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
 
2006-01-29 02:08:25 PM
Interesting idea. What if there was a line of food products you could eat to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy? Just open a can of chili, soup, or whatever and eat it. Problem solved.
 
2006-01-29 02:12:06 PM
le mew: What if there was a line of food products you could eat to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy?

"Morning After" Coffee - No fetus can beat us!
 
2006-01-29 02:13:19 PM
Equal time: "Beer for *hic* 'bortions".
 
2006-01-29 02:15:34 PM
I smell a photoshop thread.
 
2006-01-29 02:16:48 PM
Pro-choice != "Abortion supporter"
 
2006-01-29 02:19:47 PM
"Morning After" Coffee

Some herbs are helpful the morning after and are pretty easy to locate--legally--at any hippie type store. Pennyroyal (LEAVES, not oil!), angelica, mugwort, and wild carrot seed (aka Queen Anne's lace).
 
2006-01-29 02:22:23 PM
OMG I BET TEH FEMONAZIS WAS EATERING CHILLI MADE OUT OF DIED BABYS TOO!!
 
2006-01-29 02:22:49 PM
Spoofman_v2.0: Pro-choice != "Abortion supporter"

Whatever makes you feel better.
 
2006-01-29 02:23:25 PM
Spoofman_v2.0 [TotalFark]

Pro-choice != "Abortion supporter"

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

I support choice myself but I'm not so cowardly as to not be able to look my positions ramifications in the face.
 
2006-01-29 02:23:28 PM
"Falafels for Fetuses" scrapped by one pro-life group for "soundin' kinda fer'in".
 
2006-01-29 02:24:45 PM
Action Replay Nick [TotalFark]

OMG I BET TEH FEMONAZIS WAS EATERING CHILLI MADE OUT OF DIED BABYS TOO!!

But the real question is did they empty the babies off the truck W a pitchfork?
 
2006-01-29 02:32:36 PM
Nabb1: Whatever makes you feel better.

Digitalstrange: I'm not so cowardly as to not be able to look my positions ramifications in the face.

I can't speak for Spoofman, but I do feel that being pro-choice doesn't make me like abortions. I share the same goal as pro-lifers in that I want to decrease the number of abortions to 0, but through less abrasive measures. For instance, a much better contraceptive program, or better sexual education. If I could live in a world where no one wanted an abortion, that'd be fine with me, but as long as they are wanted I think they should be provided legally and as safely as possible.

/feel the same way about drugs
 
2006-01-29 02:33:26 PM
 
2006-01-29 02:34:17 PM
Nabb1 [TotalFark]

Spoofman_v2.0: Pro-choice != "Abortion supporter"

Whatever makes you feel better.


A) There is a gigantic difference between saying someone should have the right to choose a course of action, and saying someone supports a specific course of action.

B) It is ironic that you say that. Equating pro-choice to pro-abortion villainizes it, making its opponents feel better.

Digitalstrange [TotalFark]

Spoofman_v2.0 [TotalFark]

Pro-choice != "Abortion supporter"

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


That isn't entirely correct. By supporting a person's right to choose, you then support all options equally, including the option to not get an abortion. Saying "I think you should be able to smoke if you want" is not the same as saying "I think you should smoke".

Saying "abortion support" implies that pro-choice advocates think abortion is the best (or better) course. That is false and dishonest.

Pro-choice = supporter of all choices.
 
2006-01-29 02:41:04 PM
le mew: Interesting idea. What if there was a line of food products you could eat to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy? Just open a can of chili, soup, or whatever and eat it. Problem solved.

Can't say I've tried that, but I have found that eating food heavy in chopped garlic is a good way to get rid of unwanted company, especially in crowded areas.
 
2006-01-29 02:42:04 PM
Spoofman_v2.0: Equating pro-choice to pro-abortion villainizes it, making its opponents feel better.

I'd say it's the pro-choice people doing the rationalizing there. It's a barbaric practice, akin to human sacrifice, IMHO. I'm not a religious nutcase, either. I don't think a society that allows the destruction of human life, even in early developmental stages, for convenience's sake can claim to be civilized. Same goes for the death penalty. If you are in favor of keeping abortion on demand legal (as opposed to medical necessity and other extenuating circumstances), then why should the term "pro-abortion" be bothersome, unless of course you think that there is something inherently wrong with the practice.
 
2006-01-29 02:48:39 PM
Nabb1 [TotalFark]

why should the term "pro-abortion" be bothersome, unless of course you think that there is something inherently wrong with the practice.

I just said why in my previous post.

A) There is a gigantic difference between saying someone should have the right to choose a course of action, and saying someone supports a specific course of action.

Saying "abortion support[er]" implies that pro-choice advocates think abortion is the best (or better) course. That is false and dishonest.


Making abortion illegal won't stop them. 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. Simply making abortions illegal not only doesn't solve the root of the problem, it wastes resources by attacking the symptom and doing nothing about the cause.
 
2006-01-29 02:53:51 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. Simply making abortions illegal not only doesn't solve the root of the problem, it wastes resources by attacking the symptom and doing nothing about the cause.

I think sex is the cause of 100% of abortions. I don't think we need to get rid of sex. The problem is people not taking responsiblity for their own actions. I'm all in favor of widespread sex education and easy access to contraceptives, although I think it's no secret that sex is designed as a reproductive function. Don't sell me any nonsense about poverty being the cause of abortion, either.
 
2006-01-29 02:54:37 PM
Drugs are illegal. That stopped their use 100%, didn't it?
 
2006-01-29 02:56:00 PM
Kyosuke: Drugs are illegal. That stopped their use 100%, didn't it?

Apples and oranges. Besides, I think our drug policy is way out of control.
 
2006-01-29 02:57:00 PM
You can just forget about the last paragraph of my previous statement. It delves into areas outside my original point and I don't wish to derail.

In further response to the statement:

why should the term "pro-abortion" be bothersome, unless of course you think that there is something inherently wrong with the practice

I ask this question:

If the position of pro-choice is so untenable, then why would its opponents need to oversimplify it (straw man) or otherwise misrepresent it in order to argue against it?

Any logically acceptable debate against pro-choice should not fall back on dishonesty of any kind.
 
2006-01-29 03:05:43 PM
Any logically acceptable debate against pro-choice [any idea] should not fall back on dishonesty of any kind.
 
2006-01-29 03:06:35 PM
Spoofman_v2.0: Any logically acceptable debate against pro-choice should not fall back on dishonesty of any kind.

And engaging in debates about semantics is logical? If the pro-choice advocates argue that abortion is a "right" that must be protected, then are they not in favor of abortion being an option? Why is the term "pro-abortion" so bothersome? Is it because at it's core, abortion as a form of birth control nothing more than a bloody method of avoiding the natural consequences of one's own actions? I don't care what some pro-choice advocate wants to call himself, but taking umbrage of being called "pro-abortion" when you are arguing for the legal recognition and preservation of abortion is a bit thin-skinned.
 
2006-01-29 03:18:32 PM
Nabb1

And engaging in debates about semantics is logical?

Semantics is often what separates a logical argument from mindless rambling. It seems like you want to ignore semantics just so you can say that pro-choice = pro-abortion. If that is what you want to do, then you don't really need to respond to me anymore. If someone wants to contradict me, I'm more than happy to debate a subject with them, but if they just want to be contrary, then I have better things to do with my time.

If the pro-choice advocates argue that abortion is a "right" that must be protected, then are they not in favor of abortion being an option?

No more than they are in favor of adoption and keeping the child as options. If your argument is that pro-abortion is a valid term for pro-choice people because abortion is one of the choices, then I can also call them pro-lifers too, because life is also another option as well.

Why is the term "pro-abortion" so bothersome?

I have said so already, yet you keep asking it. If you took the time to respond to one of these statements, perhaps I could see why you fail to grasp what I'm saying. Since you don't, I can only repeat myself:

The term does not accurately reflect the pro-choice platform and to associate the term with a platform it does not represent is dishonest. I don't care what point you're trying to make if you have to do it dishonestly.

I don't care what some pro-choice advocate wants to call himself, but taking umbrage of being called "pro-abortion" when you are arguing for the legal recognition and preservation of abortion is a bit thin-skinned.

They are also arguing for the legal recognition and preservation of having the child as well. But you seem to ignore this aspect of "pro-choice", which is the problem.

If you are going to argue against an idea and want to be successful in that endevour you cannot just ignore parts of that idea that don't fit in with your argument simply because it is convient.
 
2006-01-29 03:21:06 PM
Just call them "pro-coathanger-uterus-rippers" and call it even. It's about as accurate.
 
2006-01-29 03:25:41 PM
Spoofman_v2.0: The term does not accurately reflect the pro-choice platform and to associate the term with a platform it does not represent is dishonest. I don't care what point you're trying to make if you have to do it dishonestly... They are also arguing for the legal recognition and preservation of having the child as well. But you seem to ignore this aspect of "pro-choice", which is the problem.

I do believe most of the "pro-life" crowd is in favor of adoption. What separates the two sides is the availability of abortion, pure and simple. And I am not arguing over what to call the various proponents, but I use the term "pro-choice" usually. I simply want to know what is wrong with abortion that the term "pro-abortion" is offensive to some on the pro-choice side of the fence. Answer that question.
 
2006-01-29 03:27:35 PM
Or, perhaps it's easier to read Digitalstrange's post above. At least he knows when to call a spade a spade.
 
2006-01-29 03:31:41 PM
I simply want to know what is wrong with abortion that the term "pro-abortion" is offensive to some on the pro-choice side of the fence. Answer that question.

Because it's inaccurate, used in a pejorative fashion and is a calculated attempt to define the discussion improperly?
 
2006-01-29 03:32:16 PM
Nabb1 [TotalFark]

I do believe most of the "pro-life" crowd is in favor of adoption. What separates the two sides is the availability of abortion, pure and simple. And I am not arguing over what to call the various proponents, but I use the term "pro-choice" usually. I simply want to know what is wrong with abortion that the term "pro-abortion" is offensive to some on the pro-choice side of the fence. Answer that question.

I have already answered the question no less than 5 times. The fact of the matter is, there is no pro-abortion camp.

There is an illusion at work here. We have the pro-lifers that say "No one should have an abortion". And then the pro-choices, who are arguing against them. It is natural to assume that two people arguing a point are taking opposite sides, but that would only be true if there were only two sides, which there are not.

The opposite to "No one should have an abortion" is "Everyone should have an abortion". People that believe this could and should accurrately be referred to as pro-abortion. But there doesn't appear to be a large group of people lobbying for this platform. There is a vaccuum, so instead people accuse the pro-choice people of being these pro-abortion people when actually pro-choice would be the neutral third option should an actual pro-abortion party exist.

Pro-abortion does not accurately reflect pro-choice because that is not the only option they support. I can't make this any clearer.
 
2006-01-29 03:33:09 PM
Nabb1 [TotalFark]

Or, perhaps it's easier to read Digitalstrange's post above. At least he knows when to call a spade a spade.

I did and I responded accordingly.
 
2006-01-29 03:33:34 PM
Abogadro:

That's an evasive answer to a straightforward question.
 
2006-01-29 03:36:25 PM
That's an evasive answer to a straightforward question.

How the hell is that evasive? Those are the reasons. It's not that complicated. If you want to call people "pro-abortion rights," I doubt anyone would object. There is a difference in being in favor of a procedure and being in favor of public policy that allows that procedure to happen at the discretion of individuals and their doctors. If you can't understand that you are being disingenuous or willfully obtuse.
 
2006-01-29 03:38:03 PM
Spoofman_v2.0: Pro-abortion does not accurately reflect pro-choice because that is not the only option they support.

Again, the only differences between pro-life and pro-choice camps comes on the abortion issue (excepting, of course, hard-line Catholics who support the Church's position on birth control). The pro-choice argument favors abortion as another option. Again, this is all arguing semantics. If you are uncomfortable with being associated with abortion, that's fine. It's absolutely barbaric, and it should make people uncomfortable. Some people are just okay with allowing the barbarity to continue, among other less barbaric options, of course.
 
2006-01-29 03:40:24 PM
Or, they separate law and public policy from emotional digressions.
 
2006-01-29 03:40:32 PM
Abogadro: If you can't understand that you are being disingenuous or willfully obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse. I've made my position clear. And I understand the difference between being in favor of preserving the right to allow the procedure and advocating the procedure itself. What I want to know, however, is what is it about abortion that would make a person who advocates it as an option not want to be perceived as being in favor of it. No one has addressed that issue yet.
 
2006-01-29 03:43:00 PM
No one has addressed that issue yet.

Yes they have, you just don't want to accept it as a valid basis for doing so which is your perogative but just makes you look silly and makes clear that you aren't really interested in the answer.
 
2006-01-29 03:46:22 PM
Nabb1 [TotalFark]

I've made my position clear. And I understand the difference between being in favor of preserving the right to allow the procedure and advocating the procedure itself.

FINALLY! Since you've said it yourself you really can't feign not understanding it.

being in favor of preserving the right to allow the procedure = Pro-choice

advocating the procedure itself = Pro-abortion.

Since you have said yourself that being in favor of preserving the right to allow the procedure != advocating the procedure itself then you MUST agree that pro-choice also != pro-abortion.

QED
 
2006-01-29 03:49:15 PM
Abagadro: Yes they have, you just don't want to accept it as a valid basis for doing so which is your perogative but just makes you look silly and makes clear that you aren't really interested in the answer.

No, I have gotten a series of non-responsive answers that address the motives of the person using the term "pro-abortion." I want to know whay abortion has a negative connotation to it that one would not want to be perceived as being in favor of it. I can accept all of the other arguments put forward, but that leaves the final question unanswered.
 
2006-01-29 03:51:34 PM
Spoofman_v2.0: What is wrong with abortion? Is there a stigma to it? Come on, you are playing a game. I am asking a straightforward question here.
 
2006-01-29 03:54:54 PM
Spoofman_v2.0: Since you have said yourself that being in favor of preserving the right to allow the procedure != advocating the procedure itself then you MUST agree that pro-choice also != pro-abortion.

No argument here. What's wrong with being "pro-abortion"? What's so offensive about that label.

For example, I think many drugs, such as marijuana, ought to be decriminalized and regulated. But, I think drug abuse is bad, just like alcohol abuse. So, I would say calling me "pro-drugs" is inaccurate, but I am willing to admit that I find drug abuse distasteful. So, along those lines, tell me what it is about abortion that a pro-choice person does not like as to not want to be called "pro-abortion."
 
2006-01-29 04:03:34 PM
Nabb1 [TotalFark]

Spoofman_v2.0: What is wrong with abortion? Is there a stigma to it? Come on, you are playing a game. I am asking a straightforward question here.

A question that has nothing to with the current argument. The point I was making had nothing to do with abortion specifically. It was about a type of logical fallacy known as a straw man. The lables involved could have been about anything with my argument remaining the same. It just so happens that it was about abortion this time. Since you have conceded the point (in your next statement) I will answer the question. Yes there is a stigma to it. Any situation where the abortion of a birth becomes a viable option is a sad one in my eyes. I'm sure a followup question would be if abortion is so sad, then why support it as an option? The answer to this is that making it illegal has been shown only to make the situation even worse.

No argument here.

WTF do you mean "No arguments here?" The only thing I have been saying is pro-choice != pro-abortion and you've been arguing with me since I said it. If you have no argument with that statement, then why did you open your mouth to begin with?

What's wrong with being "pro-abortion"? What's so offensive about that label.

Because pro-abortion, as I have already said, means "Everyone should have abortions". This is of course not a viable course of action for the human race. Additionally the offense of a statement has more to do with the intentions of who is saying it than anything else.
 
2006-01-29 04:05:23 PM
I'm sure a followup question would be if abortion is so sad, then why support it as an option? The answer to this is that making it illegal has been shown only to make the situation even worse.

As an addendum, I also believe that just because I am personally opposed to abortion (not that it matters, being male and all I haven't the rights to decide on such matters)I do not believe, in this case, that everyone else should be made to legally comply with that belief.
 
2006-01-29 04:07:21 PM
Come on, you are playing a game.

Furthermore, I'm not the one playing the game. I have stayed on point the entire time. A point with you supposedly had no problems with despite you contradicting me at every turn. You, however, had tried to make this about something it is not, have avoided my points and ignore the answers to your own questions. It is you that has been playing the game.
 
2006-01-29 04:17:44 PM
Spoofman_v2.0: If you have no argument with that statement, then why did you open your mouth to begin with?

Because I was being cheeky.

And yes, I conceded the point for the sake of argument, though I don't think the term "pro-abortion" is meant to be as wide-ranging as you framed it (i.e. "The opposite to 'No one should have an abortion' is 'Everyone should have an abortion'. People that believe this could and should accurrately be referred to as pro-abortion." I would consider the term to mean someone who believes that abortion should be a legally-protected right.) My argument was trying to mine an explanation for a negative association with the act of abortion that would make the term "pro-abortion" offensive. If someone is going to support a legal right to something that they find personally offensive, I can respect that, but that person had better be able to articulate what it is about the act that is offensive, and why one would continue to support it just the same. It took you over an hour to tell me that you found the practice with which you personally disagree. Why is it you disagree with it?
 
2006-01-29 04:35:19 PM
Nabb1

It took you over an hour to tell me that you found the practice with which you personally disagree. Why is it you disagree with it?

No, it didn't take me over an hour for me to tell you that I disagree with it personally. It took you over an hour to say "No argument here" to what was essentially my original statement.

Normally I have no problem stating why my opinions, but since you decided to be cheeky and waste an hour of my time on something you have no argument with, I'm done here.
 
2006-01-29 04:41:54 PM
Spoofman_v2.0:

No, when I said "no argument here" it was to the particular statement I quoted. You won't tell me why you don't like abortion, and if you feel like I've "wasted" an hour of your time, I'm sorry, but I sort of consider time wasting to be Fark's rasion d'etre, especially on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
 
2006-01-29 04:57:27 PM
There is no better way to protest government action than to eat chili.
 
2006-01-29 05:22:32 PM
I want to know whay abortion has a negative connotation to it that one would not want to be perceived as being in favor of it.

Well that is a different question that the one you originally asked but it is still the same answer. For me, it isn't that it has a negative connotation, it is that it is used to generate a negative connotation (which I alluded to in my Weeners) to suggest that pro-choice people just loooooove to see abortions. It's pejorative (rather than descriptive) and simplistic. You'd object just as much if I characterized you as "pro-back-alley abortions" or "pro-forced procreation" for your particular stance and doing so would be just as stupid. Language is important so why not be accurate? It's an inaccurate term. You want to use it as some silly bludgeon to try to get people to admit they are uncomfortable about abortions which doesn't change anything about the debate in public policy terms.

Personally I don't care if someone has an abortion or not, but I do care if it is legal. So you can call me "ambivalent-abortion" if you must, but it still doesn't make me "pro-abortion" no matter how much you want it to in order to justify your own opinion.

This has gone green so will rapidly go to hell, so I'm outta here, but wanted to provide an answer to your question.
 
2006-01-29 05:23:07 PM
alluded to in my Weeners

Doh!
 
2006-01-29 05:43:33 PM
Pro-life, pro-choice, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, anti-choice; however you want to word it in the way to sound more right than your opposition. The terms are all bullshiat. It's for or against legal abortion rights that's the issue. By which there are many shades. Few are absolutely for or against.
 
2006-01-29 06:26:29 PM
Abortions should be mandatory.
 
2006-01-29 06:27:13 PM
How about a "Get 'em out of the oven" bake sale?

I think we should make abortion into a league sport, myself.
 
2006-01-29 06:27:31 PM
As long as we're "being more accurate" about our terminology for the two sides in the abortion debate, why don't we replace "pro-life" with "pro-back-alley abortion"?
 
2006-01-29 06:28:51 PM
www.rob-clarkson.com



Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others
 
2006-01-29 06:29:11 PM
Nabb1
I don't think a society that allows the destruction of human life, even in early developmental stages, for convenience's sake can claim to be civilized.

I don't think it can be considered "life" until pretty late into development, it's a non-conscious lump of cells for most of the time. Otherwise, any cancer would fit the definition of life.
 
2006-01-29 06:29:14 PM
Oops

/didn't realize that Abogadro said the exact same thing
 
2006-01-29 06:29:25 PM
Hey, it beats the worst of the other side's favorite tactics, "Shooting People And/Or Blowing Them Up."
 
2006-01-29 06:30:55 PM
Grande Tacos for Gonerria !
 
2006-01-29 06:31:00 PM
Nabb1: taking umbrage of being called "pro-abortion" when you are arguing for the legal recognition and preservation of abortion is a bit thin-skinned.

That's dumb. There aren't people running around going YAY ABORTION.

Reproductive decisions are personal. Nothing else is acceptable. Mind your own buisness.
 
2006-01-29 06:31:36 PM
Meatballs for Murder?
 
2006-01-29 06:32:10 PM
Please don't equate abortion with the death penalty, unless you're referring to state-sponsored and required abortion.

Abortion is a right as much as a person has a right to defend his home with the threat of death to a perpetrator.

People kill people all the time. It's part of nature. It's part of our nature. While one may argue that we shouldn't kill (ten commandments and such), the fact is that humans do kill other humans, whether it's before birth, during birth, immediately after birth, all the way up the chronological spectrum to assisted suicides.

We may have laws to limit such behaviors, or to prevent some outright, but it's still going to happen.

However, the death penalty is an action by a government, not a person. No civilized nation should have a government that accepts the death penalty. The main reason is because a government is a mutual agreement among the governed to accept a mutually agreed-upon set of rules. The death penalty is a rule that can be abused and cannot be rectified.

Humans killing humans: unfortunate, but happens.

Government killing humans: unacceptable.
 
2006-01-29 06:33:14 PM
Yes- but what type of 'meat' was in the chili?
 
2006-01-29 06:33:31 PM
Nabb1

I don't think a society that allows the destruction of human life, even in early developmental stages, for convenience's sake can claim to be civilized.

I want to be there when homo sapiens sapiens finally runs out of resources and/or eats itself alive as the inexorable result of the insane preoccupation with that kind of naive, somnolent philosophy.
 
2006-01-29 06:36:00 PM
img204.imageshack.us
 
2006-01-29 06:38:19 PM
Nabb1
I don't think a society that allows the destruction of human life, even in early developmental stages, for convenience's sake can claim to be civilized.

Well, its damn obvious we havent reached civilized behavior. For farks sake, a large portion (id wager at least half) of the population of this place wants to kill each other because of difference in the color of the skin. Or for dellusional beliefs.

Besides, take the route of saving human life, and become a hyprocrit the moment you support a war, for convince of saftey or something.
 
2006-01-29 06:39:51 PM
I find abortion to be an abominable practice, but much less so than the practice of denying the choice in the first place. It's really quite simple: you can personally oppose abortion, while supporting choice. That's the difference between being "pro-abortion," and "pro-choice."
 
2006-01-29 06:40:11 PM
Personally, I think abortion should be mandatory.

And retroactive, in some cases.
 
2006-01-29 06:41:44 PM
Angel of Death-
"Hey, it beats the worst of the other side's favorite tactics, "Shooting People And/Or Blowing Them Up.""

Valid point, murdering an abortion doctor is murder anyway you slice it. However the worst of the "other-side's tactics" in my opinion is not holding a chili-drive fundraiser, its the actual act of taking a life, born or unborn.
/not trying to convince you to change your mind (which is an endless circle jerk for this issue) but rather repeating one solid fact-- Abortion ends a life.
 
2006-01-29 06:43:41 PM
n4p0r30n: It's really quite simple: you can personally oppose abortion, while supporting choice.

This should have been obvious to anyone with a fifth-grade reading level and basic understanding of logic, but read this thread and you'll realize that...

...it's not intelligence, it's FARK.COM!
 
2006-01-29 06:44:34 PM
headlighted-deer: one solid fact-- Abortion ends a life.

This is not a solid fact at all; the two sides disagree completely on whether an aborted fetus is a life.
 
2006-01-29 06:45:25 PM
If an anti-abortion loony decides to blow up an abortion clinic what have they accomplished? Free abortions of course!

/One please.
//No, just one way.
 
2006-01-29 06:47:12 PM
I have never once in my entire life met (or even heard about) somebody who is "pro-abortion." Not one. Ever.
 
2006-01-29 06:47:28 PM
I was aborted once.

/I got better.
 
2006-01-29 06:47:32 PM
Pro-choice != "Abortion supporter"

If thats the case, then maybe I'll become Pro-choice about rape. I'm not saying that I want people to go rape anyone, in fact, I think rape is bad and ideally we would have 0 rapes. But if you get in a situation where you think raping someone is the best option, then I think you should have that choice.

Sounds pretty absurd, doesn't it? Murder, regardless of the age, gender, nationality, color, creed, etc of the victim is still murder.
 
2006-01-29 06:48:06 PM
ets2104: or how about "pro-children-being-born-into-bad-situations", or "pro-child-neglect". Because by opposing safe and legal abortions, you are also indirectly causing some children to be born into such situations. Like it or not, thats the cold hard truth.

Abortion has a stigma because of some peoples beliefs that a fetus, from the time of conception to the time of birth is a human being. I, for one, do not believe such a thing. I believe that a fetus becomes a human some time while inside the woman, BUT before such a time, it's essentially another part of a woman's body and her's to do with as she sees fit. Taking a pill that terminates a pregnancy in its first week is not different to me than burning off a wart. Sorry if you think that makes me callous but thats what I believe. And not amount of pictures of a fetus are going to make me believe otherwise.
 
2006-01-29 06:48:15 PM
headlighted-deer: Valid point, murdering an abortion doctor is murder anyway you slice it. However the worst of the "other-side's tactics" in my opinion is not holding a chili-drive fundraiser, its the actual act of taking a life, born or unborn.
/not trying to convince you to change your mind (which is an endless circle jerk for this issue) but rather repeating one solid fact-- Abortion ends a life.



Agreed. I don't see how these people can take these babies lives as pointless.

No one can EVER defend abortion, with the possible excpetion that the mothers life is in danger.

In the case of rape, I like to use this scenario: Say your walking down the street and somebody mugs you. Takes your wallet, with 500 bucks in it and three credit cards, etc. Damn. You got mugged. You made a mistake walking down a dangerous street in the middle of the night. Does that make it right pull out a gun and shoot a bystander who had nothing to do with it? No. and In that sense its not ok to kill a baby because something unfortunate and terrible happened to you.

/endrant.
 
2006-01-29 06:49:56 PM
Each cell is alive so each abortion kills millions! Plus, the aborted fetus could have grown up to father many children, who could have then gone on to have potentially many children, and so on!!@! Given the theoretical life-span of the universe the number of of potential descendents who will never exist is uncountable. Each abortion is equivalent to mass genocide on a scale never before seen in this dimension!11!@!@!@#$!!!
 
2006-01-29 06:50:04 PM
You anti-choice people are hilarious.
 
2006-01-29 06:50:35 PM
chili for choice

okladki-divx.neostrada.pl

/And the dessert was *real* girl scout cookies?
 
2006-01-29 06:50:53 PM
FlashHarry

I am pro-abortion. I do not temper it with any farking semantic nonsense to appease pissant, fundamentalist dipshiats like you. If a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to get one. To suggest that it is acceptable that you be able to foist your farking retarded philosophies on a woman so that she perforce must bear a child for 9 months, at the very least, is so gallingly stupid as to defy comprehension.

Why should any woman, regardless of her reasons for doing so, have to first justify herself and demonstrate that she is a virtuous woman of teh jesus before you will, ever-so-graciously, allow that in this instance, an exception will be made to your morality, which would otherwise overbear her will?
 
2006-01-29 06:51:02 PM
Nabb1: I think sex is the cause of 100% of abortions. I don't think we need to get rid of sex. The problem is people not taking responsiblity for their own actions. I'm all in favor of widespread sex education and easy access to contraceptives, although I think it's no secret that sex is designed as a reproductive function. Don't sell me any nonsense about poverty being the cause of abortion, either.


What about the child then? Should they be held accountable for their parents actions if their parents can't afford to give them food, shelter, or clothes?

It's all the same. The right to life: But once born, we don't give a shiat.
 
2006-01-29 06:51:11 PM
Sicarim: No one can EVER defend abortion, with the possible excpetion that the mothers life is in danger.

Again I post...

Reproductive decisions are personal. Nothing else is acceptable. Mind your own buisness.
 
2006-01-29 06:51:23 PM
it's not a choice, it's a child
 
2006-01-29 06:51:35 PM
Ok, let's try to find a middle ground... Can we just say that that wakefield congregational church or whatever the hell it is--that group that travels places to protest loudly and graphically in front of places like elementary schools that don't allow prayer in the classroom--sucks?

\I know, it's fark, the middle ground is between the index and ring fingers....but they do suck
 
2006-01-29 06:52:38 PM
Sicarim: That, is by far, one of the worst analogies I've ever seen.
 
2006-01-29 06:52:53 PM
Why the silly tag? Is this any sillier than pies and cookies for Jesus?
 
2006-01-29 06:53:32 PM
There are too damned many people on this planet. I can only think of a few ways that would work to keep us from totally overrunning the planet (ever worse than we do now):

1. No sex without a state permit, and then only for the sake of having children. Those caught getting it on without the permit will be subject to publically viewed castration.

2. Lots more murder.

3. Soylent green.

4. Legalized abortion without the fear of being attacked by protestors and/or religious fanatics.
 
2006-01-29 06:54:16 PM
HAHAHAHAHA

just what america needs. more unwanted children.
 
2006-01-29 06:55:20 PM
We should just outlaw abortion and create vast, underfunded ophanages for unwanted children. That should clear society's problems right up and be a great pro-life option. I'm sure all of the anti-choice people would be more than happy to fund these out of their own pockets.
 
2006-01-29 06:55:27 PM
We're all animals on this planet. If the god that christians worship is truly real...then death should not be something feared.
 
2006-01-29 06:55:53 PM
matt2891: Sicarim: That, is by far, one of the worst analogies I've ever seen.


Thank you, matt. I liked it. I don't know, i'll have to write a new one. Its just so many farkers pull the rape card out in abortion discussion.

Still not changing my view though. I guess if you think killing kids is right, then thats your bone to pick. But I don't want to have anything to do with it.
 
2006-01-29 06:56:58 PM
davevodolazkiy,

"Abortions should be mandatory."

Aren't you glad your Mom didn't share your opinion? But, wait, she couldn't have shared your opinion because, if she had, you wouldn't have been around to have it in the first place and so she couldn't have shared it...but, then, she couldn't have known that you would have had that opinion so she wouldn't have considered abortion in the first place...unless...

/head asplodes.
 
2006-01-29 06:57:39 PM
Is the chili made from aborted fetuses?
Seriously, though I found it interesting reading an article (I think in the Montreal Gazette or Ottawa Citizen) about the controversy surrounding Karakul (persian lambskin that can be made either from fetal or newborn lambs) and I found it ironic how people were, on the whole, so upset and outraged about the skin coming from unborn sheep. I'm more or less neutral on the abortion issue (since i sure as hell will never need one) but I found it funny that no one jumped in to suggest that the unborn sheep fetus isn't really a life so it's better than using the skin from the newborns. Incidentally, the mother sheep isn't hurt, so the fetus is more or less aborted. I somehow can't see those PETA hippies being more anti-abortion than the population as a whole. I guess it just goes to show that the whole issue has been overly politicized and emotionalized, if an unborn human's life is irrelevant compared to an infant, but taking an unborn lamb's life is entirely worse than using newborn lambs.

/just an observation
 
2006-01-29 06:57:42 PM
I agree that abortion is barbaric, but what is the alternative? What are we going to do with 2 MILLION extra children a year that isn't as barbaric? Just make the parents "deal with it?" What about the child?

Adoption you say? Hmm. The abortion rate for black women is almost TRIPLE that for whites. Let's be conservative and say that half of those 2 million are black. That's 1 MILLION unwanted black children per year. How many white folks are going to want to adopt them?

Here's my solution. We have a national vote. If you vote that you would like abortion to be made illegal, your name is put on a list. When the babies start piling up, guess who they get distributed to at random? (After a background check of course.) Near as I can tell this is the only solutions. Can some of you other Pro-Lifers tell me yours?
 
2006-01-29 06:57:48 PM
doodler: it's not a choice, it's a child

Usually at the time it's a group of cells that aren't conscience, but whatever.

My body kills millions of human cells every day.

And what about that evil god who aborts most fetuses that are formed? BAN GOD as he's a baby killer!
 
2006-01-29 06:58:09 PM
www.big12warzone.com
 
2006-01-29 06:58:22 PM
So here's a quick question for the pro-life crowd in here:

If an unborn fetus is alive, where do you draw the line?

When it has a 100% chance of surviving to term? Not all pregnancies end in a birth.

When it has a 50% chance of surviving to term? Sometimes a miscarraige can happen before the mother is even aware she's pregnant--at or around the 'handfull of cells' point.

When it has a million in one chance of surviving to term? What about one in a billion?

If abortion is murder, isn't masturbation genocide?

/channeling Sagan
 
2006-01-29 06:58:53 PM
Nabb1, here is a response to your question. You want to know why people who call themselves pro-choice and support another persons right to get an abortion if they so choose can be unwilling to consider themself pro-abortion. Here is my reasoning. Personally, I don't like abortion, I would never be able to go along with it myself. If my girlfriend ever got pregnant I wouldn't want her to get an abortion at all. But here is where the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion comes in. While I don't feel right about abortion, that doesn't mean that I should feel that my values or morals should apply to everybody else. Who am I to tell another person what to do with their body?

The point you are misunderstanding... or at least not seeing... is that pro-choicers aren't arguing for the upholding of their own views on the issue like the pro-lifers are. They are arguing for the views of everybody... those who want an abortion and those who don't... becuase they don't feel that it is their job to decide for everybody else when exactly they should consider a foetus to be a human being and when it is still just a clump of cells.
 
2006-01-29 06:59:09 PM
WorldCitizen: We should just outlaw abortion and create vast, underfunded ophanages for unwanted children. That should clear society's problems right up and be a great pro-life option. I'm sure all of the anti-choice people would be more than happy to fund these out of their own pockets.

Shhhhh. The Pro-family people don't like to talk about that possibility. Anyway, there wouldn't be any need for abortions if people would just learn to ignore one of their three strongest and most basic drives.
 
2006-01-29 06:59:40 PM
Nobody says you have to reproduce. But once you do, you owe it to your child to allow him to be born. Women who fight for the right to choose abortion are not fighting for reproductive freedom. They are fighting for the right to kill their children, pure and simple. Any fukk with $5 can buy birth control pills. Nobody is messing with your right to contraception. I know that your baby is alive, and if you want to kill it, I have a problem with that. Period.
 
2006-01-29 06:59:46 PM
Two words: "Tacit approval." Offering the option to do something is functionally condoning it- quibbles about "well, I don't think it's right" are farts in a stiff wind, pardon my French. While pro-choicers may have objections to abortion, their refusal to act on them renders them effectively nonexistant.

Angel of Death

This is not a solid fact at all; the two sides disagree completely on whether an aborted fetus is a life.

There was a Calvin and Hobbes strip that summed up these lines of thinking perfectly (not to mention the SCOTUS's reasoning in Roe): "When in doubt, deny all terms and definitions." I have yet to see a definition of life not clearly sculpted with the end of excluding fetuses in mind that defines them as "not alive." In fact, even the ones with that end in mind wind up catching large other swaths of the population who might complain if they were termed "not alive" and capable of being exterminated at will.
 
2006-01-29 07:00:00 PM
toraque: When it has a 100% chance of surviving to term? Not all pregnancies end in a birth.

That's an understatement. Less than 50% of fertilized eggs ever become a living baby.
 
2006-01-29 07:00:56 PM
Er, group of cells that aren't conscious. Of course, because of that they have no conscience, either.
 
2006-01-29 07:01:15 PM
Sicarim: n the case of rape, I like to use this scenario: Say your walking down the street and somebody mugs you. Takes your wallet, with 500 bucks in it and three credit cards, etc. Damn. You got mugged. You made a mistake walking down a dangerous street in the middle of the night. Does that make it right pull out a gun and shoot a bystander who had nothing to do with it? No. and In that sense its not ok to kill a baby because something unfortunate and terrible happened to you.


If that bystander was going to be inside my stomach for the next nine months reminding me of the mugging (Which is not even farking close to rape.) Finally, ending in a horribly painful "delivery", which again will certainly remind me of the event. In the case, yes, I would shoot the bystander.

That was stupid, stupid example.
 
2006-01-29 07:01:19 PM
are you human and alive just before birth? of course....premmie babies are total proof of that. heck, c-section births are technically proof of that.

are you human and alive before the sperm bores into the ova and starts cell division? unless you are really reading alot into the most conservative of religious texts the answer would be "no"

that said....when, in between those two events does a fetus become a "human being"? science has no definitive answer to that question.

so why err on the side of potentially committing reckless homocide (the killing of a person while undertaking an act that is reasonable to assume *might* kill another human if they got in the way). honestly, religion aside...if the tables were turned and it was not the law of the land....how would you show, with scientific data, that abortion does not kill a human being?

/doesn't picket clinics
/doesn't judge or harass anyone who has had an abortion
/wants people to think and ponder
 
2006-01-29 07:01:42 PM
it just tears at my soul that so many babies go unaborted every day.
 
2006-01-29 07:02:06 PM
Agnosto: Here's my solution. We have a national vote. If you vote that you would like abortion to be made illegal, your name is put on a list. When the babies start piling up, guess who they get distributed to at random? (After a background check of course.) Near as I can tell this is the only solutions. Can some of you other Pro-Lifers tell me yours?


I think that's excellent. They need to step up to the plate. If you take away choice, then you must deal with the results. You and you personally.
 
2006-01-29 07:02:17 PM
Civilized. Hmmm. Interesting. We aren't and IMHO never will be.

A question, are you advocating that a mother carry a fetus to term that has no head? Would that be civilized?

Where is the line between viable fetus and a procedure to remove something that would be called a monster? Is it still called an abortion when you are ending something that cannot live without drastic intervention?


Relevant to this older dad to be.
 
2006-01-29 07:02:34 PM
Spoofman_v2.0: Making abortion illegal won't stop them. 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. Simply making abortions illegal not only doesn't solve the root of the problem, it wastes resources by attacking the symptom and doing nothing about the cause.


The only thing that's going to change it is when women's bodies and their processes are no longer considered the property of an individual, or the state.
 
2006-01-29 07:03:13 PM
okami36

*wrings hands* but they all infringe our innate and inalienable human rights, which preserve the dignity of mankind and acknowledge his unique place in the universe! why don't we just maintain the status quo until such time as the species collectively demonstrates that it is no more capable of self-preservation (at any level) than mere artic lemmings.

WorldCitizen

They'll have their work cut out for them because they will need to identify (a difficult task when one has never opened a book, excepting the holy book, in one's life, much less had an education in biology) all the species which engage in abortion or infanticide, and then extinct each one for bespoiling the beauty of creation.
 
2006-01-29 07:03:39 PM
shrapnil77: While pro-choicers may have objections to abortion, their refusal to act on them renders them effectively nonexistant.

Now, I'm all for abortion, but I can absolutely see how someone can be pro-choice and anti-abortion.

Just like burning the flag, some people cherish freedom so much that they're willing to fight for freedoms that they would never partake in. I find (male) homosexual sex physically repulsive, but I'd die to protect your right to have it.

You can't say that you support freedom when, in reality, you only support the freedoms that you like.
 
2006-01-29 07:04:21 PM
Will anyone here have a different stance on this issue after reading anyone else's post? Of course not. Let's not waste each other's time.

/Thinks "morning-after" pills should be sold in bottles of 100, right next to the Excedrin
 
2006-01-29 07:04:39 PM
The "clump of cells" has the unique genetic make up of an INDIVIDUAL human or at least a potential human. Every person's genes, which defines you biologically, originated when he/she was that "clump of cells."

You can argue it hasn't developed to being what should be defined as "human" yet; but arguing that it's just like any other group of cells is heavily flawed. Be honest, it's an illogical rationalization.
 
2006-01-29 07:04:55 PM
I want abortions illegal, but a huge campaign for safe sex.

/okay, i've said my piece
//i will now hold my peace
 
2006-01-29 07:05:24 PM
Agnosto: If that bystander was going to be inside my stomach for the next nine months reminding me of the mugging (Which is not even farking close to rape.) Finally, ending in a horribly painful "delivery", which again will certainly remind me of the event. In the case, yes, I would shoot the bystander.

That was stupid, stupid example.


Thats exactly what it is though, an example. I don't care what the baby will do to your life, after a certain period of time in the womb, the choice isn't yours anymore.

I'm not some crazy catholic who thinks masturbating is wrong because it kills babies or whatever, but really people, use your brains. Its common farking sense.
 
2006-01-29 07:05:33 PM
Anti-choicers:

God wants a man and a woman to procreate, but they decide not to go beyond first base that particular evening (and in this instance, their mortal Free Will is actually contrary to His Will, since that card is allowed in many other religious debates for the Fundie cause). Haven't they just robbed a child of a life?

/Ick! I need a shower after capitalizing the word 'his.'
 
2006-01-29 07:06:34 PM
shrapnil77: While pro-choicers may have objections to abortion, their refusal to act on them renders them effectively nonexistant.

We do try. We try to get proper Sex education in schools. We try to get condoms to be distributed. We try to make children understand that they need to protect themselves to prevent children and STD's.

Oh, what's that? The Anti-Choicers won't let us farking do it! They stick to this barbaric "abstinence" anti-choice, which we all know doesn't work!
 
2006-01-29 07:07:14 PM
If abortions are illegal, what sort of punishment should there be for women who get one?

Honestly curious - would it be a jail term thing, or a fine, or what? I'm not sure how that'd play out, *especially* for women who give the reason of "I can't afford a baby" as their need for an abortion, or for single moms who have dependent kids - who'd look after them if she went to jail?
 
2006-01-29 07:07:45 PM
Quoth barneyfifesbullet...
> Reproductive decisions are personal.
> Nothing else is acceptable.
> Mind your own business.

That needs to be a t-shirt.
 
2006-01-29 07:07:51 PM
shep.1972: are you human and alive before the sperm bores into the ova and starts cell division? unless you are really reading alot into the most conservative of religious texts the answer would be "no"

Of course you are. An ovum is a living cell that simply won't divide. You have plenty of cells that share that quality. All that happens when the sperm fuses with it is that it gets a half-new set of chromosomes, and it gets the chemcial signal to start dividing. There's no "spark" of life, just a continuation with some changes.
 
2006-01-29 07:08:16 PM
Sicarim: Thats exactly what it is though, an example. I don't care what the baby will do to your life, after a certain period of time in the womb, the choice isn't yours anymore.

I'm not some crazy catholic who thinks masturbating is wrong because it kills babies or whatever, but really people, use your brains. Its common farking se


Wait. After a certain amount of time? Perhaps we are on the same page. I don't think there is any excuse for a third trimester abortione except for medical reasons. I think second trimesters border on being bad too.
 
2006-01-29 07:08:49 PM
Whoever thinks more sex ed. will produce less unwanted pregnancy should check out the unwed mother stats from the 1960's and compare with today's condom on the cucumber classes in high school health. Yikes! Keep it in your pants, boys and keep off your backs, girls.
 
2006-01-29 07:09:14 PM
never odd or even: You can argue it hasn't developed to being what should be defined as "human" yet; but arguing that it's just like any other group of cells is heavily flawed. Be honest, it's an illogical rationalization.

We're getting to the point in science where you could take any of my living, human cells and create another human life with any one of them. Is every one of my cells another potential, human life?

I mean, you can take this back to the jerking off is immoral discussion as every sperm could meet up with an egg and be a potential, unique human life.

We're talking potential any time there is a group of cells that is not yet formed into a conscious human being. I mean, the most likely outcome after a group of cells forms into a fetus is that it will naturally (God?) abort.
 
2006-01-29 07:09:48 PM
For the anti-abortion side: perhaps YOU can be the ones to convince me that the state has an interest in, and the right to, require that women remain pregnant once they are pregnant.

Because that's what you are advocating.
 
2006-01-29 07:10:04 PM
to clarify the ambiguity in my earlier post (I claim to be neutral on the subject, and then I provide an argument against abortion)
my point is that abortion is unequivicobaly the taking of a life
but taking a life can be justified in certain circumstances, notably for self-defence.
obviously abortion isn't normally undertaken to prevent the mother from substantial personal harm.
but my neutral point of view comes from the fact that I'd expand self-defence to include killing someone because they were really irritating you or were threatening you financially for whatever reason.
 
2006-01-29 07:10:19 PM
So it's a woman's fault if she's raped? That's disgusting, Sicarim. And you realize that pregnancy is no picnic, right? No woman should be forced to endure that because some pervert forced his will on her.
 
2006-01-29 07:10:27 PM
luckybastard: I want abortions illegal, but a huge campaign for safe sex.

Yes, we know those often work well. Human nature. You can improve it a bit, but you can never truly change it.
 
2006-01-29 07:10:28 PM
BBounce: Whoever thinks more sex ed. will produce less unwanted pregnancy should check out the unwed mother stats from the 1960's and compare with today's condom on the cucumber classes in high school health. Yikes! Keep it in your pants, boys and keep off your backs, girls.

Correlation does not equal causation. Have you ever taken any kind of science course, ever? I blame the rise of unwanted teenage pregnancies with the introduction of equal rights for minorities!
 
2006-01-29 07:11:51 PM
BBounce: Whoever thinks more sex ed. will produce less unwanted pregnancy should check out the unwed mother stats from the 1960's and compare with today's condom on the cucumber classes in high school health. Yikes! Keep it in your pants, boys and keep off your backs, girls.

I think you need to check your stats. The rate has actually dropped in recent years. It happened a lot in the 60's. Hell, it's happened a lot throughout time.
 
2006-01-29 07:14:33 PM
Agnosto: Wait. After a certain amount of time? Perhaps we are on the same page. I don't think there is any excuse for a third trimester abortione except for medical reasons. I think second trimesters border on being bad too.

Yeah, same here. Once that clump of cells actually starts to form something that could be an automomous human being, I'm pretty much against abortion unless it threatens the woman's life.

I THINK that's pretty universal in the pro-choice world though.
 
2006-01-29 07:14:37 PM
Agnosto: Wait. After a certain amount of time? Perhaps we are on the same page. I don't think there is any excuse for a third trimester abortione except for medical reasons. I think second trimesters border on being bad too.

I think that there is a very thin line between life and the fetus being a mere part of the body. I come from a pretty convservative background, so I think alot of people I know would disagree with me, but there is just this period during pregnancy when there are so many miscarriages and deaths that whether or not there will be a birth is very iffy. In this case I think if its absolutley necessary, then abortion may be a viable option. I'm just worried people are using abortion as a form of birth control: something that isn't acceptable at anytime during pregancny. See, this is why society needs morals.
 
2006-01-29 07:14:46 PM
Agnosto

You are absolutely correct. Back-alley abortions were very common even over 100 years ago. And BBounce is a tool if he thinks sex ed won't curb teen pregnancy.
 
2006-01-29 07:14:52 PM
People are funny - if Roe v wade is going to be overthrown in the SCOTUS - what good is a rally?
 
2006-01-29 07:14:53 PM
"You aren't one of those protesters are you?"

You mean those dicks with the signs? Hells no Silent Bob and I believe that what a woman does with her body is her own damn business"

"Then why are you hanging around the clinic at night"

"Figured it would be a good place to pick up loose chicks"
 
2006-01-29 07:15:43 PM
Spoofman_v2.0: Pro-choice != "Abortion supporter"

Yes it does.
 
2006-01-29 07:16:02 PM
BBounce: Whoever thinks more sex ed. will produce less unwanted pregnancy should check out the unwed mother stats from the 1960's and compare with today's condom on the cucumber classes in high school health.

abstinence-only education is the norm now.

considering that a decade long decline in abortions broke trend along the same timeline, i'd think that'd tend to be quite a counterpoint to your statement.
 
2006-01-29 07:16:18 PM
WorldCitizen - We're getting to the point in science where you could take any of my living, human cells and create another human life with any one of them. Is every one of my cells another potential, human life?

I mean, you can take this back to the jerking off is immoral discussion as every sperm could meet up with an egg and be a potential, unique human life.

You're comparing the variables, that if something specific happens, could become a unique human life. That's not the same thing as "a group of cells" that is currently developing to become, or possibly is; an individual, unique, human life.
 
2006-01-29 07:16:18 PM
Agnosto

We do try. We try to get proper Sex education in schools. We try to get condoms to be distributed. We try to make children understand that they need to protect themselves to prevent children and STD's.

Oh, what's that? The Anti-Choicers won't let us farking do it! They stick to this barbaric "abstinence" anti-choice, which we all know doesn't work!


no....just *some* of them do. the population of the usa would do well to look at causes as lots of *individuals* with a common motivation....to paint everyone in a particular cause with a broad negative brush is unhelpful and detrimental to the progress and open debate of democracy.

examples (from both ends):
- greenpeace is just a bunch of hippie freaks with no jobs
- all republicans are sheep blindly following the herd
- unions are irrelevant in modern times
- those that think the earth isn't warming must also think it's only 6000 years old.


you might as well say "all mexicans are lazy"...but in my view, your blanket statement carries about that much weight.
 
2006-01-29 07:17:17 PM
Stepqhen

"You aren't one of those protesters are you?"

You mean those dicks with the signs? Hells no Silent Bob and I believe that what a woman does with her body is her own damn business"

"Then why are you hanging around the clinic at night"

"Figured it would be a good place to pick up loose chicks"


Wow you mangled that worse than Bush mangles is canned speeches.

/IMDB.com/search/memorable quotes
 
2006-01-29 07:17:21 PM
WorldCitizen That second paragraph I wrote should be italicized; but I'm sure you figured that out.
 
2006-01-29 07:18:29 PM
Sicarim: In this case I think if its absolutley necessary, then abortion may be a viable option. I'm just worried people are using abortion as a form of birth control: something that isn't acceptable at anytime during pregancny. See, this is why society needs morals.

And that's your personal stance. Great. It's easy for you. If it is against your personal morals, don't get an abortion. That's the great thing about a free republic with civil rights; you can live by your own morals. However, your morals aren't necessarily those of anyone else, so leave the government out of them.

Base society on rights instead of religious morals, and everyone gets to live by their own morals as long as they are not causing harm to the rights of others.

Of course, this doesn't REALLY end the abortion debate because there can be a debate about when the rights of those clumps of cells overtake the rights of the conscious human being who is housing them.
 
2006-01-29 07:18:51 PM
WorldCitizen: Yeah, same here. Once that clump of cells actually starts to form something that could be an automomous human being, I'm pretty much against abortion unless it threatens the woman's life.


Well, until that baby pops out, it's basically a parasite. Hell, better an abortion than a foster home or adoption. Seriously, if you care so much about childrens welfare, how can you argue that putting an unwanted child out of it's misery is better than going through the American health and human services network? They don't give a damn about children. And Even that is better to letting 15 yo's try to raise children, because for every one mother that get's it right, theres 50 that fark up their kids for life.

Just let the damn baby die. Human life is not precious or special. Get over it, or stop eating meat. You can't have both.
 
2006-01-29 07:19:43 PM
Smarshmallow

Now, I'm all for abortion, but I can absolutely see how someone can be pro-choice and anti-abortion.

Just like burning the flag, some people cherish freedom so much that they're willing to fight for freedoms that they would never partake in. I find (male) homosexual sex physically repulsive, but I'd die to protect your right to have it.

You can't say that you support freedom when, in reality, you only support the freedoms that you like.


Except that wasn't what I said. I didn't say that they were giving approval by allowing abortions and not having them; I said they were giving approval by objecting but allowing.

And, to those who find the idea of abortion as a "right" patently absurd (the 5th and 14th amendments both state that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law") lumping it in with free speech and teh buttsecks is an attempt to sanctify by association.

Agnosto
Here's my solution. We have a national vote. If you vote that you would like abortion to be made illegal, your name is put on a list. When the babies start piling up, guess who they get distributed to at random? (After a background check of course.) Near as I can tell this is the only solutions. Can some of you other Pro-Lifers tell me yours?

::Raises hand:: Pro-lifer who would catastrophically flunk background check.

But, let's be fair here. If you're going to make US deal with the consequences of other people's actions, the proponents of choice must pay an equal price. Any time a woman wants an abortion and can't get it, one of you has to head out there and do it yourselves. Sound fair?

Besides, saying "your position is wrong because it doesn't have every single solution for every contingency" nullifies virtually every concept of law in existance. Human beings are fallible. Deal. Advocation abortion for the sake of convenience is the proof of that old saying: "For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong."
 
2006-01-29 07:19:54 PM
Way too much "I'm personally against abortion, but I support the choice" going on here. Would you say, "I'm peronally against nuclear weapons, but I support the nuclear weapons user's choice"? You're like the bat in Aesop's fables. Pick a side and be counted for something.
 
2006-01-29 07:20:13 PM
shep.1972: no....just *some* of them do. the population of the usa would do well to look at causes as lots of *individuals* with a common motivation....to paint everyone in a particular cause with a broad negative brush is unhelpful and detrimental to the progress and open debate of democracy.

examples (from both ends):
- greenpeace is just a bunch of hippie freaks with no jobs
- all republicans are sheep blindly following the herd
- unions are irrelevant in modern times
- those that think the earth isn't warming must also think it's only 6000 years old.

you might as well say "all mexicans are lazy"...but in my view, your blanket statement carries about that much weight.



We are both on the same page. You left out what I was responding to! At any rate, the fact is that the powerful people in government are preventing proper sex education. Most, if not all of them are Pro-Choice. I am sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
 
2006-01-29 07:20:45 PM
I love abortions! And euthanizing braindead and old people. And smoking, I love smoking. And removing feeding tubes. And eating veal. And stealing music and pirating software. And speaking ill of the dead. And farting at the dinner table. And gaping at a girl's cleavage when she's not looking. And swearing like a drunken sailor. And watching tons of porn. And downloading ROMs. And drinking, and gambling, and making fun of the retarded. And buying shampoo that was tested on animals. And human cloning. And playing Grand Theft Auto and Dungeons & Dragons. And modding Xboxes.

You boring high-strung preachy types really don't know what you're missing out on.
 
2006-01-29 07:21:32 PM
My take on this whole "pro choice/anti-abortion" thing..

It really seems to have very little to do with the proponent's compassion, since those who seem to be so vocal in their opposition seem to have little or no "compassion" for those children once they are born, or the women that become injured or die from "back alley" abortions. The communities with a strong "anti-choice" stance also seem to be those that favor capital punishment too.

One way to step back and look at this...It's nature among certain types to want to control their fellow humans in one way or another. Since sexuality is such a strong human drive then this is essentially the "holy grail" of control-freaks, hence you find control of sexuality common among many religions and totalitarian governments. The opposition to birth control, strip clubs and pornography by many pious types are more examples of this desire to control sexuality.

It's not about compassion, it is nothing more desire for control, plain and simple. Ever notice that most anti-choice are MALES? Power-hungry MALES. Sure there's a few women, but the vast majority are MEN.
 
2006-01-29 07:21:36 PM
El_Alacran: Way too much "I'm personally against abortion, but I support the choice" going on here. Would you say, "I'm peronally against nuclear weapons, but I support the nuclear weapons user's choice"? You're like the bat in Aesop's fables. Pick a side and be counted for something.

Someone else said it in here, but what about smoking? I don't like smoking, but I support a persons choice to smoke. Does approving of that choice make me pro-smoking?
 
2006-01-29 07:21:41 PM
Nabb1 is just being disingenuous.

You can think abortion is morally wrong and not participate in it, but believe that other people should have the choice to do so if they desire.

You can think premarital sex is morally wrong and not participate in it, but believe that other people should have the choice to do so if they desire.

You can think extramarital sex is morally wrong and not participate in it, but believe that other people should have the choice to do so if they desire.

You can think gay buttsecks is morally wrong and not participate in it, but believe that other people should have the choice to do so if they desire.

You can think the consumption of alcohol is morally wrong and not participate in it, but believe that other people should have the choice to do so if they desire.

You can think the consumption of caffeine is morally wrong and not participate in it, but believe that other people should have the choice to do so if they desire.

You can think the consumption of any medicine is morally wrong and not participate in it, but believe that other people should have the choice to do so if they desire.

You can think dancing is morally wrong and not participate in it, but believe that other people should have the choice to do so if they desire.

etc. etc. etc.
 
2006-01-29 07:22:20 PM
Lusiphur
WorldCitizen: Yeah, same here. Once that clump of cells actually starts to form something that could be an automomous human being, I'm pretty much against abortion unless it threatens the woman's life.


Well, until that baby pops out graduates from medical school, it's basically a parasite.
[snip]
Just let the damn baby die. Human life is not precious or special. Get over it, or stop eating meat. You can't have both.


Fixed that first part for ya and is WorldCitizen a cannibal or something?
 
2006-01-29 07:22:54 PM
I just want to say that I am personally anti-Nabb1 for being purposefully obtuse about why a pro-choice person would not want to be called pro-abortion (you can not be in favor of abortion, but still be in favor of a person's right to have one)

JohnGaltDiscGolfer
Nice observation, I've always thought that myself. We are depriving a child of a life every second that we're not actively trying to make one. God must be really pissed at us.
 
2006-01-29 07:23:14 PM
shrapnil77: And, to those who find the idea of abortion as a "right" patently absurd (the 5th and 14th amendments both state that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law") lumping it in with free speech and teh buttsecks is an attempt to sanctify by association.


That's the problem, isn't it? I see it as a right, and you don't. My point is that there are people who might think that it was a disgusting act, but still think that it's a right.

By the way, I've never seen anyone try to sanctify anything by comparing it to buttsex.
 
2006-01-29 07:23:23 PM
El_Alacran: You're like the bat in Aesop's fables. Pick a side and be counted for something.

they have. your opinion of the side they have chosen is noted, but it doesn't alter the opinion.

i'd be a perfectly contented person if no one ever wanted an abortion. i'm not standing out front of a clinic handing out literature to pregnant chicks hoping that they'll abort, fer chrissakes. i just don't see it as the government's business if a person wants to abort.
 
2006-01-29 07:23:27 PM
Abortions make baby Jesus cry.
 
2006-01-29 07:23:28 PM
shrapnil77: Besides, saying "your position is wrong because it doesn't have every single solution for every contingency" nullifies virtually every concept of law in existance. Human beings are fallible. Deal. Advocation abortion for the sake of convenience is the proof of that old saying: "For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong."


It doesn't have any solutions. I asked the anti-choicers to share some. I have not heard another alternative.
 
2006-01-29 07:24:21 PM
Spoofman_v2.0: That isn't entirely correct. By supporting a person's right to choose, you then support all options equally, including the option to not get an abortion. Saying "I think you should be able to smoke if you want" is not the same as saying "I think you should smoke".


i1.tinypic.com

/yeah, one ticket please...
 
2006-01-29 07:24:23 PM
El_Alacran: Way too much "I'm personally against abortion, but I support the choice" going on here. Would you say, "I'm peronally against nuclear weapons, but I support the nuclear weapons user's choice"? You're like the bat in Aesop's fables. Pick a side and be counted for something.

The difference is, you can be against it but still recognize that it's the woman's body. That kid is part of the woman's body and therefore her choice, even if you disagree. Why is that so farking hard to grasp?

Why is there even debate on this? In the long, endless history of abortion debate has anyone ever said, "I see your point. You're right"? It's all a big circle jerk.
 
2006-01-29 07:24:30 PM
El_Alacran: Pick a side and be counted for something.

Ah, the "it's either black or white simple" (bad) debating tactic.

If only the world was that simple that simple thoughts could end all of our problems and be the solutions to the world.

Unfortunately, the world is not simple. Almost nothing about human interpersonal interaction is black and white and simple.

It would be nice if things were as simple as choosing one side or another because it would certainly use much less brain power and one would not have to spend nearly as much time researching and studying any issues. Of course, I think for most people this is how they choose to "think" (or are only capable of "thinking"?), and I'm sure it does make life more simple for them.

"This is black.

This white.

That is black.

That is white.

You're a pussy for not seeing as more complex.

Now, I want a cheeseburger."
 
2006-01-29 07:24:39 PM
WorldCitizen: Of course, this doesn't REALLY end the abortion debate because there can be a debate about when the rights of those clumps of cells overtake the rights of the conscious human being who is housing them.


Well, thats a big problem. Here's the easy solution. If a pregnant woman trips down a flight of stairs and ends up having a miscarriage because of it, do you arrest the woman for negligent manslaughter? No? Then fark the unborn babies.
 
2006-01-29 07:25:05 PM
elchip [TotalFark]

You can think abortion is morally wrong and not participate in it, but believe that other people should have the choice to do so if they desire.

You can think premarital sex is morally wrong and not participate in it, but believe that other people should have the choice to do so if they desire.

[and so on]


You can think smoking is morally wrong and not participate in it, but believe that other people should have the choice to do so if they desire...

oh, wait... not smoking.
 
2006-01-29 07:25:28 PM
The only true solution to the abortion debate is for humanity to evolve a bit more so that we actually are dependent upon science to induce fertilization, rather than counteracting it.

In other words, if we can only get to the point in our development so that taking a pill or undergoing a procedure in order to conceive is the only way to propogate the species instead of taking a pill or undergoing a procedure to terminate the messy "after-effects" of sex, then we won't have to have this discussion.

Does this sound about right to everybody?
 
2006-01-29 07:25:32 PM
ryant123: Abortions make baby Jesus cry. have lots of fetal playmates
 
2006-01-29 07:26:09 PM
I think it'd be funny if abortion were outlawed, and Joe and Jane Racist White Trash (who wholeheartedly supported the overturning of abortion laws) found out that they were infertile and went to the local adoption center... only to find it filled with nothing but black babies.

/They are a specific example, not a generalization for the pro-life community as a whole... because the pro-life community is not as a whole racist or white trash.
 
2006-01-29 07:26:13 PM
MiscavigeEatsBabies: Yes it does.

So you're saying that it's impossible to support the right to do something, when you find that act disgusting or wrong? Do you support people's right to smoke? Drink? Have gay sex? Burn Flags? Wear Confederate flags? Belong to racist clubs? Vote republican? Vote democrat?
 
2006-01-29 07:27:32 PM
Day_Old_Dutchie: It really seems to have very little to do with the proponent's compassion, since those who seem to be so vocal in their opposition seem to have little or no "compassion" for those children once they are born, or the women that become injured or die from "back alley" abortions. The communities with a strong "anti-choice" stance also seem to be those that favor capital punishment too.

It does seem to be true that many, many, many of the anti-choice people are also Darwian Capitalists who believe in a Darwinian social structure for humans once they are born. It is really quite interesting how that works. The most fundamentalist Christians also seem to be the most pro-Darwinian social structure.
 
2006-01-29 07:29:01 PM
I also think it'd be awesome to see Roe v. Wade overturned and watch Republicans drop like flies out of state and national governments... once what is perhapse their biggest draw for single-issue voters is taken out.

And that's why I'd bet a soda that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned.

/But just a soda, 'cuz I'm not that confident
 
2006-01-29 07:29:26 PM
WorldCitizen: It does seem to be true that many, many, many of the anti-choice people are also Darwian Capitalists who believe in a Darwinian social structure for humans once they are born. It is really quite interesting how that works. The most fundamentalist Christians also seem to be the most pro-Darwinian social structure.

I don't think it's odd at all. It's been planned that way. It's really all a joke. Abortion should be outlawed, but capital punishment should be fine. It's a lot of people caring about what other people do with their time way to farking much.
 
2006-01-29 07:29:42 PM
Hmmm...it seems the key to avoiding the need for an aobrtion, let still allowing people to engage in sexual behavior, with oe without protection, is more buttsecks!

/pro-buttsecks
//thinking of picketing our bedroom until it happens
 
2006-01-29 07:30:05 PM
elchip: And that's why I'd bet a soda that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned.

considering they've ran every aspect of the federal government for quite some time now, and narry a twitch of effort has been made in that direction...i'd have to agree.
 
2006-01-29 07:31:11 PM
WorldCitizen
I think the term is "seventy-percenter." That is, you support reasonable restrictions on abortion that survey data indicates approximatly seventy percent of America wants. Of couse, since the Supreme Oligarchy doesn't let us actually VOTE on the issue, that's neither here nor there. . .

And yes, before anyone says it, abortion is simply a small part of my larger beef with the Supreme Court. USE THE EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE, DAMMIT!

And that's your personal stance. Great. It's easy for you. If it is against your personal morals, don't get an abortion. That's the great thing about a free republic with civil rights; you can live by your own morals. However, your morals aren't necessarily those of anyone else, so leave the government out of them.

When you consider that, from the pro-life standpoint, this is the same thing as saying "if you don't like murder, don't kill anyone, just don't whine when people who disagree with you do," you might see how this really fails to cut ice with the opposition.

Base society on rights instead of religious morals, and everyone gets to live by their own morals as long as they are not causing harm to the rights of others.

Heh. This is where the Death quote comes in. "TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY." The very ideas of "justice" and "honor" and "duty" are based upon concepts agreed on by the greater part of society, and are legislated accordingly, despite being no different from any other form of belief. To attribute alternate beliefs to Cthuthu-worhipping as opposed to an actual difference of opinion is an easy out.

Of course, this doesn't REALLY end the abortion debate because there can be a debate about when the rights of those clumps of cells overtake the rights of the conscious human being who is housing them.

Of course, if we're going to only be giving rights to CONSCIOUS human beings, then it's okay to whack the comatose, mentally disabled, or (technically) people who are asleep.

Like I said, no definition. . .
 
2006-01-29 07:31:56 PM
elchip: I also think it'd be awesome to see Roe v. Wade overturned and watch Republicans drop like flies out of state and national governments... once what is perhapse their biggest draw for single-issue voters is taken out.

And that's why I'd bet a soda that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned.


The abortion issue and the right is like the gun control issue and the left. The politicians know it's impossible to deal with 2 million unwanted children a year. It's also impossible to get rid of guns.

There's also the fact that more than half of those 2 million babies would be black. We all know which way the black vote swings. I agree that it will never change. I could see sodomy laws coming back into favor though.
 
2006-01-29 07:32:32 PM
elchip [TotalFark]

I also think it'd be awesome to see Roe v. Wade overturned and watch Republicans drop like flies out of state and national governments... once what is perhapse their biggest draw for single-issue voters is taken out.

And that's why I'd bet a soda that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned.

/But just a soda, 'cuz I'm not that confident


That didn't happen in states that upheld second amendment rights and concealed carry laws. Conservatives would come out in droves to reward their elected officials if RvW were overturned.

/I'll bet a soda RvW will be overturned.
 
2006-01-29 07:32:52 PM
2006-01-29 07:30:05 PM heap [TotalFark]

considering they've ran every aspect of the federal government for quite some time now, and narry a twitch of effort has been made in that direction...i'd have to agree.

Well, you seem to be forgetting O'Connor, who will be gone soon. With her, any anti-abortion law that came up was overturned eventually.

Alito, I dunno. But I still bet an imaginary soda that the court won't overturn it. But since I'm not terribly confident, it's just a soda.
 
2006-01-29 07:34:43 PM
2006-01-29 07:32:32 PM ogre27620

That didn't happen in states that upheld second amendment rights and concealed carry laws. Conservatives would come out in droves to reward their elected officials if RvW were overturned.

State elections, perhaps. National, I'm not so sure. And once abortion is outlawed in a particular state, then will all the pro-lifers stay home?
 
2006-01-29 07:35:07 PM
shrapnil77: When you consider that, from the pro-life standpoint, this is the same thing as saying "if you don't like murder, don't kill anyone, just don't whine when people who disagree with you do," you might see how this really fails to cut ice with the opposition.

The difference is that you have to read the next paragraph about the rights based part of it. Live by your own morals as long as they do not violate the rights of another.

Do not violate the right of another for freedom of thought (including religion, speech, all that good stuff).

Do not violate the right of another to be free from harm (personal, property, threat to either).

It's not that complex. However, like I said, this doesn't solve all debates about the government involvement in all issues as there could still be a massive debate about when (if) a fetus has any rights at any step in its development.
 
2006-01-29 07:35:09 PM
My government teacher once summed up my position on abortion quite well. "I am pro-choice...up to the point of conception."

You can talk about rape all you want, but that constitutes a minuscule percentage of US pregnancies. Even then, I cannot consider abortion to be justified. Yes, the pregnancy and delivery will be painful. Yes, it will bring heartache. But as long as nine months may be, it still isn't forever. It will pass. Killing a human being to end it sooner simply isn't justified. As for the things that won't pass...the horror of the rape, the trauma...do you really think aborting the pregnancy will make this go away? Not likely!

For all the people having sex consensually, there's birth control. No, it isn't 100% effective, but if you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences, you shouldn't be having sex. The government may not have the ability to decide what is right and wrong, but it certainly does have the right to protect human life.

Being pro-choice doesn't mandate favoring abortions. There are alternatives, but somewhere along the lines, Americans got it into their heads that they have the right to have absolutely everything they want without consequences. This is NOT a right. If you want sex, fine. I'm a Christian, so I believe in keeping it within marriage, but that isn't directly relevant to this discussion. Go ahead and have sex, but you'd better be prepared for the consequences if the birth control doesn't work.

A huge number of unwanted pregnancies would never happen if people weren't irresponsible and just plain stupid. How many 15 year olds are out there having sex and not using any form of birth control? And it's not just the 15 year olds. Human beings just don't think. They think only of the short-term, paying no need to the long-term consequences of their actions. If a person is foolish, it is incumbent on them to pay the price. If they aren't prepared to raise the child, there is at present no shortage of willing adoptive parents. Even if abortion were banned, we could easily keep the number of pregnancies down if people would use birth control if they don't want a child, and not have sex if birth control isn't safe enough.

The one and only case in which I will keep silent on abortion is when the mother's life is in jeopardy. Most of the women I know would rather die than abort a child, but I'm not about to try to make a universal decision between aborting children or birthing babies to single fathers.
 
2006-01-29 07:35:11 PM
BBounce

Whoever thinks more sex ed. will produce less unwanted pregnancy should check out the unwed mother stats from the 1960's and compare with today's condom on the cucumber classes in high school health.

Or, you can just check out the actual statistics from countries that have comprehensive sex ed program.
 
2006-01-29 07:36:49 PM
elchip: Well, you seem to be forgetting O'Connor, who will be gone soon.

for a bunch of folks worked up about 'legislating from the bench', they sure seem to be forgetting that they can legislate from the....legislative branch.

when you go down the list of things that ammendments are suggested for, oddly their largest single-issue vote getter is no where to be found.

as to the court overturning roe v wade - i can see that happening. that doesn't end abortion, tho..it just overturns a bad decision.

i'm no less surprised by the (R)'s inability to actually do anything w/ their vote getter than i am the (D)'s lack of concern in actually codifying the rights infered by the decision, tho.
 
2006-01-29 07:37:57 PM
You know, it would be one thing if the Anti-Choicers actually valued life, but I bet a lot of them support the Iraq war, where our own president admitted that 30 thousand CIVILIANS have died so far. What about those lives? Are they worth less? Why did our President end his vacation early for one life (Schiavo,) but not when thousands had died ( New Orleans?) It's all a farking joke.
 
2006-01-29 07:38:02 PM
shrapnil77: Of course, if we're going to only be giving rights to CONSCIOUS human beings, then it's okay to whack the comatose, mentally disabled, or (technically) people who are asleep.

Some of these are just ridiculous, such as bringing in sleeping people. That goes against any rational argument, but makes good emotional material.

I think we can "whack the comatose" at a certain point. It's called pulling the plug and it's done thousands of times a year. Hell, my family did it to my brain dead cousin.
 
2006-01-29 07:40:09 PM
Here's another idea. How about the Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice groups work together to reduce abortions? How about some sort of penalty for an abortion? Perhaps some type of weeklong class on being responsible? Perhaps a fine? I happen to be pro-choice and I would support anything along those lines and I suspect a lot of others would too.

It seems like the anti-choicers have the "all or nothing attitude"
 
2006-01-29 07:41:41 PM
Arramol: You can talk about rape all you want, but that constitutes a minuscule percentage of US pregnancies. Even then, I cannot consider abortion to be justified. Yes, the pregnancy and delivery will be painful.


I bet a soda that Arramol is a guy.
 
2006-01-29 07:42:31 PM
Day_Old_Dutchie

My take on this whole "pro choice/anti-abortion" thing..

It really seems to have very little to do with the proponent's compassion, since those who seem to be so vocal in their opposition seem to have little or no "compassion" for those children once they are born, or the women that become injured or die from "back alley" abortions. The communities with a strong "anti-choice" stance also seem to be those that favor capital punishment too.

One way to step back and look at this...It's nature among certain types to want to control their fellow humans in one way or another. Since sexuality is such a strong human drive then this is essentially the "holy grail" of control-freaks, hence you find control of sexuality common among many religions and totalitarian governments. The opposition to birth control, strip clubs and pornography by many pious types are more examples of this desire to control sexuality.

It's not about compassion, it is nothing more desire for control, plain and simple. Ever notice that most anti-choice are MALES? Power-hungry MALES. Sure there's a few women, but the vast majority are MEN.


Straaaaaaw maaaaaaan. . .
And a huge number of abortion supporters were conveniently born before RvW posed any threat to them. "We're safe, fark everyone else." Pretty much sums up the Baby Boomers in general.

Maybe you're right. Maybe there is no compassion. Maybe everyone who opposes abortion is just some big ol' meany. However, this is not a Law and Order episode. The world not being divided into good guys and bad guys, even if these people are just control freaks- it doesn't nescessarily make them wrong. No points.

WorldCitizen
Except that, in this case, it DOES interfere with the rights of another. Vivisecting a living human being arbitrarily strikes me as a pretty clear rights violation.
 
2006-01-29 07:42:40 PM
Agnosto: It seems like the anti-choicers have the "all or nothing attitude"

on an individual level, probably not....but on the 'issue group' level, both sides live for the "all or nothing attitude". very similar to the gun debate in this aspect. seems like both have taken the slippery slope to new depths, at least.
 
2006-01-29 07:42:42 PM
Smarshmallow
I bet a soda that Arramol is a guy.

Just a soda?
 
2006-01-29 07:44:01 PM
WorldCitizen,

> El_Alacran: Pick a side and be counted for something.

>> WorldCitizen: You're a pussy for not seeing as more complex.

And I say you're a pussy for not taking a side, because it is absolutely, unequivocably, very simple (even though you choose to see it differently).

It seems to me that there are only two choices (just like black or white) and that is to either decide to have the child or not have it.

There is absolutely no gray area here. If there were, you could have third choice and choose to wait a while to see if the child either helped society or hurt it.

Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury and, instead, you have to make that call in a "pre-meditated" fashion.
 
2006-01-29 07:44:39 PM
Kepora_Gebora: Just a soda?

You know, in keeping with the theme.
 
2006-01-29 07:45:09 PM
Nobody'sPerfekt: It seems to me that there are only two choices (just like black or white) and that is to either decide to have the child or not have it.

There is absolutely no gray area here.


who makes that decision?

well, hell...that sounds a hell of a lot like grey area. whadya know.
 
2006-01-29 07:45:45 PM
Nabb1No argument here. What's wrong with being "pro-abortion"? What's so offensive about that label.


Let me break it down for you: The prefix "pro" means to be in favor of. The problem is that most people who are pro-choice don't think that what we need is more abortions. If you think pro-choice and pro-abortion should be interchangeable, then you should also think that pro-life and pro-coathanger-uterus-rippers should be interchangeable. As it has been stated before: making abortions illegal will not prevent them, it will only make them more dangerous.
 
2006-01-29 07:45:49 PM
shrapnil77: Except that, in this case, it DOES interfere with the rights of another. Vivisecting a living human being arbitrarily strikes me as a pretty clear rights violation.

IF a clump of cells (that has gills at some point) can be considered "human." That is a large debate, and it is not settled. It is settled in some minds, but that does not make it settled in all (or before the law).

And a huge number of abortion supporters were conveniently born before RvW posed any threat to them. "We're safe, fark everyone else." Pretty much sums up the Baby Boomers in general.

I believe I was born right after RvW, and that doesn't bother me a bit. So what if I would have been aborted? I wouldn't have known any differently, now would I? I wouldn't have mentally existed to be bothered by it. I certainly wasn't bothered by not being born for the first 15 billion years of the universe. Why would not existing now be any different?
 
2006-01-29 07:47:01 PM
Honestly, part of my would like to see Roe v Wade overturned just so that the liberals in this country will finally grow some balls and start doing something about the religous right's assault on our personal freedoms. At this rate, the US is going to make Saudi Arabia look like a free thinking society.
 
2006-01-29 07:47:14 PM
WorldCitizen

Some of these are just ridiculous, such as bringing in sleeping people. That goes against any rational argument, but makes good emotional material.

O RLY? One of the definitions of asleep is "unconscious." You said conscious. Like the constitution not defining a person, you did not define conscious. What's so absurd about that?

See? These "warping the definition to fit your cause" games can be fun.

I think we can "whack the comatose" at a certain point. It's called pulling the plug and it's done thousands of times a year. Hell, my family did it to my brain dead cousin.

Pulling the plug != abortion. It's the difference between LETTING someone die and MAKING someone die.
 
2006-01-29 07:48:40 PM
It seems to me that there are only two choices (just like black or white) and that is to either decide to have the child or not have it.

Kinda like in Monty Python's Meaning of life, where everytime a couple had sex, they had to have a baby because they were catholic. What? You mean it DOESN'T work that way in the real world?
 
2006-01-29 07:49:13 PM
shrapnil77: It's the difference between LETTING someone die and MAKING someone die.

so you'd support abortion if the fetus could be pulled out, and left to fend for itself?

you're right. games can be fun. don't actually accomplish a good goddamn thing (aside from attempts to score points, rather than make one), but i spose it's fun.
 
2006-01-29 07:49:52 PM
I find it actually quite offensive that many of those in a position to see RvW overturned are the same people who think that educating people about how NOT to become pregnant is wrong.

Damn hypocrites. Walk the walk or STFU. Abstinence-only sex-ed doesn't work, period. Do some damn teaching instead of thinking that "Don't do it" is useful.
 
2006-01-29 07:51:27 PM
Nobody'sPerfekt: And I say you're a pussy for not taking a side, because it is absolutely, unequivocably, very simple (even though you choose to see it differently).

It seems to me that there are only two choices (just like black or white) and that is to either decide to have the child or not have it.


It might be that simple in your mind, but there are all kinds of complexities in the middle for my mind.

One, when is it a "child?" In my mind, that is certainly not answered in a black and white way. I cannot buy that a tiny clump of cells with no mental capacity is yet a human being. It has POTENTIAL, but so do many sperms and eggs. Also, most of those clumps of cells are naturally aborted anyway. So there is a giant gray area. It may not be gray for you, but it is for me.

Then as heap pointed out, who makes those choices? You? The woman with the cells inside of her? The State?
At what point does the State step in and control the body of a human woman? How does it take control?
 
2006-01-29 07:52:10 PM
Pulling the plug != abortion. It's the difference between LETTING someone die and MAKING someone die.

actually, the two things are very similar, assuming the abortion is done before brain activity begins, and assuming you define a person as a conscious human. Once you're brain-dead, your body cells may be still living, but you're already dead. likewise, if a fetus doesn't have brain activity, if it isn't conscious, then it is composed of living cells, but it isn't a person, it isn't someone.
 
2006-01-29 07:53:22 PM
heap

so you'd support abortion if the fetus could be pulled out, and left to fend for itself?

Of course. Within the bounds of child protective statutes, obviously.

you're right. games can be fun. don't actually accomplish a good goddamn thing (aside from attempts to score points, rather than make one), but i spose it's fun.

Actually, it does accomplish something- by making less socially acceptable comparisons using the same logic, one can demonstrate the (in this case) fatuousness of the rationale. The Supreme Court once said that a slave was not a "legal person" as well. Does that mean slavery was okay?

And besides, who's against having fun? ;D
 
2006-01-29 07:53:48 PM
Smarshmallow

"So you're saying that it's impossible to support the right to do something, when you find that act disgusting or wrong? Do you support people's right to smoke? Drink? Have gay sex? Burn Flags? Wear Confederate flags? Belong to racist clubs? Vote republican? Vote democrat?"

Strawman.

None of the above actions can, in and of themselves, terinate life with a single decision.

You could still live a long and fruitful life and contribute positively to society even if you are disgusting, or drink, or smoke, or have gay sex, or burn flags, or belong to a racist club, or vote republican, or vote democrat.

You can't do any of these if you were never born.

This all boils down to the rights of the already alive as compared to the potentially alive.

A mother's death during childbirth has always been hailed as a tragic event counter-balanced with a positive outcome.

When we start thinking otherwise, we're in trouble...
 
2006-01-29 07:55:04 PM
Dipsomaniac I find it actually quite offensive that many of those in a position to see RvW overturned are the same people who think that educating people about how NOT to become pregnant is wrong.

That's because a lot of the anti-choice movement is comprised of religous wingnuts who have exactly zero reasoning skills. Overlooking glaring contradictions is what they're best at.
 
2006-01-29 07:56:02 PM
Catholic Cake and Coat Hanger Get together?
 
2006-01-29 07:57:48 PM
le mew: Interesting idea. What if there was a line of food products you could eat to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy? Just open a can of chili, soup, or whatever and eat it. Problem solved.


The whole abortion thing will be moot in about 5 years anyway. Anybody who wants will be able to order and next-day Fed-Ex the "morning after" pill for $30.
 
2006-01-29 07:58:05 PM
shrapnil77: Of course. Within the bounds of child protective statutes, obviously.

so, in other words - of course, but not at all?

again, i see little point in discussing everything but the topic at hand, but....if it makes it easier for you to either get your head around, or to get your statements across...

i think i've just discovered a shrapnil approved approach to abortion. just cut the umbelical cord in uetero, and let the fetus wilt. yah, it's not safe, nor sanitary, but it the same as removing life support.

there, now that we've talked about everything aside from abortion, and proposed abortions completely acceptable to you...can we actually get around to the point here?
 
2006-01-29 07:59:36 PM
Nobody'sPerfekt None of the above actions can, in and of themselves, terinate life with a single decision.

You could still live a long and fruitful life and contribute positively to society even if you are disgusting, or drink, or smoke, or have gay sex, or burn flags, or belong to a racist club, or vote republican, or vote democrat.

You can't do any of these if you were never born.

This all boils down to the rights of the already alive as compared to the potentially alive.


You say this as if any of this matters. Like it matters if you were born or not. Like there is any meaning in any exsitence. Like 100 years from now anyone will remember any of this.
 
2006-01-29 07:59:44 PM
shrapnil77: Actually, it does accomplish something- by making less socially acceptable comparisons using the same logic, one can demonstrate the (in this case) fatuousness of the rationale. The Supreme Court once said that a slave was not a "legal person" as well. Does that mean slavery was okay?

I'm perfectly fine with science making a very precise definition of what is a conscious human being and running with that. Unfortuantely, at this time, our language does not have a word for that as it has not yet been defined. I am certain we can come up with some brain activity tests that verify when certain brain fuctions come on line (or go permanently off line) that create awareness. Once we come up with that I will be pretty comfortable with that as the line of when the plug can be pulled, either in the womb or in the hospital bed.
 
2006-01-29 08:01:43 PM
Nobody'sPerfekt: None of the above actions can, in and of themselves, terinate life with a single decision.

Ok, I know a lot of vegitarians who support your right to eat meat. That ends a self-sustaining life that's capable of feeling pain.
 
2006-01-29 08:02:18 PM
Day_Old_Dutchie: It really seems to have very little to do with the proponent's compassion, since those who seem to be so vocal in their opposition seem to have little or no "compassion" for those children once they are born, or the women that become injured or die from "back alley" abortions. The communities with a strong "anti-choice" stance also seem to be those that favor capital punishment too.


Its not just that. They don't take into consideration what drives a woman to get an abortion to begin with. That's not required. All that's required is their opinion, and the fact that this may become law again, is frightening.

A male can stick his dick in anything that isn't a child, a corpse, or an animal, and 'start' as much life as he wishes, but there is no penalty for that. You think a clump of cells is a potential human being? So is sperm, so are eggs. So a woman should never endure a menstrual cycle without first trying to become pregnant, and a male should never masturabte for the sheer pleasure of it. That's the logical conclusion of this whole 'right to life' movement, or else they are being disingenious (which of course, they are). Its about telling you what you can do with the processes of your body. The fact that this has nothing to do with males, is no mistake. Women are property to a lot of people, regardless of how much they protest otherwise.
 
2006-01-29 08:02:53 PM
Nabb1:
allows the destruction of human life, even in early developmental stages,

Well, that's you problem right there. You're defining a few cells as a human life. I have never seen any evidence to prove that assumption. Not even the Bible calls a fetus a human life.
 
2006-01-29 08:03:23 PM
*responding to nobody in particular*

I don't see anyone of any "side" actively campaigning that abortions should be plentiful and all women should get them. I actually see both "sides" campaigning to, well, abort abortion.

Pro-life efforts - make abortion illegal (even though out of the 46 milion abortions performed annual, about 20 million of those are illegal), abstinence-only sex ed, let pharmacists decide if a woman is allowed to purchase prescribed contraceptives, legislate bills based on evidence refuted by scientists (that abortion causes breast cancer even though the American Cancer Society can find no link; or the Fetal pain act, even though there's no evidence that the nervous system has developed enough for pain to be perceived at the stages where they want the act enacted).

Overall, I don't see how these are supposed to make abortion go away.

Pro-choice efforts: comprehensive sex education, end pregnancy as a pre-existing condition for insurance purposes, provide health care for newborns and their mothers, better access to contraceptives and better contraceptives.

Considering that the main reason women give when they abort is that they can't afford a baby, this seems like a better way to end the need for abortions.

Of course, I suppose I can't be considered pro-choice entirely since I think there should be some kind of program set up for "repeat offenders" - women who have multiple abortions. Sort of like how you can take a driving course if you commit a traffic violation - for women who want to abort multiple times, have a mandatory sex ed class where they can learn about contraceptives since there's a good chance the reason why they keep getting pregnant is that no one ever told them, or they don't know how to use contraceptives properly. I mean, having an abortion is still having a surgery so it's probably best to avoid that, all morality aside.
 
2006-01-29 08:04:10 PM
WorldCitizen
One, when is it a "child?" In my mind, that is certainly not answered in a black and white way. I cannot buy that a tiny clump of cells with no mental capacity is yet a human being. It has POTENTIAL, but so do many sperms and eggs. Also, most of those clumps of cells are naturally aborted anyway. So there is a giant gray area. It may not be gray for you, but it is for me.

Potential is something that has to be activly released. The sperm and egg uniting and beginning to grow is that release. That there is a transitional development process is irrelivant- this is not a potential. It will not cease to be unless something activly kills it, be it an antigen conflict or a razor-edged vacuum tube.

And the whole "it happens naturally" line of reasoning is a bit silly. People die of natural causes every day. In what was does being "natural" make it okay, or somehow better? Should we not work to preserve these people's lives? If a person has a heart attack, should we say, "oh, it's natural, que cera, cera," or should we start CPR?

Ebola is 100% natural. Does that make it okay to inject people with it?

Then as heap pointed out, who makes those choices? You? The woman with the cells inside of her? The State?
At what point does the State step in and control the body of a human woman? How does it take control?


How about "the voters." If this case were in it's proper forum, AKA the ballot box, and both sides could campaign on a local level, it would not be nearly such a volitle issue.

As long as it continues to be propped up by judicial fiat and the RTL side is disenfranchised, though, people will be up in arms. That's all there is to it.
 
2006-01-29 08:04:28 PM
Nobody'sPerfekt:
This all boils down to the rights of the already alive as compared to the potentially alive.

Who says that the potentially alive have rights? I didn't see anything about that in the Constitution, did you? Does it matter that that life likely has less than a 50% chance of survival anyway (as is the case with a newly-fertlized human egg)?

Why do you get to decide who gets rights? Why does a non-thinking, non-feeling fetus get rights, just because it shares our DNA, but a feeling, posslibly thinking cow doesn't?
 
2006-01-29 08:05:58 PM
shrapnil77: Of course. Within the bounds of child protective statutes, obviously.

Even knowing that, once removed, a clump of cells would have a 100% mortality rate? But that means that removing the cells would violate child protective statutes (remember, that clump of cells is a child by your reckoning), so in fact you wouldn't support such an action after all.
 
2006-01-29 08:06:49 PM
Kepora_Gebora: Considering that the main reason women give when they abort is that they can't afford a baby, this seems like a better way to end the need for abortions.


Can't afford a baby, have too many babies already, get kicked out of house, loose job, loose place to live, get kicked out of family, on and on and on. It strikes me as ironic that whites seem to make up the majority group of those against abortion, and that whites are also the most prominent group to kick a pregnant kid out of the house.
 
2006-01-29 08:06:53 PM
WorldCitizen,

"Then as heap pointed out, who makes those choices? You? The woman with the cells inside of her? The State?
At what point does the State step in and control the body of a human woman? How does it take control?"

Gee, I dunno...let's ask China what they think.

Do you really want the State to get involved?
 
2006-01-29 08:06:53 PM
Agnosto-
You know, it would be one thing if the Anti-Choicers actually valued life, but I bet a lot of them support the Iraq war, where our own president admitted that 30 thousand CIVILIANS have died so far. What about those lives? Are they worth less? Why did our President end his vacation early for one life (Schiavo,) but not when thousands had died ( New Orleans?) It's all a farking joke.


Red-herring and a nice irrelevant generalization. I am not a supporter of the war or Bush, but to be back on topic, as you say "it would be one thing if the Anti-Choicers actually valued life"...what about those people

The same argument could be swung the other way, but I won't because it is equally fallacious
 
2006-01-29 08:07:15 PM
shrapnil77: How about "the voters."

how about the person with the fetus inside them?

again, this is a grey area. the point being addressed was this is far from black and white, grey areas abound.
 
2006-01-29 08:07:16 PM
Lusiphur: Well, thats a big problem. Here's the easy solution. If a pregnant woman trips down a flight of stairs and ends up having a miscarriage because of it, do you arrest the woman for negligent manslaughter? No? Then fark the unborn babies.

That's actually an interesting point. Haven't met many people who would argue that such a woman should be arrested. At least, I hope I haven't.
 
2006-01-29 08:07:34 PM
www.theonion.com

/the onion
 
2006-01-29 08:08:15 PM
BBounce: Whoever thinks more sex ed. will produce less unwanted pregnancy should check out the unwed mother stats from the 1960's and compare with today's condom on the cucumber classes in high school health. Yikes! Keep it in your pants, boys and keep off your backs, girls.

Uh, yeah. And then compare the married teen stats from the sixties and compare with today's numbers. Expecting teens to wait until marriage when "until marriage" frequently means "right out of high school" is one thing. Right now the median ages for marriage in the U.S. are 27 for men and 25 for women. If you expect "keep it in your pants and keep off your backs" to work as the contraceptive of choice for thirteen years AFTER people start feeling the bioogical imperative to reproduce you either are living in a completely different universe from the rest of us you really need to get your hormone levels checked. So you can either send teens out of high school with a completely unrealistic plan for dealing with their sexuality, or you can give them accurate information about other options that they have when (and it will be "when" rather than "if" for most people) abstainence is no longer a realistic option for them.
 
2006-01-29 08:08:22 PM
faethe: loose job


hell, that's probably what caused the problem to begin with.
 
2006-01-29 08:08:42 PM
Nobody'sPerfekt: A mother's death during childbirth has always been hailed as a tragic event counter-balanced with a positive outcome.

When we start thinking otherwise, we're in trouble...


What the fark?
 
2006-01-29 08:08:56 PM
blahpers: If a pregnant woman trips down a flight of stairs and ends up having a miscarriage because of it, do you arrest the woman for negligent manslaughter?


They used to - it was grounds for divorce at one time. Could happen again - just pretend it's not happening.
 
2006-01-29 08:09:10 PM
shrapnil77: How about "the voters." If this case were in it's proper forum, AKA the ballot box, and both sides could campaign on a local level, it would not be nearly such a volitle issue.

So you want the voters to control the bodies of individual human beings? This is where we differ. I believe in a Constitution to protect the rights of people and minorities (including that of their own bodies) from the passions of the masses.

In what was does being "natural" make it okay, or somehow better? Should we not work to preserve these people's lives? If a person has a heart attack, should we say, "oh, it's natural, que cera, cera," or should we start CPR?

So now you're moving toward arguing that the State should be mandating active intervention inside a woman fighting off potential fetal rejection from the moment of conception?

If you're going to stretch out my points to ridiculous conclusions...
 
2006-01-29 08:09:11 PM
Personally, I believe in the Pro-Death movmement. Not only should abortion be legal, but it should also be forced upon some people. I have no kids, pay my taxes, and am sick of seeing welfare maggots and their parent(s) sucking the tit of the government.

Religion be damned. Give me the fricking vaccum and hanger and I'll scrape those lil bastards right out.

// no mercy
// pro-death all the way baby
 
2006-01-29 08:09:20 PM
BrotherAlpha -
"Well, that's you problem right there. You're defining a few cells as a human life. I have never seen any evidence to prove that assumption. Not even the Bible calls a fetus a human life."

So when is a human life considered as such, when it has a few more cells?
 
2006-01-29 08:10:36 PM
heap: hell, that's probably what caused the problem to begin with.


Sure. Absolutley - and at the very least the goverment has chosen to step in and do something about that. But this is also self interest - pregnant mother looses job they ultimately wind up dependent on goverment assistance.
 
2006-01-29 08:10:51 PM
ZaxTrax,

"You say this as if any of this matters. Like it matters if you were born or not. Like there is any meaning in any exsitence. Like 100 years from now anyone will remember any of this."

You sound like a lot of fun...

How do you get through each day?
 
2006-01-29 08:12:05 PM
heap

so, in other words - of course, but not at all?

Bingo. When you create a human being, however unintentionally, you have responsabilities. You can give them to another person willing to take them, obviously, but ending them via termination- through comission OR omission- is criminal.

again, i see little point in discussing everything but the topic at hand, but....if it makes it easier for you to either get your head around, or to get your statements across...

i think i've just discovered a shrapnil approved approach to abortion. just cut the umbelical cord in uetero, and let the fetus wilt. yah, it's not safe, nor sanitary, but it the same as removing life support.


I'm sure there's a whole heap of neglect statutes this would violate. So, sure, go ahead and do it- just be ready to take the conseqences.

there, now that we've talked about everything aside from abortion, and proposed abortions completely acceptable to you...can we actually get around to the point here?

'Fraid not- because the point of the American abortion debate is that there IS no point. The whole thing exists as this volite, ironclad cesspool (apologies, it was 2-for-1 day at Simile Center) because it was foised on us by judicial decree. If people could vote on it, it would be like gun control- sure, some national attention, some big controversies occasionally, but mainly with the democratic process actually being allowed to work itself out.
 
2006-01-29 08:12:06 PM
WorldCitizen: If you're going to stretch out my points to ridiculous conclusions

i really don't think it's that at all.

maybe this discussion has just been had so many times, discussing everything but the topic is all that's left.

abortions? i know, i'll talk about heart attacks, cheese graters, life support, pretzels and beer! that'll make sense!
 
2006-01-29 08:12:23 PM
The submitter, as usual, is an asshat.
 
2006-01-29 08:12:36 PM
Nobody'sPerfekt: Do you really want the State to get involved?

Weren't you just arguing a pro-life stance earlier? That is the ultimate in state involvement.

No, I don't really want the state involved. Hence the pro-choice stance.
 
2006-01-29 08:13:37 PM
blahpers,

"What the fark?"

It's called hope for the future of humanity.

I'm sensing that a lot of you farkers don't have any...
 
2006-01-29 08:15:36 PM
faethe: Sure. Absolutley

psssst. i think you meant 'lose'. a 'loose job' would likely cause the problem to begin with.

shrapnil77: Bingo.

yet even more dancing around the issue. it's all well and good for you to draw parrallels to other circumstances, but you really don't like it when it bites you in the ass.

I'm sure there's a whole heap of neglect statutes this would violate.

being as sucking them out with a vaccuum cleaner doesn't, i think you're fulla shiat.
 
2006-01-29 08:17:29 PM
Nobody'sPerfekt: It's called hope for the future of humanity.

I'm sensing that a lot of you farkers don't have any..


I have hope for the future of humanity. But most of my hope involves us evolving away from all the isms we have such as nationalism (tribalism), religiousism, the isms of ideologies and the like and moving toward a rights based society.
 
2006-01-29 08:18:50 PM
faethe: They used to - it was grounds for divorce at one time. Could happen again - just pretend it's not happening.

Un-farking-believable. This is the civilized world, right?
 
2006-01-29 08:19:27 PM
heap: being as sucking them out with a vaccuum cleaner doesn't, i think you're fulla shiat.

Yeah, is a little house cleaning around your own womb a violation of the law?
 
2006-01-29 08:19:35 PM
heap: i think you meant 'lose'. a 'loose job' would likely cause the problem to begin with.


Oh. I meant to say that.

//Emily Latella
 
2006-01-29 08:20:34 PM
shrapnil77: Bingo. When you create a human being, however unintentionally, you have responsabilities. You can give them to another person willing to take them, obviously, but ending them via termination- through comission OR omission- is criminal.

So I take it you're of this absurd "trip down the stairs = negligent manslaughter" camp?
 
2006-01-29 08:21:50 PM
blahpers: Un-farking-believable. This is the civilized world, right?


Its one helluva LOT better than it used to be. There have been a LOT of serious changes just in my lifetime. This is a really disturbing backslide, in my opinion. If you look at Piaget's steps for childhood development (on into adulthood), you see that backsliding is to be expected, so perhaps this is just a bump in the road. It worries the hell out of me for the women that fet caught up in this - its no little thing for them.
 
2006-01-29 08:23:45 PM
Anti-choicers are being absolutely owned in this thread, and for good reason. Their point of view is based on pure emotion.

Explains why anti-choicers use the tactics they do, ie standing on the street corner with a huge picture of an aborted fetus. To evoke emotion, not appeal to reason.
 
2006-01-29 08:24:20 PM
blahpers

Even knowing that, once removed, a clump of cells would have a 100% mortality rate? But that means that removing the cells would violate child protective statutes (remember, that clump of cells is a child by your reckoning), so in fact you wouldn't support such an action after all.

Tell me that every partial-birth abortion would have a 100% mortality rate and we'll talk there. The date of fetal viabilty is contantly dropping.

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.

WorldCitizen

So you want the voters to control the bodies of individual human beings? This is where we differ. I believe in a Constitution to protect the rights of people and minorities (including that of their own bodies) from the passions of the masses.

Voters already DO control the bodies of each other. Public health statutes, smoking bans, tattoo/piercing regulations, drug policy- this has been going on since the beginning of time.

"Of the people, by the people, for the people." No mention of minorities. Because, you see, minorities ARE people unless it is specifically legislated otherwise, in which case they have their rights taken anyway. Get where I'm going with this?

So now you're moving toward arguing that the State should be mandating active intervention inside a woman fighting off potential fetal rejection from the moment of conception?

Um, YOU'RE the one streching my points. As so many people here have pointed out, most of these spontanious abortions are basically undetectable or preventable (file under, "shiat, regrettably, happens."). If a woman is carrying a child having trouble, though, I think it should have legal protection so it isn't simply killed for the sake of convenience.
 
2006-01-29 08:25:30 PM
Smarshmallow,

"Why do you get to decide who gets rights? Why does a non-thinking, non-feeling fetus get rights, just because it shares our DNA, but a feeling, posslibly thinking cow doesn't?"

This is why these arguments are always fun...

Fetus: Non-thinking, non-feeling human entity...kill it.

versus

Animal: Possibly(?) "thinking", feeling "if even for a fraction of a second before we kill it for food"...let it live, by all means.

My only conclusion is that a small, misguided portion of the human race wishes that it wasn't here in the first place and somehow feels guilty for even breathing.

Help me out here, because Darwin would not be happy with us right now.

/Evolutionist, but Pro-Life...so, suck it.
 
2006-01-29 08:26:11 PM
Nobody'sPerfekt

It's called hope for the future of humanity.

I'm sensing that a lot of you farkers don't have any...


Well, no kidding.

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".
 
2006-01-29 08:29:24 PM
mister13: To evoke emotion, not appeal to reason.

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.
 
2006-01-29 08:31:34 PM
Kepora_Gebora: Of course, I suppose I can't be considered pro-choice entirely since I think there should be some kind of program set up for "repeat offenders" - women who have multiple abortions. Sort of like how you can take a driving course if you commit a traffic violation - for women who want to abort multiple times, have a mandatory sex ed class where they can learn about contraceptives since there's a good chance the reason why they keep getting pregnant is that no one ever told them, or they don't know how to use contraceptives properly. I mean, having an abortion is still having a surgery so it's probably best to avoid that, all morality aside.

Or it could just be that they're worthless scum with no regard for human life who desrerve to die.
 
2006-01-29 08:34:04 PM
Kendrick
Or it could just be that they're worthless scum with no regard for human life who desrerve to die.

No irony slash?
 
2006-01-29 08:36:08 PM
shrapnil77: Tell me that every partial-birth abortion would have a 100% mortality rate and we'll talk there. The date of fetal viabilty is contantly dropping.

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

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.

Voters already DO control the bodies of each other. Public health statutes, smoking bans, tattoo/piercing regulations, drug policy- this has been going on since the beginning of time.

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

"Of the people, by the people, for the people." No mention of minorities. Because, you see, minorities ARE people unless it is specifically legislated otherwise, in which case they have their rights taken anyway. Get where I'm going with this?

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".

Um, YOU'RE the one streching my points. As so many people here have pointed out, most of these spontanious abortions are basically undetectable or preventable (file under, "shiat, regrettably, happens."). If a woman is carrying a child having trouble, though, I think it should have legal protection so it isn't simply killed for the sake of convenience.

The rate of detectability/preventability is contantly [sic] rising.

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.
 
2006-01-29 08:36:48 PM
heap

shrapnil77: Bingo.

yet even more dancing around the issue. it's all well and good for you to draw parrallels to other circumstances, but you really don't like it when it bites you in the ass.


And this bit me in the ass how? You made a propsition that was logical under my idea. I agreed. The problem is. . .?

shrapnil77: I'm sure there's a whole heap of neglect statutes this would violate.

being as sucking them out with a vaccuum cleaner doesn't, i think you're fulla shiat.


That's because since 1973, the law has been specifically tailored with this "except" in mind. Just like how before the Civil War, it was "all people have these rights EXCEPT. . ."

blahpers

So I take it you're of this absurd "trip down the stairs = negligent manslaughter" camp?

Sure- IF you can prove neglect in a stair trip. Trickier than it sounds.

mister13

Anti-choicers are being absolutely owned in this thread, and for good reason. Their point of view is based on pure emotion.

Explains why anti-choicers use the tactics they do, ie standing on the street corner with a huge picture of an aborted fetus. To evoke emotion, not appeal to reason.


Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of wishful thinking. Abortion is, in it's present state, a "dogma in search of a rationale."

Those pictures are not an appeal to emotion any more than Holocaust pictures are. They are simply evidence of the facts. That people equate the visceral reaction they provoke with some kind of cheap emotional appeal demonstrates the depth of their denial.
 
2006-01-29 08:37:45 PM
shrapnil77: Voters already DO control the bodies of each other. Public health statutes, smoking bans, tattoo/piercing regulations, drug policy- this has been going on since the beginning of time.

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.

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

Now, people should also have the right to be free of the threat of harm, so of course licensed doctors and medical practices should be available for the people to choose. What to be relatively free from the harm of an incompetent tatoo giver? Go to a licenced tatoo parlor.

Likewise, make it illegal for people to drive while impaired from the influence of drugs (including alcohol) as that is an unreasonable threat against the right to be free from the threat of harm for other citizens.

But this is all getting me off the course, as you seem to be good at doing.

"Of the people, by the people, for the people." No mention of minorities. Because, you see, minorities ARE people unless it is specifically legislated otherwise, in which case they have their rights taken anyway. Get where I'm going with this?

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.

Um, YOU'RE the one streching my points. As so many people here have pointed out, most of these spontanious abortions are basically undetectable or preventable (file under, "shiat, regrettably, happens."). If a woman is carrying a child having trouble, though, I think it should have legal protection so it isn't simply killed for the sake of convenience.

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?
 
2006-01-29 08:38:13 PM
blahpers: I take it you are unfamiliar with the phrase "tyranny of the majority".

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.
 
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.
 
2006-01-29 09:50:47 PM
shrapnil77: 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.


When in trouble or in doubt - resort to a red herring and hope for the best.
 
2006-01-29 09:52:46 PM
Arramol wrote: You can talk about rape all you want, but that constitutes a minuscule percentage of US pregnancies...As for the things that won't pass...the horror of the rape, the trauma...do you really think aborting the pregnancy will make this go away? Not likely!

[warning to longtime Farkers: yes, I'm about to go on one of my infamous rants, but I'm pissed, damn it!]

Obviously you haven't been raped. I have. TWICE.

The first time I was 4 years old. The second time I was 19. It was a case of date rape.

I didn't report the rape because back then, date rape wasn't discussed. I didn't want people to think that I "asked for it."

I didn't have a period for several months after the rape. The longer I went without having my period, the more I was convinced that I was pregnant. I put off seeing a doctor because I was afraid to face it. I discussed it with a couple of friends, and eventually visited a priest for help (at the time I was a Catholic; now I'm an atheist). All he cared about was whether or not I was planning to have an abortion. He told me I would go to hell if I did.

I finally went to see a doctor about 4 months after the rape, and found to my great relief that I wasn't pregnant. I've learned since then that cessation of a woman's period after being raped is quite common. I didn't know this at the time, though.

I can't begin to tell you what absolute hell my life was during those months. I seriously considered suicide. It's bad enough dealing with being raped; thinking that part of the rapist is still inside you makes it a thousand times worse. Father Guilt Trip didn't make things any easier.

I know what it's like to have my vagina ripped open by a rapist. I don't want to know what it's like to have my vagina ripped open again by a rapist's offspring. It's the same as being raped again.

I find it very offensive that others think they have the right to force me or other women to have children against our will.

Don't give me that tired old bullshiat about caring about "life." I don't see any of your kind protesting about the lives being exterminated in Iraq by Bushiat, nor do I see any of you speaking up for people on death row, nor for welfare recipients whose benefits were recently cut. A few days ago, in an illegal immigrant thread here on Fark, I noted that many so-called Christians suggested shooting immigrants on sight if they were caught crossing the border. Some of you have no problem with murdering abortion doctors, even if those doctors performed abortions to save women's lives. "Pro-life," my ass.

Take a good look at this link. It's just one of many featuring unwanted children available for adoption in the U.S. There are over 3,000 children on this particular website; nationwide, there are about 80,000 available children and another 500,000 awaiting placement in foster homes.

Why aren't any of you lining up to adopt these kids? It's a shame that they aren't the cuddly, healthy white babies that most adoptive parents crave, but don't they deserve families? Where's your concern for THEM???

You're not "pro-life," you're merely "pro-forced-childbirth." It's clear to me that you people are nothing but sanctimonious, self-righteous hypocrites who don't give a damn about others' lives unless they still have umbilical cords attached to them.
 
2006-01-29 09:53:19 PM
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?


Why call them unborn children? Why not unborn septuagenarians?
 
2006-01-29 09:59:43 PM
Lorelle:

Bravo, and thank you. You're incredibly brave to speak out.
 
2006-01-29 10:10:54 PM
blahpers

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

Nice try. However, referancing a fact != condonation thereof. I don't know the prescise fallacy, but in the vernacular, it's called "putting words in my mouth."

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.


Aside from saying that life is not a scientific concept (like I said before: "when in doubt, deny all terms and definitions.") I find the case for scientific ambiguity- if it indeed exists- as a case FOR abortion as somewhat baffling.

Are you familiar with the Roman principal of "presumption of liberty?" It was a legal principle that stated when there was any doubt over whether a slave was free or not, the slave was automatically released. Why? Because they realized that if one slave remained as property who should have been freed, it created a prescedent that endangered the liberty of all free men.

On that same note, let us assume that the life of a fetus is an unprovable value. In the question of abortion, what are the risks? If one opposes, one risks invading rights of another to control their own body. If one supports, one risks condoning mass murder on an unprescedented scale. Which side do you want to err on?

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.

Except I noted that this was NOT an emotional appeal, but rather a simple demonstration. If it evokes an emotional reaction, that's the on the viewer.

And by associating a single component- the common emotional reaction- with the whole- picture of the mangled corpse- is the fallacy of composition. Nice try.

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.

I agree. NESCESSARY evils. Unless you can demonstrate nescessity- "I will die if this pregnancy continues-" they shouldn't be able to have an abortion. Fair?

Sneaking up on a Godwin, eh?

Already there. But you do realize that an exceptions clause applies in the case of apt comparisons, correct?
 
2006-01-29 10:11:49 PM
Kill teh baybies!!!! Kill da criminimals!!!! DIEEEEE!
 
2006-01-29 10:15:33 PM
I have always wondered why Men feel they have the right to be so involved in the Abortion issue - aside from those few wanna be fathers who really want their child.

Any thoughts on this?
 
2006-01-29 10:16:26 PM
I believe that life begins at ejaculation.

/killed more than Stalin and Hitler combined
 
2006-01-29 10:19:20 PM
faethe
When in trouble or in doubt - resort to a red herring and hope for the best.

"No case. Abuse the opposing consul."

You're hoping to simply attack my argument as a red herring and have people dismiss it as such. Unfortunatly, since you can't substantiate that- there is, after all, nothing to substantiate- it's just an empty attack. So bad, so sad.

Lorelle
I've got an idea. Let's take all those unwanted kids and gas them. Their lives obviously aren't going to be worth living, so why not just kill them? That is what you're advocating.

This logic has been used before. I think we all know where it led.
 
2006-01-29 10:19:25 PM
<smug>
Uh-oh. Nice try there, buddy. That's a logical fallacy: It's called "appeal to douchebaggery".

"Nice try! The appeal to douchebaggery isn't a logical fallacy. I should know, I use it all the time and I don't make logical fallacies. YOU just made a logical fallacy called 'appeal to logical fallacies'."

Nice try there, buddy. Accusations of appeals to logical fallacies are logical fallacies: They're called</smug> sorry, I always forget to close my smug tag.
 
2006-01-29 10:21:36 PM
By the way, shrapnil77, kick-ass move equating abortion with the policies of Nazi Germany. That one's always a winner.
 
2006-01-29 10:24:15 PM
I know that Reuters reporter. She has an awesome fake rack.
 
2006-01-29 10:25:18 PM
GGracie
I have always wondered why Men feel they have the right to be so involved in the Abortion issue - aside from those few wanna be fathers who really want their child.

Any thoughts on this?


One- because lots of people have opinions on issues that don't connect physically with them. By this logic, only people in the military should have a say on the Iraq war. What are you armchair critics so wound up about? You're not in the line of fire.

Two- because it ties into larger father's rights issues- abortion is one of the many cases where men have no legal say in the fate of their own children. A lot of men have had their child aborted for reasons like jealousy or revenge. It's not all spinal bifida and tubal pregnancies, people.
 
2006-01-29 10:26:33 PM
I think Sicarim is something of a numbnut for his views, but I will give him credit for consistency, something often lacking amongst pro-lifers. At least he stands by the belief that a fetus is a baby.

The worst are guys who are against abortion except in cases of rape and incest (pretty much everyone agrees on saving the mother's life-only the real wackos are against that one). If you really believe that's a separate human being in there, then you can't "murder" him/her because his/her father was a criminal.

I reiterate, this is not my view. As far as I'm concerned you can have anything in your body taken out at any time. Apendix, tonsils, kidney, fetus, etc. They're just cells, and they're in you.
 
2006-01-29 10:27:32 PM
superking
"The truth hurts, doesn't it. . . sure, not as much as jumping on a bicycle with the seat missing, but it hurts."

Besides, the use of pictures to demonstrate what is actually happening makes the comparison extremely apt.
 
2006-01-29 10:30:45 PM
Lenny and Carl
The worst are guys who are against abortion except in cases of rape and incest (pretty much everyone agrees on saving the mother's life-only the real wackos are against that one). If you really believe that's a separate human being in there, then you can't "murder" him/her because his/her father was a criminal.

I think those people still think their views are consistent - if a woman gets pregnant from sex that she consented to, they feel she needs to accept responsibility for her actions. But if pregnancy is forced upon her through rape, they feel she is not responsible for those actions.
 
2006-01-29 10:31:06 PM
For every abortion you don't have, I'm going to have three!

/if I had a vagina
 
2006-01-29 10:31:12 PM
DeadBaby: 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.

Well, that's what you get for acknowledging your biological imperative and having sex. The punishment fits the crime, right?

Kendrick: Nope, no irony slash. Abortion is literally an act of premeditated murder.

And you're the final authority on this, eh? Glad you cleared this whole thing up.

mistergecko: Same thing's happening with abortions. The main underlying issue is degraded intimate relationships stemming from a growing lower class.

Well, that and people are biologically compelled to have sex to propagate the species, but conditions now such that procreating isn't always a good idea--for the individual or the species. Couple that with inadequate contraception, and we're pickled.

shrapnil77: Oh, and stop poisioning the well.

Okay, that's the third mislabeling of a fallacy I've seen from you. Someone just got out of debate class and thinks he's hot stuff. Get back to class, Socrates.

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.

Ever heard of judicial review? You can argue "legislating from the bench!" all you want, like everyone else does when the SC hands down a ruling they don't like, but an appeal amounts to having the case reviewed and, in cases of legal ambiguity, interpreting the law. You know, interpreting the law--the entire reason for the existence of the judiciary branch. Don't like the interpretation? Yeah, well, like you say, the courts aren't infallible. Got a better system in mind? Keep in mind that the pure democracy you seem to be advocating has been tried, and, generally, it's far worse.

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.

Again, your opinion. You believe (IIRC) that a fertilized egg has full human rights while a right to privacy doesn't exist. From where do you draw this right? For that matter, where do you draw any of your rights? I hope it isn't from the Constitution, because, as Hamilton aptly noted above, the Constitution neither grants rights nor completely enumerates them. The right to privacy is as widely recognized as the rights to life, liberty, speech, press, assembly, and religion. It is enumerated in other acknowledged and respected human rights documents (which, of course, also do not magically grant or wholly enumerate rights). Why do you believe that a fertilized egg has full human rights but that no human, egg or adult, has a right to privacy?

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.


Can we acknowledge that both "viable" and "nonviable" fetuses/zygotes/whatever are under controversy? People are arguing that a fertilized egg has human rights. I was under the impression that you were. If not, the misconception is your own fault for not clearly stating your own stance.

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.

Yes they were (read up on the history behind RvW a bit), and no, it isn't. "Human life" is not completely well-defined--there is no universally accepted or physically-derived definition that applies in all cases. Is a skin cell human life? A sperm cell? A fertilized egg? A blastocyst? Scientifically, the question is meaningless, because the understood idea of "life" is not scientific.

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?

Apparently not, or you'd be drowned out by the majority you worship. But, as you deliberately ignore, not everyone believes a fertilized egg is a child.

"Right to be free from physical injury?" I almost spit out my soda.

Don't be obtuse. It is near-universally accepted that inflicting injury on a person is a violation of that person's rights.

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?"

Terrible example--we do, in fact, have legislation regarding self-defense. And 5% is the cutoff for anything worth legislating? Glad things are so clear-cut for you in shrapnill77-land.
 
2006-01-29 10:31:33 PM
Personally, I'd define "life" as being any organism with at least one cell. Thus, the question of whether or not the fetus is alive or not strikes me as rather moot. I would say it is. I would also say that that clump of cells is human on the same basis that we term parts of the human body "human X" (human hair, human remains). At what point does it become a human being, though? I would say that the thing which distinguishes us from simple multi-celled organisms would be the formation of our brains. Thus, once the brain has formed, I would say that abortion is killing another human being. But a person obligated to keep another human being alive if the only way to keep that human being alive is to endure keeping a parasite in your body for nine months (coupled with the illness, hormonal imbalances and deformation of the body that the parasite causes), followed either by an extended period of intense physical pain, or invasive surgery? I would say no.

And thus, harbouring no illusions over whether or not an unborn fetus is a human being or not, I support the right to an abortion.

/incidentally, I'm also pro-death penalty and pro-voluntary euthanasia
//culture of death all the way, baby
 
2006-01-29 10:32:32 PM
If abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions.
 
2006-01-29 10:32:56 PM
kyoryu:

I believe that life begins at ejaculation.

/killed more than Stalin and Hitler combined


www.bubblessoc.net
 
2006-01-29 10:33:13 PM
shrapnil77

Besides, the use of pictures to demonstrate what is actually happening makes the comparison extremely apt.

However, showing pictures of stillborns is hardly showing the truth of abortion since those are two different things.
 
2006-01-29 10:35:19 PM
Kepora_Gebora

I have to disagree. The entire argument against abortion rests on the premise that a fetus is a human life separate from that of the mother, and it is wrong to kill it. Regardless of the manner in which a human being is conceived, he/she would still have rights.

Those who oppose abortion but make room for the rape/incest exception take the logically untenable position that a fetus is a baby unless the father was a rapist.
 
2006-01-29 10:35:41 PM
I think maddox said it best...

"I'm against abortion and for killing babies, that way everyone loses."
 
2006-01-29 10:38:03 PM
Lenny and Carl

Oh, I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying what I understand their logic to be.
 
2006-01-29 10:39:22 PM
And I'd also like to offer a word of encouragement for Lorelle. Too many women have felt the need to remain silent in too many cultures. Brava for speaking out. I can only hope that kind of courage will help other women in the future.

Give em hell.
 
2006-01-29 10:40:10 PM
blahpers

Well, that's what you get for acknowledging your biological imperative and having sex. The punishment fits the crime, right?


Since when is attempting safe sex (consentual, 18+, non-incest, etc...) a crime? Hehe, you must have forgotten to remove the rubber band from your nads/ovaries before they fell off and stuff.
 
2006-01-29 10:42:44 PM
Kepora_Gebora

I got that, but it still doesn't qualify as logic - its just a way of making their draconian views more palatable to the voting public. No one would vote for these guys if the party platform read, "rape victims should have to carry their attackers babies to term."

Parallel Ex: In its infancy, the Catholic Church took that little "Thou shalt not kill rule" literally. Then someone figured out that no kings would ever adopt christianity if they couldn't wage war on their neighbors. So the Catholics mitigated their position for political gain.
 
2006-01-29 10:50:22 PM
shrapnil77: Are you familiar with the Roman principal of "presumption of liberty?" It was a legal principle that stated when there was any doubt over whether a slave was free or not, the slave was automatically released. Why? Because they realized that if one slave remained as property who should have been freed, it created a prescedent that endangered the liberty of all free men.

On that same note, let us assume that the life of a fetus is an unprovable value. In the question of abortion, what are the risks? If one opposes, one risks invading rights of another to control their own body. If one supports, one risks condoning mass murder on an unprescedented scale. Which side do you want to err on?


For that matter, we take the same risk when we kill an animal for food.

You imply that there is a naturally right side. "Life", as we understand it, is a human concept, or, more broadly, a concept for the living. It has no meaning outside of the conscious mind. You sound like you're afraid of pissing off God. From whence do you draw your rights? God? Nature? Social contract?

Except I noted that this was NOT an emotional appeal, but rather a simple demonstration. If it evokes an emotional reaction, that's the on the viewer.

The demonstration is intended solely to provoke that emotional appeal. You're being obtuse again, and it's getting old.

And by associating a single component- the common emotional reaction- with the whole- picture of the mangled corpse- is the fallacy of composition. Nice try.

Wow, you really do love taking a dump on logic. The picture is used as an argument against abortion. It is the equivalent of the sentence "This is horrible and ugly and makes you shudder, therefore abortion is murder." That is a fallacy (appeal to emotion). If another statement was to be represented, the demonstrator did a poor job.

I agree. NESCESSARY evils. Unless you can demonstrate nescessity- "I will die if this pregnancy continues-" they shouldn't be able to have an abortion. Fair?

It is argued that the death of a fetus/zygote/whatever, in at least some stages of life, is a lesser evil than the invasion of privacy (and, for that matter, body) inflicted upon the mother. Round and round we go.
 
2006-01-29 10:51:04 PM
I can't believe that I'm jumping into a farking abortion debate but I agree that the rape and incest stipulation makes zero sense whatsoever. If you feel that abortion is murder and your argument is based on that then it's still murder, even if the fetus' father was a rapist. The little bastard shouldn't have to pay for the sins of the father. We're not Klingons.

I happen to be pro-choice BTW. Actually, I could give a rat's ass either way but I like to point out logical inconsistencies, especially when they're being spouted off by the religious right.
 
2006-01-29 10:53:44 PM
DeadBaby: Since when is attempting safe sex (consentual, 18+, non-incest, etc...) a crime? Hehe, you must have forgotten to remove the rubber band from your nads/ovaries before they fell off and stuff.

I agree completely. With the first part. My nads are fine.
 
2006-01-29 10:56:16 PM
What a sane person does with her own body is her own choice. Period. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that others can decide what to do with your body. Do anti-choice types agree that they will allow the government to decide what will be done with their bodies? Government has a shortage on kidneys; you, you there, hand yours over. You can't decide, we do. Preventing a woman from deciding what to do with her own body is taking control over it away from her and putting in someone else's hands. How is that ever decent, lawful, humane, intelligent, logical or right? After taking away the choice to have an abortion, will you petition taking away the choice to have a vasectomy? Until that baby exists the womb and the cord is cut, it's a part of mom's body. She can decide what to do with it. Period.
 
2006-01-29 11:10:48 PM
blahpers

You're cute.

shrapnil77: Oh, and stop poisioning the well.

Okay, that's the third mislabeling of a fallacy I've seen from you. Someone just got out of debate class and thinks he's hot stuff. Get back to class, Socrates.


Nice try. Quote in referance: "I understand the Klan was really pissed off about 'Brown Vs. Board of Education' too."

Clear attempt to associate my views with those of a group a normal person would want to distance themselves from and consquently discredit without debate. If that ain't poisoning the well, it doesn't exist. ::Has never taken a class on this subject::

Ever heard of judicial review? You can argue "legislating from the bench!" all you want, like everyone else does when the SC hands down a ruling they don't like, but an appeal amounts to having the case reviewed and, in cases of legal ambiguity, interpreting the law. You know, interpreting the law--the entire reason for the existence of the judiciary branch. Don't like the interpretation? Yeah, well, like you say, the courts aren't infallible. Got a better system in mind? Keep in mind that the pure democracy you seem to be advocating has been tried, and, generally, it's far worse.

Got a better system? Nope. However, I would like to see a bit more use of the system in place- like use of exceptions clause cited earlier. Given that the courts have usurped congressional power this instance and ARE clearly legislating from the bench (hence "trimesters" nonsense) they should be declared incompetent to rule on this issue.
Treating SCOTUS descisions as acts of god must make George III wonder what all the fuss was about.

Again, your opinion. You believe (IIRC) that a fertilized egg has full human rights while a right to privacy doesn't exist. From where do you draw this right? For that matter, where do you draw any of your rights? I hope it isn't from the Constitution, because, as Hamilton aptly noted above, the Constitution neither grants rights nor completely enumerates them. The right to privacy is as widely recognized as the rights to life, liberty, speech, press, assembly, and religion. It is enumerated in other acknowledged and respected human rights documents (which, of course, also do not magically grant or wholly enumerate rights). Why do you believe that a fertilized egg has full human rights but that no human, egg or adult, has a right to privacy?

I'm against the unenumerated right of "privacy" (vague word) because it's being used to usurp (in clear violation of the 9th amendment, I might add) the right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process as specifically laid out by the 5th and 14th amendments. I believe that the Supreme Court engaged in a flight of fatuous fancy and we're all paying for it.

Can we acknowledge that both "viable" and "nonviable" fetuses/zygotes/whatever are under controversy? People are arguing that a fertilized egg has human rights. I was under the impression that you were. If not, the misconception is your own fault for not clearly stating your own stance.

Of course. Like I said before, the definitions of "life" I've seen that exclude fetuses also catch others in their net- fetuses, for a portion of their developement, cannot fend for themselves. However, there are lots of born human beings who also cannot fend for themselves. I really don't think it's relavent to the debate.

Yes they were (read up on the history behind RvW a bit), and no, it isn't. "Human life" is not completely well-defined--there is no universally accepted or physically-derived definition that applies in all cases. Is a skin cell human life? A sperm cell? A fertilized egg? A blastocyst? Scientifically, the question is meaningless, because the understood idea of "life" is not scientific.

Not 100%, no. Viruses, for instance, occupy a dubious position in this particular debate. However, given that a fetus has to be activly killed, that is a fairly safe indicator that something is alive.

Apparently not, or you'd be drowned out by the majority you worship. But, as you deliberately ignore, not everyone believes a fertilized egg is a child.

Care to put that to the test? Oh, wait, no, because you're pulling so heavily for judicial fiat.

My position is not "vox populi, vox dei." I have a very specific vision of what I want on this issue, and I believe it should be decided on by the voters as opposed to silenced by oligarchs.

Don't be obtuse. It is near-universally accepted that inflicting injury on a person is a violation of that person's rights.

Except when that infliction is their willful obliteration while in utero. In which case it's just a "choice" and perfectly okay.

Terrible example--we do, in fact, have legislation regarding self-defense. And 5% is the cutoff for anything worth legislating? Glad things are so clear-cut for you in shrapnill77-land.

Yes, but we don't use it to rationalize a blanket justification for murder. While no one denies that a mother should be able to kill her child to preserve her own life- e.g. self-defense- to use that as a justification for any such killing is patently absurd.

And now you're getting snarky about me pointing out that the case you cited was statistically insignificant. I have to know: do all facts that disagree with you stem from my delusions?
 
2006-01-29 11:12:26 PM
"What a sane person does with her own body is her own choice. Period."


The abortion issue isn't about what a woman does to her body, its what she does to her child's body.


"To suggest otherwise is to suggest that others can decide what to do with your body. Do anti-choice types agree that they will allow the government to decide what will be done with their bodies?"


Im fine with the government deciding that a baby can't have its brains sucked out through a tube because it would interfere with the mothers bar-hopping lifestyle.


"After taking away the choice to have an abortion, will you petition taking away the choice to have a vasectomy?"


My theoretical vasectomy doesn't cause a child to be murdered in the womb.
 
2006-01-29 11:18:15 PM
drestin - What a sane person does with her own body is her own choice. Period. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that others can decide what to do with your body. Do anti-choice types agree that they will allow the government to decide what will be done with their bodies?

Yes, that argument has repeated 100 times this thread and in any debate about abortion. Everybody on either side is well familiar with that concept and understands it.

You have to understand that pro-lifers believe it's not "her own body" but a seperate individual "body" that is being killed. If that's true, I'm not trying to convince you of that I'm just trying to get you to understand the other side, than a person doesn't look at abortion simply as somebody's choice or right. It's not a person's "right" if it interferes with another human's rights.

Again, I'm not trying to convice you to be pro-life but just to realize why your opposition believes what they do. Those who want to outlaw abortion believe it's murder. In their eyes, you're saying it's my right to murder my unborn child and it's none of your business. Sticking with that argument as your basis isn't going to get you anywhere.
 
2006-01-29 11:18:50 PM
2006-01-29 03:40:32 PM Nabb1

I'm not being obtuse. I've made my position clear. And I understand the difference between being in favor of preserving the right to allow the procedure and advocating the procedure itself. What I want to know, however, is what is it about abortion that would make a person who advocates it as an option not want to be perceived as being in favor of it. No one has addressed that issue yet.


I think the thing about abortion that would make a person who advocates it as an option not want to be perceived as being in favor of it, is the same as the thing about hunting that would make a person who advocates it as an option not want to be perceived as being in favor of it.

They may feel that although the act may not be in the bounds of their personal beliefs, they, as Americans, are not in a position to foist their personal beliefs on other Americans, and therefore feel Americans should have a right to choose to hunt, although they themselves would not do that.

That's my take on it.

Like most Americans, I am for choice, but that doesn't mean I'm recruiting women to get abortions. They can make their own decisions. It's their own personal business and not mine, nor yours.

/didn't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this point has already been made.
 
2006-01-29 11:20:23 PM
Thank you, Lorelle. I find it interesting that the men posting here are, by and large, whining about semantics, law, morality, and all of the other hollow intellectual arguments that men make regarding the abortion question. Curiously, none of them have ever been faced with the prospect of an unwanted fetus growing inside their bodies.
You have, and your opinion, frankly, is the only one that matters.
It sure is easy to accuse women who have abortions of being murderers when you never have to worry about anyone accusing you of being a murderer because you'll never, ever get pregnant.

/jackasses
 
2006-01-29 11:24:08 PM
churchill72
Im fine with the government deciding that a baby can't have its brains sucked out through a tube because it would interfere with the mothers bar-hopping lifestyle.

Oh, just for that, you need to have your head held under water until you stop kicking.
Or, just drop dead.
 
2006-01-29 11:24:32 PM
Abdul Alhazred: It sure is easy to accuse women who have abortions of being murderers when you never have to worry about anyone accusing you of being a murderer because you'll never, ever get pregnant.

Yet somehow I keep from cutting up living human beings, regardless of their proxmity to my delicate bits.
 
2006-01-29 11:29:00 PM
Kepora_Gebora

However, showing pictures of stillborns is hardly showing the truth of abortion since those are two different things.

Hey, if people are being disingenuous, say so. On the other hand, I don't think the one with the little arms and legs connected by all the little rivulets of flesh is a stillbirth.

blahpers

For that matter, we take the same risk when we kill an animal for food.

You imply that there is a naturally right side. "Life", as we understand it, is a human concept, or, more broadly, a concept for the living. It has no meaning outside of the conscious mind. You sound like you're afraid of pissing off God. From whence do you draw your rights? God? Nature? Social contract?


They're called "human rights" for a reason. Now who's being obtuse?

"Endowed by their Creator with certian inalienable rights." Good enough for me. That being said, this is another "deny all terms and definitions" thing. As I cited before, when you stop believing in all things not physically proveable, the very concept of justice goes right out the window. The question is, do we want to go down that road?

The demonstration is intended solely to provoke that emotional appeal. You're being obtuse again, and it's getting old.

The truth hurts. The fact that it evokes an emotional response does not diminish the truth that it shows a vivisected fetus.

Wow, you really do love taking a dump on logic. The picture is used as an argument against abortion. It is the equivalent of the sentence "This is horrible and ugly and makes you shudder, therefore abortion is murder." That is a fallacy (appeal to emotion). If another statement was to be represented, the demonstrator did a poor job.

Oh, you're so cute. I've said, many times, that the emotional component is secondary. The fact of recognizable human characteristics and consequent demonstration of the blurry-to-nonexistant line between fetus and anyone else.

But of course, you obviously know what I'm saying better than I do. My mistake.

It is argued that the death of a fetus/zygote/whatever, in at least some stages of life, is a lesser evil than the invasion of privacy (and, for that matter, body) inflicted upon the mother. Round and round we go.

It was also argued- and, for a time, accepted as law- that black people were not human. That doesn't make it true.
 
2006-01-29 11:33:02 PM
Pro-lifers really can behave like a bunch of self-righteous windbags. There's probably a reasonable middle ground on the topic (hint: ADOPTION), but the sob-sisters and sick freaks bandying about the bloody fetus pictures keep it from being met.
 
2006-01-29 11:34:23 PM
On the other hand, I don't think the one with the little arms and legs connected by all the little rivulets of flesh is a stillbirth.

The thing is though, those pictures don't match up to the developmental stage they're supposedly taken at. And when they do, such as late-term abortions, that's still not showing an overall view of abortion because around 90% of abortions happen before the third month of pregnancy.
 
2006-01-29 11:34:42 PM
Well, it took a while but the emotional crying eventually came out. Might as well have godwinned it, can't argue against emotions.
 
2006-01-29 11:35:19 PM
Like I said- when the Supreme Court stops playing Congress and abandons the lawlessness of Roe, the national face of all this ugliness will crumble. The liberal states will be liberal and the conservative ones will be conservative.
 
2006-01-29 11:36:43 PM
spelunking_defenestrator - Extremists hurt their cause in most cases.
 
2006-01-29 11:40:55 PM
To play the devil's advoacte:
never odd
Tell that to Mao.
 
2006-01-29 11:42:51 PM
Sigh...

Pro-Choice != Pro-Abortion
Pro-Choice = Anti-Coathanger

Also I'd like to point out that so called Red States have higher abortion rates.
 
2006-01-29 11:43:54 PM
when the Supreme Court stops playing Congress and abandons the lawlessness of Roe, the national face of all this ugliness will crumble

Nooo...the people who can't get abortions in their home states will either attempt to game the system by switching states (which is why Roe is federalized, so they can't), procure a backalley abortion, or abandon the baby. That's the thing, pro-lifers just refuse to accept the reality of the situation, they're stuck in fantasy la-la land where all you have to do is overturn Roe and everything will be A-OK. Where all you have to do is hand out this silver ring thing and everything will be peachy! 'Tain't so. Real life is messy.
 
2006-01-29 11:43:58 PM
churchill72
The abortion issue isn't about what a woman does to her body, its what she does to her child's body.


There is no "child's body". It is still attached to, and part of, the woman. Is my finger a seperate human heing? Is my leg?
 
2006-01-29 11:45:07 PM
And I know for damn sure I don't want my state footing some other state's healthcare costs.
 
2006-01-29 11:48:32 PM
There is no "child's body". It is still attached to, and part of, the woman. Is my finger a seperate human heing? Is my leg?

Biologically speaking, your leg has the same genetic code has you and therefore is a part of you. The fetus, child, glob of cells, whatever you want to call it has it's own, unique, genetic, human genome.
 
2006-01-29 11:52:01 PM
spelunking_defenestrator

Nooo...the people who can't get abortions in their home states will either attempt to game the system by switching states (which is why Roe is federalized, so they can't), procure a backalley abortion, or abandon the baby. That's the thing, pro-lifers just refuse to accept the reality of the situation, they're stuck in fantasy la-la land where all you have to do is overturn Roe and everything will be A-OK. Where all you have to do is hand out this silver ring thing and everything will be peachy! 'Tain't so. Real life is messy.

Note I said "national face." Local politics will still be bloody, but that's the nature of the beast.

Yes, real life IS messy- so when killing your choice is expedient, it doesn't make it okay, or not a violation of the child's rights.

Yes, people do bad things. Saying "people are going to do this bad stuff, so we should just make it legal for convenience's sake" doesn't really hold up, in the final analysis.

fredklein

There is no "child's body". It is still attached to, and part of, the woman. Is my finger a seperate human heing? Is my leg?

Is your conjoined twin?
 
2006-01-29 11:57:45 PM
headlighted-deer:
So when is a human life considered as such, when it has a few more cells?

When it can think. So obviously you're not up to quite there yet.
 
2006-01-30 12:01:05 AM
shrapnil77:
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?

It's not a child. Until you understand that, you are being intellectually dishonest.
 
2006-01-30 12:05:25 AM
"people are going to do this bad stuff, so we should just make it legal for convenience's sake"

That's not what I was talking about.

images.google.com

Sex is legal. Sex is what causes women to get pregnant, and what causes them to seek abortions. It's not a question of making sex illegal, it's a question of making abortions illegal, and if you'd just cut the cutesy BS you're batting about you'd just come out and say that.

And I am telling you right now that unplanned pregnancies happen, they happen in red states and they happen in blue states. All the wishing in the world isn't going to make it otherwise, and in any case you have to come up with a way to contend with this. You can look at the problem from a real-life perspective or you can look at it from an emotional, kneejerk perspective, which is exactly what you are doing, shrapnil77, once you strip away all the pseudo-intellectual, substandard internet party games you are engaging in.

Chastity is the best policy, but if broken contraceptives should be provided. If neither are effective, adoption should be sought. If carrying the child to term and adoption is not viable, abortion should be open as an option failing all else. There you go, reasonable middle ground.
 
2006-01-30 12:07:01 AM
shrapnil77: blahpers

For that matter, we take the same risk when we kill an animal for food.

You imply that there is a naturally right side. "Life", as we understand it, is a human concept, or, more broadly, a concept for the living. It has no meaning outside of the conscious mind. You sound like you're afraid of pissing off God. From whence do you draw your rights? God? Nature? Social contract?

They're called "human rights" for a reason. Now who's being obtuse?

"Endowed by their Creator with certian inalienable rights." Good enough for me. That being said, this is another "deny all terms and definitions" thing. As I cited before, when you stop believing in all things not physically proveable, the very concept of justice goes right out the window. The question is, do we want to go down that road?


You didn't answer the question. Instead, you went off on your "deny all terms blah blah blah". Sorry, I don't want to base our legal system around a comic strip.

The truth hurts. The fact that it evokes an emotional response does not diminish the truth that it shows a vivisected fetus.

No shiat, it shows a vivisected fetus. Waaaaaah. It's ugly and makes the baby FSM cry. So what?

Oh, you're so cute. I've said, many times, that the emotional component is secondary. The fact of recognizable human characteristics and consequent demonstration of the blurry-to-nonexistant line between fetus and anyone else.

Okay, so you believe the primary purpose of the picture is to represent the statement, "A fetus has recognizable human characteristics, and a blurry-to-nonexistant line exists between fetus and anyone else. Therefore, abortion is murder. Also, it's icky." How are recognizable human characteristics relevant? And there's a rather big, thick, bold line between a fetus and anyone else--an umbilical cord. This, of course, is still aside from the "fertilized egg = full human rights" bit.

But of course, you obviously know what I'm saying better than I do. My mistake.

I'm apparently saying it better than you do, since you aren't saying (clearly) much of anything.

It was also argued- and, for a time, accepted as law- that black people were not human. That doesn't make it true.

Neither does your repeated assertion that a fertilized egg deserves full human rights. That's what this all boils down to. We can argue all we like, but every single abortion discussion has come back to the question, "When, in the human life cycle, do human rights begin?" Unfortunately, that's not even a clear-cut question, much less one with a clear-cut answer. You say, "Yes, it is, it begins at fertilization." But you don't back it up; you start tossing around an infantile understanding of logical fallacies and blathering about "denying all terms" and gambles reminiscent of Pascal's Wager (long, long debunked). It's exhausting (argumentum ad nauseum), and it solves nothing.
 
2006-01-30 12:07:39 AM
never odd or even: Biologically speaking, your leg has the same genetic code has you and therefore is a part of you. The fetus, child, glob of cells, whatever you want to call it has it's own, unique, genetic, human genome.

So?
 
2006-01-30 12:08:16 AM
ImJustaTroll: Well, it took a while but the emotional crying eventually came out. Might as well have godwinned it, can't argue against emotions.

Don't worry, it was Godwinned too.
 
2006-01-30 12:09:01 AM
BrotherAlpha - It's not a child. Until you understand that, you are being intellectually dishonest.

I realize your witty replies suggest you are far more intelligent than most; but why don't you just humor me and say why you're so certain it's not a human life.
 
2006-01-30 12:11:43 AM
blahpers - So?

So.. the argument that was said saying a fetus is no different than a person's arm or leg is a stupid argument.
 
2006-01-30 12:21:40 AM
never odd or even: So.. the argument that was said saying a fetus is no different than a person's arm or leg is a stupid argument.

So . . . what makes that particular difference significant enough to warrant the acknowledgment of full human rights?
 
2006-01-30 12:23:09 AM
Absolutely no images from Cartman's "Chili Con Carnival?"

I'm disappointed!
 
2006-01-30 12:31:14 AM
blahpers

So . . . what makes that particular difference significant enough to warrant the acknowledgment of full human rights?

Even if it did, full human rights still doesn't allow anyone to use someone else's body to live.
 
2006-01-30 12:34:36 AM
never odd or even

Biologically speaking, your leg has the same genetic code has you and therefore is a part of you. The fetus, child, glob of cells, whatever you want to call it has it's own, unique, genetic, human genome.


A lump of cancer cells has a different set of genes than the rest of me (something makes the cancer cells grow so fast). Does that mean a melanoma is a human being?)
 
2006-01-30 12:37:10 AM
blahpers - So . . . what makes that particular difference significant enough to warrant the acknowledgment of full human rights?

I'm actually on the fence on the issue. You originally quoted me refuting a bad argument from someone pro-choice. I wasn't making the leap that a fetus should have all the same rights necessarily. Just, again, pro-choicers saying that a fetus is a part of the mother's body the same way a leg is; is a really bad rationalization.

I just think people need to be honest about what the controversial elements are. Hearing pro-lifers say their opposition wants abortion and doesn't care about human life is just stupid. Pro-choicers do the same when they use the whole glob of tissue, pro-lifers hate women, it's my body therefor none of your business arguments.
 
2006-01-30 12:38:54 AM
never odd or even

I am curious to hear which arguments you DO find convincing, or at least reasonable.
 
2006-01-30 12:41:10 AM
fredklein - Cancer is a mutation of existing cells. Not quite the same thing as a growing human organism that every individual started out as.
 
2006-01-30 12:46:39 AM
shrapnil77
Is your conjoined twin?


Doctors often can only save one child when conjoined twins share one internal organ.

August, 2000, conjoined twins Jodie and Mary were born. After birth, it became clear that if they remained together they would die. Operating to separate them would result in the certain death of Mary, but would give Jodie a reasonable chance at life. Their parents, devout Catholics, refused to allow their children to be separated, accepting it as God's will to let the babies die. In September, a British court overruled the objections of the parents and ordered that the operation be performed. On November 6, Jodie and Mary were surgically separated, and Mary died on the operating table.

Please note, the court ordered the twins seperated, despite the fact one would die.

Besides, we are NOT talking about a person. In most abortions (90% are done in the first 3 months), we're talking about a lump of cells the size of a chicken egg. A farking chicken egg-sized lump of cells is in no way a human being.
 
2006-01-30 12:53:25 AM
never odd or even
fredklein - Cancer is a mutation of existing cells.


Technically, it's the DNA (or is it RNA?) IN the cells that has mutated.

And a baby is the combining of 'existing cells', or, rather, existing DNA. Half from the man, half from the woman.

What makes a combination of DNA so much more worthy than a mutation of DNA? Simply because one is more familiar?
 
2006-01-30 12:56:30 AM
Lenny and Carl - I guess, for the pro-choice side, the arguments that work me is that in an early pregnancy abortion, you are terminating a lifeform that isn't aware of itself on any consious level. There was a study a few months ago, I think it even made it on Fark, refuting the myth that a fetus feels pain in it's early developement. From what I remember reading, a fetus doesn't feel pain and isn't physically self aware even on a basic animal level until quite a while into its developement.

But I'm not sure philisophically how you can determine the definite point when a human becomes human. The pro-life logic seems more consistant in terms of the definition of human life. Over than the it's not a pizza until it comes out of the oven rationale pro-choicers use.
 
2006-01-30 01:03:43 AM
never odd or even: I'm actually on the fence on the issue. You originally quoted me refuting a bad argument from someone pro-choice. I wasn't making the leap that a fetus should have all the same rights necessarily. Just, again, pro-choicers saying that a fetus is a part of the mother's body the same way a leg is; is a really bad rationalization.

Fair enough, and I'm inclined to agree. Sorry if I came across as antagonistic; it was an honest question.

I just think people need to be honest about what the controversial elements are. Hearing pro-lifers say their opposition wants abortion and doesn't care about human life is just stupid. Pro-choicers do the same when they use the whole glob of tissue, pro-lifers hate women, it's my body therefor none of your business arguments.

I can see a perspective for the "glob of tissue" argument, at least in some cases, and "it's my body" makes sense once a person is convinced that the fetus/zygote/whatever has no rights.
 
2006-01-30 01:08:22 AM
never odd or even: But I'm not sure philisophically how you can determine the definite point when a human becomes human. The pro-life logic seems more consistant in terms of the definition of human life. Over than the it's not a pizza until it comes out of the oven rationale pro-choicers use.

Perhaps they're consistent, but their definition isn't really better than a hundred others. I doubt it'll ever be defined to everyone's satisfaction.
 
2006-01-30 01:11:36 AM
fredklein - Technically, it's the DNA (or is it RNA?) IN the cells that has mutated.

And a baby is the combining of 'existing cells', or, rather, existing DNA. Half from the man, half from the woman.

What makes a combination of DNA so much more worthy than a mutation of DNA? Simply because one is more familiar?


You, me, everyone has a human genome. A specific, unique, code or blueprint that defines a person biologically as a sole human being. It's been there pre-birth since conception.

The existing cells, the DNA, you refer to, the sperm and egg are only the carriers of seperate genes to create the human life; but aren't human life. They have the potential to make life but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. After conception is when that unique genome that defines a lone human life begins to exist.
 
2006-01-30 01:13:26 AM
blahpers

You didn't answer the question. Instead, you went off on your "deny all terms blah blah blah". Sorry, I don't want to base our legal system around a comic strip.


What part of the question did I not answer? Instead you focus on a highly pertinant quote which you attempt to poison by noting that it came from a comic strip. Remember the part about the source not dictating truth or falsehood?

No shiat, it shows a vivisected fetus. Waaaaaah. It's ugly and makes the baby FSM cry. So what?

So it brings the idea of "a clump of cells" closer to home than people care to admit.

Okay, so you believe the primary purpose of the picture is to represent the statement, "A fetus has recognizable human characteristics, and a blurry-to-nonexistant line exists between fetus and anyone else. Therefore, abortion is murder. Also, it's icky." How are recognizable human characteristics relevant? And there's a rather big, thick, bold line between a fetus and anyone else--an umbilical cord. This, of course, is still aside from the "fertilized egg = full human rights" bit.

So conjoined twins comprise one human being?

Like I said, no definition. . .

I'm apparently saying it better than you do, since you aren't saying (clearly) much of anything.

Actually, I'm just saying a lot of things you don't want to hear. You don't understand the perspective so it doesn't make any sense to you- you can't wrap your head around the concept that someone who disagrees isn't a sexistfundiereligioushomophobemeanie. While we're being brutally honest.

Neither does your repeated assertion that a fertilized egg deserves full human rights. That's what this all boils down to. We can argue all we like, but every single abortion discussion has come back to the question, "When, in the human life cycle, do human rights begin?" Unfortunately, that's not even a clear-cut question, much less one with a clear-cut answer. You say, "Yes, it is, it begins at fertilization." But you don't back it up; you start tossing around an infantile understanding of logical fallacies and blathering about "denying all terms" and gambles reminiscent of Pascal's Wager (long, long debunked). It's exhausting (argumentum ad nauseum), and it solves nothing.

Burden of proof fallacy. I believe that life begins at conception. Here, in bullet points, is why I believe what I do:
-A fetus, from the moment of conception, will live, be born, and execute a normal life unless something kills it, like all other humans. It posesses it's own DNA sequence, and, after a short while, brainwave pattern and heartbeat. It can be operated on as a patient. In short, it is indistinguishable from any conjoined twin. To fasten on that conjunction as somehow divesting it of rights is patently absurd. I have said before, and been repeatedly ignored, that I have yet to find a definition of "human life" that excludes fetuses and doesn't exclude other swaths of society- people we aren't (yet) comfortable with arbitrarily killing.

-Even accepting the idea that the beginning of "human life" is an unproveable point, the attitude that we don't know makes it okay is cavilir, at best. I don't think a lot of people realize it, but an error on their part runs the risk of condoning state-sanctioned slaughter on a scale that makes Stalin look like a piker.

-The ends do not justify the means. The fact remains that abortion in this country was foisted on the public by a means as undemocratic as any monarchical decree. As Justice Scalia said, Roe will not stand because of "the twin facts that the American people love democracy and the American people are not fools." Even those who approve of abortion must realize that the userpation of power and potential implications are staggering- operating off no verifiable constitutional basis, the Supreme Court simply chose to foist it's opinion on the public. It's refusal to brook any public dissent on the topic- hence the ad hoc nullification machine- shows an increasing tendancy to legislate from the bench and skip the whole "democracy" thing all together. You think wiretaps are a threat to our liberties? Wait until an unfavorable penumbra shows up.

-The arguments that "it's her choice" "it's okay because the court says so" or "people are going to do it anyway" are so broad that they can be used as blanket justifications for anything. People can choose to do anything, the courts can sanctify it, and people are capable of the most unspeakable acts imaginable. None of these are a justification.
 
2006-01-30 01:16:40 AM
I'm opinionated but normally avoid flame wars like the plague. Mostly because message boards are saturated with irrational BrotherAlpha type comments. I think I'll make a note to maybe start jumping in late when people can actaully have a rational discussion.
 
2006-01-30 01:19:02 AM
Wow, everyone's getting pretty heated.

Seems to me that the real sticking point is that whole soul/God thing. If you believe God is putting souls in little babies, it doesn't make sense that he'd do so at some 'viability' benchmark. So the only time that'd make sense is conception.

Of course, if you don't believe in God, none of that whole "soul" thing comes into place, and viability is a completely reasonable demarcation point.

That being said, per my earlier post, I'm going to go commit some genocide on the "killing fields," aka my stomach.

Nite everyone. Try not to kill each other.
 
2006-01-30 01:23:52 AM
Nothing brings out the crazies like abortion. Well, that and 2 dudes getting hitched. They hate that.
 
2006-01-30 01:28:16 AM
Nothing brings out the crazies like abortion. Well, that and 2 dudes getting hitched. They hate that.

That's ironic because more dudes getting hitched = less abortion.
 
2006-01-30 01:32:32 AM
never odd or even

Nice -I see that you're a George Carlin fan.
 
2006-01-30 01:34:25 AM
::Can't find the "buttsecks" owl::
Hey, I mind my farking buisness. Just don't call it what it ain't.
 
2006-01-30 01:39:37 AM
Lenny and Carl - You were asking me before what I think's a good argument about abortion either way. How about this: why is it that people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fark in the first place?

I just made that up off the top of my head.
 
2006-01-30 02:01:11 AM
shrapnil77: What part of the question did I not answer? Instead you focus on a highly pertinant quote which you attempt to poison by noting that it came from a comic strip. Remember the part about the source not dictating truth or falsehood?

From whence do you draw your rights? That was the question. You didn't answer it. You posted "deny all terms" blah blah. You call it pertinent. I call it irrelevant. What makes that phrase worth anything at all in this argument?

So it brings the idea of "a clump of cells" closer to home than people care to admit.

That still isn't a sound argument.

Burden of proof fallacy.

Nope. You made the claim that abortion is murder, the burden is on you.

I believe that life begins at conception. Here, in bullet points, is why I believe what I do:

About time.

-A fetus, from the moment of conception, will live, be born, and execute a normal life unless something kills it, like all other humans. It posesses it's own DNA sequence, and, after a short while, brainwave pattern and heartbeat. It can be operated on as a patient. In short, it is indistinguishable from any conjoined twin. To fasten on that conjunction as somehow divesting it of rights is patently absurd. I have said before, and been repeatedly ignored, that I have yet to find a definition of "human life" that excludes fetuses and doesn't exclude other swaths of society- people we aren't (yet) comfortable with arbitrarily killing.

Why does viability, uniqueness of DNA, and operability imply full human rights? A fetus is easily (and obviously) distinguishable from a conjoined twin. As for such a definition (not that I necessarily agree with it, but you wanted to see one): "A member of Homo sapiens, after birth and before death." I'm sure there are others.

-Even accepting the idea that the beginning of "human life" is an unproveable point, the attitude that we don't know makes it okay is cavilir, at best. I don't think a lot of people realize it, but an error on their part runs the risk of condoning state-sanctioned slaughter on a scale that makes Stalin look like a piker.

Again, you imply that there is a universal right. It's not "unprovable", it's meaningless, at least from a scientific viewpoint. From a metaphysical/philosophical viewpoint--well, nothing is provable in metaphyics nor philosophy.

-The ends do not justify the means. The fact remains that abortion in this country was foisted on the public by a means as undemocratic as any monarchical decree. As Justice Scalia said, Roe will not stand because of "the twin facts that the American people love democracy and the American people are not fools." Even those who approve of abortion must realize that the userpation of power and potential implications are staggering- operating off no verifiable constitutional basis, the Supreme Court simply chose to foist it's opinion on the public. It's refusal to brook any public dissent on the topic- hence the ad hoc nullification machine- shows an increasing tendancy to legislate from the bench and skip the whole "democracy" thing all together. You think wiretaps are a threat to our liberties? Wait until an unfavorable penumbra shows up.

Who is supposed to interpret the identity of the beneficiaries of the Constitution? Who interprets the Constitution? That's right, the judiciary. That's their job. That's the reason for the existence of that branch. Disputes go to them, they interpret, that's it. That's all they do. Without that, we might as well toss out the judiciary completely.

And who's refusing to brook public dissent? I don't see pro-lifers getting rounded up and thrown in jail for speaking. In fact, some think there's a decent chance that the court will overturn the prior ruling. Wouldn't that be the system working?

-The arguments that "it's her choice" "it's okay because the court says so" or "people are going to do it anyway" are so broad that they can be used as blanket justifications for anything. People can choose to do anything, the courts can sanctify it, and people are capable of the most unspeakable acts imaginable. None of these are a justification.

Fallacy. This says nothing for your argument, only against others.

Similarly, by your reasoning, people can choose to do anything, the voters can sanctify it, and people are capable of the most unspeakable acts imaginable. None of these are a justification.

It seems like you have a problem with the system of government in this country. Perhaps you'd like to get involved in legislation and amend it?
 
2006-01-30 02:03:10 AM
never odd or even: How about this: why is it that people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fark in the first place?

i1.tinypic.com
 
2006-01-30 02:08:19 AM
blahpers - It's a Carlin line just in case you were giving me credit for it.
 
2006-01-30 02:13:58 AM
I believe the submitter has a right to write stupid headlines. That doesn't make me a stupid headline supporter.
 
2006-01-30 02:58:59 AM
bigstoopidbruce

Any fukk with $5 can buy birth control pills.

Oral contraceptives cost about $40 per month. They are almost never covered by health insurance, at least in the US. It is a serious problem, especially since most women taking them are young and/or lower-income.

/just sayin'
//asshat
 
2006-01-30 03:10:20 AM
CanadaHauntsMe: Oral contraceptives cost about $40 per month. They are almost never covered by health insurance, at least in the US. It is a serious problem, especially since most women taking them are young and/or lower-income.

To say nothing of the adverse health effects on the woman taking them. Those things are evil.
 
2006-01-30 03:27:45 AM
Rejected pro-choice rally slogan #24235:

"Hooked on Hangars"
 
2006-01-30 03:33:45 AM
Krantzstone: Rejected pro-choice rally slogan #24235:

"Hooked on Hangars"


Wouldn't that be a pro-life slogan?
 
2006-01-30 04:06:57 AM
blahpers

From whence do you draw your rights? That was the question. You didn't answer it. You posted "deny all terms" blah blah. You call it pertinent. I call it irrelevant. What makes that phrase worth anything at all in this argument?

I seem to recall posting a quote from the DoI- "Endowed by their creator with certian unalienable rights." And saying that was good enough for me.

We do not draw our rights. Rights are not priviliges- the former are posessed unless actually taken. The ladder are granted.

"What makes this phrase worth anything to the argument." Because the reasoning in Roe involves ignoring the fifth and fourteenth amendments and instead siezing on the semantic point that the constitution does not define a "person." It doesn't define "speech" or the "the press" either, yet for some reason the courts interpert those as broadly as possible. However, when it runs contrary to their activist agenda, a plain English word suddenly becomes a legal ambiguity that conveniently justifies their actions. Alito is right- the constitution does not protect the right to an abortion.

That still isn't a sound argument.

And this is unsound how? Illustrating a fact, albeit graphically, is in no way an unsound argument. If it makes people uncomfortable, then they should question the source of their discomfort. After all, if it's not a bad thing, why should anyone care?
The ironic thing is that the perpetual whack-a-mole game going on to surpress the display of these pictures in public is easily as effective as the pictures themselves. "What have you got to hide" is a really interesting question to pose to anyone trying to quash this stuff.

Nope. You made the claim that abortion is murder, the burden is on you.

Because I've demonstrated how a fetus is functionally indentical to any other person. In case you havn't noticed, while it may not be proof on a quantum level, I have yet to see any reasonable dobut established that would cloud those identicalities.

About time.
Well, it's finally clear I can't get though with anything above alphabet-block-level reasoning.

While we're being snarky.


Why does viability, uniqueness of DNA, and operability imply full human rights? A fetus is easily (and obviously) distinguishable from a conjoined twin. As for such a definition (not that I necessarily agree with it, but you wanted to see one): "A member of Homo sapiens, after birth and before death." I'm sure there are others.


Why do they imply full human rights? Because they're common traits that humans share and, traditionally, define humanity. I find it a tad disingenuous to simply dismiss out of hand all the evidence contrary to the theory that fetuses aren't human simply to preserve the idea of fetuses not being human. Logical fallacy: begging the question.

Again, you imply that there is a universal right. It's not "unprovable", it's meaningless, at least from a scientific viewpoint. From a metaphysical/philosophical viewpoint--well, nothing is provable in metaphyics nor philosophy.

As I've stated before, denying the concept of any kind of universal right, and the idea of law- even the idea of justice- fall like the ideologically based houses of cards that they are. If your only limitation is what you CAN do- well, let's just say that anarchy is too weak a word.

Who is supposed to interpret the identity of the beneficiaries of the Constitution? Who interprets the Constitution? That's right, the judiciary. That's their job. That's the reason for the existence of that branch. Disputes go to them, they interpret, that's it. That's all they do. Without that, we might as well toss out the judiciary completely.

The constitution itself is pretty clear on who's protected by it. "No person shall be deprived" blah blah blah, I've said it repeatedly. The court simply chose to ignore that because they didn't like what it said.
"Disputes go to them, they interpret, that's it" is a gross oversimplification. If that was their role, the exceptions clause would not exist. But it does, demonstrating irrefutably that congress is empowered to remove the court's authority to rule on issues.
Which is what pisses me off most about this whole thing. If congress really cared about this, they'd vote abortion an exception and proceed to make Roe as void as Dred Scott.

And who's refusing to brook public dissent? I don't see pro-lifers getting rounded up and thrown in jail for speaking. In fact, some think there's a decent chance that the court will overturn the prior ruling. Wouldn't that be the system working?

Except they're singled out for speech discrimination (see "protest-free zones," constant efforts to ban the aborted fetus pictures) but those things really aren't the point. The point is that no side has been so functionally silenced since the abolitionists with Scott v Stanford. Sure, they can have grassroots campaigns, get laws passed, do the whole democracy bit- then the ACLU or NARAL goes to a friendly judge and has it all nullified. This is not the democratic process.
"some think there's a decent chance that the court will overturn the prior ruling." While that's all well and good, "some people" thinking "there's a decent chance" that the Great Ones will deign to actually let us vote on the matter, as prescribed by the Tenth Amendment, is not good enough. Until the SCOTUS is reminded that it is neither God nor all three branches of government, groups will keep on having their rights nullified without public debate depending on the whims of the high court.
People in these threads always bring up "tyrrany of the majority." Are decrees from the ivory tower of the privilidged minority any improvement?

Fallacy. This says nothing for your argument, only against others.

Showing flaws in the opposition's argument is what fallacy exactly? If I simply did that, it would be burden of proof- but simultanious bolstering of my case and dissection of theirs is, IMHO, fairly sound rhetorical technique.

Similarly, by your reasoning, people can choose to do anything, the voters can sanctify it, and people are capable of the most unspeakable acts imaginable. None of these are a justification.

People are scum. This is a fact. The way to keep them from destroying each other physically is to tie them up in stupid BS, like political wrangling. Having a last word- like the Supreme Court- with no strong arm or precieved divine authority is a recipe for disaster. The whole thing is Orwellian- "everyone's equal- but Supreme court justices are more equal than everyone else."

Yes, the voters can sanctify anything. But they can also desanctify it, leading to a balance of sorts. Supreme Court desceisions, however, are set in stone- and given how much the judicial system depends on "prescedent," it is nescessarily the most intert of three branches, making any mistakes that much harder to rectify.

This is, of course, why we have the bill of rights and the amendment process, rendering the "penumbra" idea so patently idiotic. The tenth amendment specifically states that rights not enumerated- not implied, enumerated- are "reserved to the states respectivly, or to the people." To quote P.J. O'Rourke, "this means the ability to get rid of a clump of cells that won't fill a soup spoon or stop the murder of babies who havn't even been born yet."

It seems like you have a problem with the system of government in this country. Perhaps you'd like to get involved in legislation and amend it?

I have problems with the system of government, but I'm one of those dry individuals whose role in life is to find a problem with everything. All in all, I'd say we have a good system enumerated in the constitution.
What I cannot wrap my mind around (except when I can, when the implications are even more frightening) is the fact that Congress has a perfect, undeniable weapon that could destroy Roe in an instant and they refuse to use it. You have the power, people, explicitly laid out. No penumbras, no lies, no exercises in fatuous pomposity can deny it.
I don't want the system to change. I want the system, as it's laid out, to be used.

Well, it's bedtime for bonzo. I have work in five hours, so peace out- while abortion IS an important issue to me, the courts' usurpation of congressional- presidential- state- district- err, let's just say the courts' usurpation of power at every level is the greatest threat facing this country today. We can do all we want about abortion, and it won't mean squat until the ad hoc nullification machine is destroyed.

Until that day comes, I will follow the words of Sinead O'Connor and "fight the real enemy."
 
2006-01-30 04:25:01 AM
For a given value of "the real enemy," of course. ;)
 
2006-01-30 04:33:21 AM
Enough. You're raving. I'm tired of wiping your spittle off of my glasses. Good night.
 
2006-01-30 05:12:12 AM
Lenny and Carl: Nothing brings out the crazies like abortion. Well, that and 2 dudes getting hitched. They hate that.


If one of the dudes in 'Brokeback mountain' had an abortion, all the red states would explode and a doorway to Nirvana would be created.

//yes, that is the secret.
 
2006-01-30 06:38:46 AM
Haven't we been here before?

Ever since I can remember, I've been opening my mail and finding mass-mailers from somebody whimpering about how Roe v. Wade was going to be overturned and poor pregnant women would be forced to go to the Kennedy compound for abortions and all dispensation of contraceptives was going to be under the control of Jerry Falwell. And no sooner had I tossed that ridiculous piece of junk mail than another piece would come from the opposite perspective, and if we didn't get the Human Life Amendment passed then our nursery schoolers would be required to learn felching, and half the farms in Iowa would become open-air atheist orgy palaces.

I do remember that both these hyperventilating letters would inevitably end with a pitch for donations.

Hmm.

I am reminded of Dennis Miller's comment (from back when he was funny) that these groups say they don't favor any particular denomination, but I think we've all seen their eyes light up at twenties and fifties.

But surely these were just fringe groups sending these fundraising letters, and more responsible adults wouldn't stoop so low as to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate the facts so outrageously, would they?

Over to you, senators Boxer and Santorum.

So.

I don't feel like playing a game of can-you-top-this on how evil the anti-abortion side is, so we'll just take their intolerance and counterproductive boobery as read. Just because I don't feel like re-saying what's been said here a hundred times doesn't make me a CheneyMcChimphitlerhalliburtonbot.

All I have is one small piece of advice for the pro-choice side: that emergency contraception thing? Useful invention, but stop marketing it as "Plan B". Here's why:

If "Plan A" is using regular contraception, then abstinence didn't even enter into your equation. And it should. Just because Bush has the dumb idea of wanting it taught exclusively doesn't mean you toss the whole idea of abstinence altogether. Do you want the fundamentalists to take sole ownership of the notion of sexual responsibility?
 
2006-01-30 09:42:31 AM
I wonder what the coat-hanger supporters have to say about this.
 
2006-01-30 10:50:20 AM
faethe
If one of the dudes in 'Brokeback mountain' had an abortion, all the red states would explode and a doorway to Nirvana would be created.

Actually, if one of the dudes in Brokeback got knocked up, we'd be willing to talk about this whole "gay marriage" thing for them. Until that happens, we don't wanna hear it.
 
2006-01-30 12:00:23 PM
We all know that if men could get pregnant this wouldn't be an issue...
 
2006-01-30 02:37:19 PM
You guys think a pro-choice chili feed is crazy...you should have been here in Wichita 15 years ago, during the so-called "Summer of Mercy," when a bunch of toothless, smelly, semiliterate Jesus freaks from the Deep South were bused in to protest Dr. Tiller's clinic. A lot of them showed their Christian love for life by making their children lie down in traffic. One of them, "King David Davis," stayed in Wichita and has been making an ass of himself at City Council meetings ever since. (Seriously, Google the term "King David Davis.") He's run for mayor a couple of times on a "Christ-centered" platform...he eats at a local homeless shelter every day and rides a bicycle everywhere.

Wichita is the craziest place in America.
 
2006-01-30 02:47:51 PM
I'm pro-choice too - I just think we should let the babies decide.
 
2006-01-30 03:04:56 PM
Just read the rest of the thread - shrapnil77, if I weren't already happily married, I would propose to you right now. I do love me an intelligent, articulate man. Many thanks for the informative post.
 
2006-01-30 03:31:44 PM
I think it is interesting that we hear arguments from only one side of the discussion---from those who were not aborted.
 
2006-01-30 05:50:07 PM
he eats at a local homeless shelter every day and rides a bicycle everywhere.

Dad?
 
2006-01-30 06:02:39 PM
2006-01-29 06:59:40 PM bigstoopidbruce

Nobody says you have to reproduce. But once you do, you owe it to your child to allow him to be born. Women who fight for the right to choose abortion are not fighting for reproductive freedom. They are fighting for the right to kill their children, pure and simple. Any fukk with $5 can buy birth control pills. Nobody is messing with your right to contraception.



I know this thread is already old, but I had to post about this.

I don't know ANYONE who pay $5 a month for birth control. Sure, it may be possible if you have good health insurance, but generally, BC pills are pretty damn expensive. At least in my own experience. I pay $40 a month for pills. And since I've recently graduated, I can no longer get RX refunds through my parent's insurance. So it's $40 out of pocket each month. They keep raising the prices too. It was $35 a few months ago.

And besides that, the pro-choice movement is fighting to sustain the availability of birth control. It's about all reproductive choice. I know many farkers have seen articles about crazy phramacists refusing to fill BC or morning after RXs. If Roe v wWde is overturned we could soon see these methods of birth control on the chopping block as well.
 
2006-01-30 06:11:19 PM
If Roe v wWde is overturned we could soon see these methods of birth control on the chopping block as well.

No, this assumes that the people opposed to abortion consider it a form of birth control. They actually consider it a form of child murder. Big difference.
 
Displayed 404 of 404 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report