside the womb. Would you force the mother to give birth this baby? My mother said she's decided to abort it, and rightfully so. The next four months would be far too painful to endure. And this is a case where the mother actually wants a baby, and who knows, maybe she's pro-life. How does the court jurisdict such a situation?
 
2006-01-29 09:11:16 PM  
blahpers
Coming from someone named "Abdul"?

It's just a handle. Go back to sleep.
 
2006-01-29 09:11:21 PM  
Pro-choice != "Abortion supporter"

Bullshiat, if you want people to be able to choose to get an abortion then your supporting abortion.


By this logic, you would consider most vegans "supporters of meat". Because even though they never eat or buy any animal products themselves, they don't think their meat-eating friends should be locked up in jail.
 
2006-01-29 09:11:40 PM  
WorldCitizen

Right, and I'm against most of these as a matter of policy. Goes back to that whole rights based society idea of mine. In a rights based society, no one would be able to tell a person if he or she could or could not get ink put into their own skin, or ingest into his or her own body whatever the hell he or she wanted.

I understand and agree- I'm on the fence about drug laws (heard good arguments from both sides) and am for tattoos and piercings. However, campaign against public health laws and see how far you get.

Just because something has been going on since the beginning of time does not mean that I agree with it.

Agreed. However, you were talking about "controlling people's bodies" as if it wasn't already going on. Trees, meet forest.

The Constitution is written as a document to protect rights, not to give the majority (voters) free reign to limit the rights of others according to the most recent passions floating over them. Hence, it protects the rights of the minority against the passions of the masses, as the Founders intended. There are many checks in the US Constitution against voters determining the rights of their fellow voters.

Agreed- one of those rights is not to be deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law." When the Supreme Court decides that it wants to discrimiate, though (be it against black people or fetuses) what should be done? Quiet acceptance? "The Supreme Court said it, therefor it must be true," seems a little silly in the harsh light of day.

Why are you so stuck on some little side point I made that wasn't even the main thrust of my argument?

Why are focused on some minor side point and why are you not dealing with my point of allowing a scientific definition of what level of brain activity indicates the level of consciousness and awareness we would expect from a living, functioning human being and then basing "human life" on that finding?


Show me a scientific definition of "human" or "living" not clearly tailored as a means to an end and we'll talk. However, the debate has always been about LEGAL persons, not ACTUAL persons, because the ladder is not one the right-to-choose side can win.

And I focus on what ideas are relivant, be they side points or big ideas.

heap

considering he sees supreme court decisions as 'law by fiat', i think there's a lot of things about our system of government he doesn't understand. simplifying democracy down to a point of 'no matter what the issue, just vote on it!' kinda ignores the fact that we are a constitutional republic.

Fine. Vote for it by proxy, not have it declared for you by nine men in dresses. What are you getting at?


heap

the problem is you assign 'negligence' laws to a fetus, where they do not apply. you went off the goofy rails. i pointed and laughed.

If we're talking about current law, then obviously agree. If the Hawaii Supreme Court descision of late is any indicator, you can do whatever the fark you want to your kid in utero, just as long as you do it there. I'm talking about what should be, not what is.

Just like how before the Civil War, it was "all people have these rights EXCEPT. . ."

hey, look...a moose! can we just skip to the part where you opt to discuss pretzels and beer in relation to abortion?


Yeah. But first, we need to clear up the part where an appeal to ridicule isn't an actual argument.

Back in the day, the supreme court decreed that one group of people weren't actually people and therefor had no rights. Now they've gone and done it again. Your problem being. . .?

blahpers

What do you think a visceral reaction is? Emotion, not reason.


And that makes it incorrect because. . .? High-minded declarations about "choice" are revealed as pretty weak-tea when the images of the atrocities that choice condones are shown, just like those declarations about "lebensraum" (however you spell it) did sixty years ago. A picture is, after all, worth a thousand words.

By the way, we shall now argue that since "All life has rights EXCEPT . . . a moose", then the proper course is to give moose all the same rights as a human.

(Incidentally, I'd be inclined to do that way before I would do the same for a just-fertilized egg.)

Yawn. Logical fallicy: reductio ad absurdium. When you consider that I said "people" the misquote looks a tad disingenuoius.
 
2006-01-29 09:13:55 PM  
shrapnil77: And I'm not. Look up partial-birth abortions and tell me that's just a "clump of cells."

Well, feel free to redefine your opponent's argument. Again. Isn't debate so much easier when you argue for both sides?

How so? She had kids, she murdered them, she pays. It's only through semantic quibbling that these laws aren't enforced for abortions.

As someone already mentioned, semantics is extremely important to law; remember, that law is written in a language fraught with ambiguous words and phrases. "Human life" happens to be one of them. Deal.

Fatuous comparison aside, I do recognize that that would be the law. I would work against it, but I would not deny it's validity as such.

Nope. It violates the person's natural right to be free from physical injury. Similarly, if Congress passed legislation that allowed people to punch Karl Malone of Boise, Idaho in the face any time they wanted, that, too, would be not only unconstitutional but a violation of natural rights.

And you, I see, are unfamiliar with the phrase "privlidged minority."

Oh yeah, those damn overprivileged women! When will the persecution of men end?

Logical fallacy: misleading vivdness. By constructing this extreme, vastly atypical case, you attempt to discredit my argument.

I'll concede that line, though you could remove the vividness without diminishing the argument (such things aren't all that atypical; covering anencephaly alone, 1 in 10000 births are anencephalic). But it's far aside from the main argument anyway. Wow, that's happening a lot with you!

faethe: I many lose my lunch!

Bahahaha! *poke* *poke*
 
2006-01-29 09:14:21 PM  
Digitalstrange: Bullshiat, if you want people to be able to choose to get an abortion then your supporting abortion.

I guess. But most pro-choicers are also against it in some cases.

There are different degrees of support. You can support it by making it a requirement for all(manatory abortions for population control), by requiring it for a select group of people (keeping defects out of the gene pool), for a different select group (those who simply don't want the kid), or for nobody at all (the anti-abortion stance). I'm not exactly sure what group pro-choice advocates want to have abortions, although I suspect it is simply those who want them and have a medical reason.

I'm fine with you saying I support abortion, because it certain cases I do, but I do not support it for many cases as well. I wouldn't support it for those who's fetus is probably going to be born healthy. The pro-choicers who's stance is that the government should stay entirely out of family life would, I presume, support it for whoever wants one no matter the reason. I think this is an important viewpoint but not one that I would like enacted into law.
 
2006-01-29 09:14:47 PM  
blahpers: Bahahaha! *poke* *poke*


Damnit I'm getting new keyboard.
 
2006-01-29 09:15:56 PM  
big4head: Keep doing your part, guys and gals!

Comes back to the whole "only stupid people are breeding" bit. Quite depressing.
 
2006-01-29 09:16:02 PM  
WorldCitizen,

"Well, if you want to take that line of argument, if the parents (genetic makeup) of the fetus weren't fit enough to provide for their chid, maybe you're just speeding up the process of survival of the fittest by taking out their genetic offspring early in the game.

/not necessarily the opinion of WorldCitizen
//just playing devil's advocate"

I know you're out...enjoying life (good for you)...but I just wanted to say that I think you're probably on to something there. And I think it's important that pro-choice advocates might want to use that as a platform (it's better for society) instead of "because I want to".

The "needs of the many" versus "my needs" makes for a much better argument, especially when you're denying society of potential brainpower to solve its ills.
 
2006-01-29 09:18:53 PM  
Though it is pointless since my opinion will very unlikely change anyone else's... I'm gonna do it anyway:

Abortions *gasp* are, i feel, a moral conundrum. The idea of all abortions being illegal on a nationwide level is scary. Just as scary as it would be for me to have to make the choice myself (whether or not to have an abortion).

However... If abortions were made illegal I think we would see 1) an increase in single mothers living in poverty which would lead to 2) increase in troubled, uncared for children that will turn into worthless or criminal adults that would cause 3) further strain on our society and an added hinderance to our progress as a country.

This all would inevitably lead to the Chinese invading our country and stabbing our citizens (including the unhappily pregnant) with extra long bayonets because we are fat and/or pregnant.

Think about if you were a college student, you get knocked up (condom broke, buy trojan next time, retard). You finish up your semester and give teh birth because your government says you have to. You, being single, are incapable of going to school because you have to work and teet-feed your ungrateful sausage creature. Your resentment rubs off on the bugger and he ends up killing childish and overly sentimental convservatives for a living. BAM! Taxpayers are out like a million bucks to keep this one wanker in jail the rest of his life. That million dollars could have gone to fund said college student's education or feed the reformed homeless that now roam the conservative wonderland of the lost class war or something.

So, in conclusion, though not a pleasant procedure, abortion is beneficial to society as a whole. Those that say we could be killing the next Einstein never stop to think that for every Einstein there's been ten Hitlers who are unemployed welfare-weezils. A foetus isn't really quite like a child with a concept of self, anyway. And since that is what separates us from zee animals, you could say that foeteses are animals and therefore it is not murder.

okay, bye
 
2006-01-29 09:21:21 PM  
shrapnil77: Fine. Vote for it by proxy, not have it declared for you by nine men in dresses. What are you getting at?

that you are repeatedly displaying zero understanding of a constitutional republic. one needs to go no further than the above sentence to find a sterling example.

i'm not appealing to ridicule. i am ridculing you.

you've done nothing but attempt to discuss anything and everything but abortion. you've phrased your arguments in such a fashion that by simply sniping an umbelical cord, you are in support of abortion. you've ran around in circles so goddamned long, i don't think even *you* realize what the shiat your point is.

and for that, i get to laugh at you.
 
2006-01-29 09:22:39 PM  
Kepora_Gebora: No irony slash?

Nope, no irony slash. Abortion is literally an act of premeditated murder. Where I come from, that carries the death penalty.
 
2006-01-29 09:23:12 PM  
Spoofman_v2.0: The only way to get rid of abortions is to alter our society in such a way that people no longer put themselves into situations where abortion becomes an option.

Yup, and I really don't see this happening soon. The current trend in government is to simply declare a law rather than address the underlying issue. Look at our approach to terrorism. The underlying issue is that people hate us because we kill or hurt them. Our solution? Cut these people out of the global economy and go to war with them. Sure, it might prevent some of them from pulling off an attack on us, but it sure doesn't stop the hatred.

Same thing's happening with abortions. The main underlying issue is degraded intimate relationships stemming from a growing lower class. How do we fix this? Outlaw abortion. How should it be fixed? By reducing the number of people in the US who would even consider an abortion. I guess supporting christianity is how this is going to happen.
 
2006-01-29 09:24:39 PM  
WorldCitizen: My body kills millions of human cells every day.

I doubt too many care about any of our individual opinions on this matter, but for what it's worth I'm in total agreement. It's the possesion of high level abstract reasoning that makes a human life more important than any other animal. Until the brain's working better than that of, say, a mouse, I really don't care what happens to it.
 
2006-01-29 09:24:43 PM  
Kendrick
Nope, no irony slash. Abortion is literally an act of premeditated murder. Where I come from, that carries the death penalty.

Doesn't strike me as very pro-life. Should pregnant women who want to abort just commit suicide then? Save time?
 
2006-01-29 09:28:03 PM  
Its pointless to argue about abortion.

Morals are one thing, I think its a horrible fix for a broken society. Facts are another beast altogether. You've got to accept that at one point, its not a human. Some people think that as soon as the sperm enters the egg, its a human. Thats pretty extreme.
 
2006-01-29 09:28:24 PM  
faethe

Yeah for sure. I understand the Klan was really pissed off about 'Brown Vs. Board of Education' too.

You're not fooling anyone.


But note that they still got to march in Skokie. If they couldn't convince anyone with an IQ larger than their hat size, whose problem is that?

Oh, and stop poisioning the well. One of the ugly truths of the universe is that no matter who says something- the Klan or the Pope- doesn't nescessarily make it right or wrong.

WorldCitizen

The very reason that the Supreme Court exists is to strike down unConstitional acts by the other branches of government. Just because elected representatives vote for something does not make it Constitutional. It seems to me that you are missing the entire point behind the document. It is not written as a majority rules democracy. It is written as a document that restricts government and grants certain rights to human beings. What the people do within those rights as outline by the Constitution is the realm of elected representatives. The only way to deny rights is to amend the Constitution to specifically deny those rights in the Constitution.

Funny, I seem to remember reading somewhere that "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Where was that again- oh, yeah, the Constitution. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2, to be preceise.

The supreme court was created to be the highest court of appeal, not to be the be-all and end-all of laws. Justices are human and, like all humans, are capable of error. While these may be rarer, due to their immunity to external pressure, when they occur, that same immunity makes them correspondingly greater, as they are instantly enshrined as unquestionable law.

I always find this wikipedia article to be informative when discussing how rights are viewed by the founders in regard to the Constitution:

"The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. The argument was that the Constitution, as written, did not explicitly enumerate or guarantee the rights of the people, and as such needed an addition to ensure such protection. However, many Americans at the time were opposed to the idea of a bill of rights: If such a bill were created, they feared that it would eventually come to be interpreted as a list of the only rights Americans had. In other words, if interpreted narrowly, the existence of such a bill of rights could effectively be used to constrain the liberty of the American people instead of ensuring it. For example, Alexander Hamilton opposed any such bill of rights, writing:

It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John....It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84, 575-581, 28 May 1788)

Supporters of a bill of rights argued that such a list of rights should not and would not be interpreted as being exhaustive; In other words, the rights to be enumerated would be some of the most important rights that people had, but many other rights existed as well. People in this school of thought were confident that the judiciary would interpret these rights in an expansive fashion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights



Ignoring the source, you seem to have missed the cogent quote about "but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power." Which is prescisely what happened. In order to enshrine abortion, the court needed a rationale- so they invented the "right to privacy," that existed somewhere within the constitutional "penumbra" and stripped human rights from one group under the pretense of preserving them for another.
 
2006-01-29 09:31:31 PM  
A foetus isn't really quite like a child with a concept of self, anyway. And since that is what separates us from zee animals, you could say that foeteses are animals and therefore it is not murder.

This is an interesting argument, but it's not one for abortion. It's an argument for animal rights.

Not only fetuses, but infants and young children are far less "self-aware" than non-human animals. Your idea that something "separates us from animals" is unfounded and usupported mythology. Humans are animals, primates of the species homo sapiens to be exact.

Many animals have been proven to be "self aware", including primates, elephants, and many others.

There is no test (intelligence, language, art, use of tools, etc) that can be devised which seperates all humans from all other animals. Either the test will be too difficult, and many humans (especially infants and mentally retarded) will end up on the side of other animals, or the test will be too easy and many non-human mammals will pass (for example, chimps and gorillas speak sign language and use tools).
 
2006-01-29 09:32:52 PM  
Kendrick
Abortion is literally an act of premeditated murder. Where I come from, that carries the death penalty.

Then please go back to wherever the hell you came from, jackass. On this planet, valueing human life does not mean "abortion is murder but the death penalty is not". So sad that you don't see that ...

I can only hope that your wife/girlfriend/sister chooses to abort your child but carries your best friend's to full term (and makes you pay for it).
 
2006-01-29 09:37:03 PM  
img71.imageshack.us
 
2006-01-29 09:37:38 PM  
Hackneyed but fun fun fun
 
2006-01-29 09:41:21 PM  
Anyone who still truly supports banning abortion needs to go back and read Freakonomics and see how damaging it would be to our country in, oh, 20 years or so.
 
2006-01-29 09:43:21 PM  
shrapnil77: But note that they still got to march in Skokie. If they couldn't convince anyone with an IQ larger than their hat size, whose problem is that?

If all they were doing was marching, Not many would have cared.

Oh, and stop poisioning the well. One of the ugly truths of the universe is that no matter who says something- the Klan or the Pope- doesn't nescessarily make it right or wrong.

Yes. I don't have a problem with people believing in any particular ideology, or exersizing what they preach on themselves. I have huge issues with someone enacting legislation that dictates I must behave within the confines of that ideology 'for my own good'.

mistergecko: Same thing's happening with abortions. The main underlying issue is degraded intimate relationships stemming from a growing lower class. How do we fix this? Outlaw abortion. How should it be fixed? By reducing the number of people in the US who would even consider an abortion. I guess supporting christianity is how this is going to happen.

Its not just the lower classes who have abortions. They are the ones you hear about having them, because they can't afford to shield themselves. Who suffers most because of restricted access to legal abortions? The lower classes, because they can't afford to pay a doctor or midwife to do it for them privately. Does outlawing abortion stop it? No. You can abort a fetus by anyone of a thousand means, and you bet your ass people will continue to do so. The chief difference will be that more poor women, and women who do not have access to doctors willing to help, will suffer because of medical complications, etc.

You want women to stop having abortions? Do what other societies do. Realize that whether a woman gives you a baby or not, is her choice then treat her like she has a mind of her own. You want someone to carry your baby? Be farking nice to them, provide for them, and prove you will be a viable parent.

This goes back to my original assertion that this is not about preserving life, or otherwise, its about enforcing women's status as property. If you get a woman pregnant, and the state refuses to allow her to terminate the pregnancy - its mostly a done deal. You catch her trying to abort by any means, you nark her out, and the state takes over. Your job is done - whatever the fark she thinks about it is irrelevant. All you have to do is get her pregnant, and then she is a slave to that fetus. You catch her smoking, or doing anything to 'damage your property', the state will back you up - they will even lock her up in 'protective custody' for you'. If you think a woman is going to get hosed by that shiat for very long - you are nuts.
 
2006-01-29 09:43:45 PM  
blahpers

Well, feel free to redefine your opponent's argument. Again. Isn't debate so much easier when you argue for both sides?

And you did what to mine? I made no distinction in fetuses and you insist on focusing only on a narrow group- those incapable of surviving ex utero. I point out the opposite extreme and you cry foul.

Debating for both sides may be easy (wouldn't know from experience) but it's probably still harder than seeing only which you wish to see. I'm sure you know that.

As someone already mentioned, semantics is extremely important to law; remember, that law is written in a language fraught with ambiguous words and phrases. "Human life" happens to be one of them. Deal.

The curious thing being, though, that until the Supreme Court said they were ambiguous, they were never really thought of as such. "Human life" is a scientifically proveable value. "Intent" is tricker. Save that one for the real dubious cases.

Nope. It violates the person's natural right to be free from physical injury. Similarly, if Congress passed legislation that allowed people to punch Karl Malone of Boise, Idaho in the face any time they wanted, that, too, would be not only unconstitutional but a violation of natural rights.

"Right to be free from physical injury?" I almost spit out my soda. A few weeks ago, I slammed my hand in a car door. Should I have been arrested for civil rights violations against myself? A little while before that, I got the same hand caught in a trailer hitch. Yes, I'm clumsy- but the guy driving the truck wasn't reading the signals I was giving him. Should he have been arrested for violating my rights?

Of course not. Like I said before, file under "shiat happens."

"if Congress passed legislation that allowed people to punch Karl Malone of Boise, Idaho in the face any time they wanted, that, too, would be not only unconstitutional but a violation of natural rights."

But allowing unborn children to be ripped to shreds at a whim is no problem at all. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

I'll concede that line, though you could remove the vividness without diminishing the argument (such things aren't all that atypical; covering anencephaly alone, 1 in 10000 births are anencephalic). But it's far aside from the main argument anyway. Wow, that's happening a lot with you!

1/10000=0.01%- AKA 4.99% short of being statistically significant. If we're going to regulate to exceptions rather than rules, we're in trouble- "murder shouldn't be illegal- what if it's in self-defense?"
 
2006-01-29 09:45:18 PM  
Abdul Alhazred: I would laugh if your statement weren't so idiotic. In a make-believe perfect world where dads are all just like Ozzie Nelson or Cliff Huxtable, you might have a point. Do you seriously think that a woman who becomes pregnant by a man who then abandons her (or worse, rapes her, admittedly a rare case) should be obligated to seek the "say" or "influence" of the father?

Do you seriously think any of the pro-choice crowd is arguing that?

Do you seriously think they are entitled to any opinion on the subject at all?

Well, yes. Anybody can have an opinion on any damn thing they please. Part of that whole "thinking" thing.

Do you seriously think that a male legislator - and the vast majority of them are male - is entitled to an opinion on the subject?


Yup, so long as that opinion stays out of legislation.

To men, abortion is an intellectual exercise.

Right, because husbands aren't affected at all by their wives' choices and should just shut their yaps.

shrapnil77: Agreed. However, you were talking about "controlling people's bodies" as if it wasn't already going on. Trees, meet forest.

Since we're doing these, logical fallacy: appeal to tradition.

Show me a scientific definition of "human" or "living" not clearly tailored as a means to an end and we'll talk. However, the debate has always been about LEGAL persons, not ACTUAL persons, because the ladder is not one the right-to-choose side can win.

Because "actual persons" is hopelessly ambiguous as a phrase. I don't think a blastocyst, for example, is an actual person (or a person in any sense of the word). It's no different from a parasitic bacterium at that stage.

The problem? There is no non-contrived scientific definition of "life" because "life" isn't really a scientific concept. Hell, we can't even at which point between an amino acid and a prokaryote something can be called a life form, and those are rigidly defined. Appealing to science won't give you an easy "yes-or-no" to this one.

And that makes it incorrect because. . .?

It doesn't; neither does it make it correct. Do you think everything that invokes a visceral reaction is automatically bad? Like we have some sort of built-in morality-vision that signals "Ick!" when it sees something wrong? Since you're so hip on debate techniques, you should know that appeal to emotion is, yup, a logical fallacy.

High-minded declarations about "choice" are revealed as pretty weak-tea when the images of the atrocities that choice condones are shown,

Ugly things happen all the time. Do you eat meat? Do you believe the bombing of Hiroshima was justified? Abortion is ugly; nobody's disputing that. But ugly != wrong.

just like those declarations about "lebensraum" (however you spell it) did sixty years ago. A picture is, after all, worth a thousand words.

Sneaking up on a Godwin, eh?
 
2006-01-29 09:48:17 PM  
Abdul Alhazred
Four words: "Due process of law."

faethe

If all they were doing was marching, Not many would have cared.

Yes. I don't have a problem with people believing in any particular ideology, or exersizing what they preach on themselves. I have huge issues with someone enacting legislation that dictates I must behave within the confines of that ideology 'for my own good'.


You and me both. However, I can't really make a case against laws that forbid me from killing other people- no matter how much I want to kill them- without dire consequences. So bad, so sad.
 
Displayed 50 of 404 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report