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.

(Huffington Post)   Attention Women, GOP Senatorial candidate Rick Berg (R-eal Asshole) says if you're raped and get pregnant as a result, it's your responsibility to raise the child because abortion is never the answer   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 247
    More: Sick, North Dakota Republican Party, North Dakota Senate, Senate Candidate, GOP, North Dakota, rape victim, Equal Pay Act, human beings  
•       •       •

4093 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Oct 2012 at 11:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



247 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-13 12:02:06 PM  
You are not hearing my argument either, there seems to be some disconnect.

My reason for accepting the legitimacy of an non-religious pro-life argument is that you can believe that human life begins prior to birth, which has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God. And if you believe that human life is the only pre-requisite for human rights, then you can reasonably conclude without any reference to God, that abortion should not be legal because it violates a person's right to life.

I'm not saying that is or is not my own view, I'm just saying that you framing this as a religious vs. non-religious argument is flawed. The more people that are willing to hear things that don't fit their neatly organized political frames of reference, a more productive a debate will be had.

Instead, you are writing off anyone who is against legalized abortions as projecting their religious views into legislation - which although often true, is absolutely not always the case.
 
2012-10-13 12:23:39 PM  
I'm not writing off anyone, I'm saying I've not encountered an argument against legal abortion that isn't religious in nature. You continue to assert that these arguments exist, yet will not or cannot seem to provide any examples.

Since you're so certain that such an argument can be made, I'm challenging you to make it. Why, without referencing, God, the soul, or religion, should abortion be illegal? If you believe human life begins at conception, please explain why you believe this to be the case, given the actual physiology involved.

What compelling and just argument is there that a woman must never be allowed to undergo this medical procedure?
 
2012-10-13 12:31:46 PM  
If I am ever raped and become pregnant as a result, I am listing Rick Berg as the father and then giving up all of my parental rights.
 
2012-10-13 12:39:13 PM  

anarchy_x: It's a child, not a choice.


It is my choice whether or not to carry it to term or even take care of it afterwards though...

/are you REALLY sure you want to risk putting me in charge of babbies?
 
2012-10-13 12:40:20 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: If you're "pro-life" and ok with exceptions then you are a hypocrite and don't deserve to be trusted.

 
2012-10-13 12:59:20 PM  

daveUSMC: BOTH SIDES have legitimate arguments


That's awesome and all, but only one side is attempting to legislate their views on other people.
 
2012-10-13 01:00:33 PM  

daveUSMC: You are not hearing my argument either, there seems to be some disconnect.

My reason for accepting the legitimacy of an non-religious pro-life argument is that you can believe that human life begins prior to birth, which has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God. And if you believe that human life is the only pre-requisite for human rights, then you can reasonably conclude without any reference to God, that abortion should not be legal because it violates a person's right to life.

I'm not saying that is or is not my own view, I'm just saying that you framing this as a religious vs. non-religious argument is flawed. The more people that are willing to hear things that don't fit their neatly organized political frames of reference, a more productive a debate will be had.

Instead, you are writing off anyone who is against legalized abortions as projecting their religious views into legislation - which although often true, is absolutely not always the case.


Uh, you're the one ignoring him actually.
 
2012-10-13 01:08:57 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: daveUSMC: BOTH SIDES have legitimate arguments

That's awesome and all, but only one side is attempting to legislate their views on other people.


Correct. And, if you read what I posted earlier, you'll see that there are, indeed, things pro-lifers could do to help make abortion a bit less frequently sought. They won't. By large numbers, they don't care enough to do those things. They simply want to have their brand of morality legislated into reality.

And, that's not a solution.
 
2012-10-13 01:18:21 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: daveUSMC: You are not hearing my argument either, there seems to be some disconnect.

My reason for accepting the legitimacy of an non-religious pro-life argument is that you can believe that human life begins prior to birth, which has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God. And if you believe that human life is the only pre-requisite for human rights, then you can reasonably conclude without any reference to God, that abortion should not be legal because it violates a person's right to life.

I'm not saying that is or is not my own view, I'm just saying that you framing this as a religious vs. non-religious argument is flawed. The more people that are willing to hear things that don't fit their neatly organized political frames of reference, a more productive a debate will be had.

Instead, you are writing off anyone who is against legalized abortions as projecting their religious views into legislation - which although often true, is absolutely not always the case.

Uh, you're the one ignoring him actually.


Wait- is this "concern trolling"? Have I been "concern trolled"?

Both sides totally have legitimate arguments
Can you provide some examples
Stop writing everybody off, both sides have legitimate arguments
Citation plz
I'm not saying I agree with it, but there is a legitimate argument
And the argument is?
crickets
 
2012-10-13 01:24:00 PM  

Jorn the Younger: I'm not pro-abortion (nobody actually is, really) but I am anti-theocrat, and will always stand in opposition to tyrany.


I'm pro-abortion in many cases, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Its lines like that - abortion apologist like you - are the reason why pro lifers keep gaining ground in the realm of public opinion. I'm not afraid to defend abortion itself. Abortion is not evil, Abortion is not wrong. Abortion is not murder. Its a medical procedure.

I'd like to see fathers have some rights on the abortion matter. While the decision should ultimately rest with the mother, the father should be able to request an abortion. No one should be forced into having an abortion(aside from in China where they really need to do that) - but if the father requests it and is willing to pay for it - the mother choosing to keep it waives all rights to child support. Its ridiculous that currently the father has no rights nor say at all in the matter - yet still is on the hook for decisions he can't make.
 
2012-10-13 01:34:12 PM  
I have already stated and re-stated the non-religious argument numerous times. I'll do it again.
It's not a very complicated argument.

Person A, who is not religious, believes that humans are still, in fact, entitled to certain rights, the most important being the right to life.

Person A also believes that the beginning of a human life, and thus the starting point for entitlement to said rights, begins at the point where the male and female love juices have been sloshed together to the point that that a sperm has fertilized an egg and the human's development has actively begun.

Person A defines human life in more expansive terms than physically separated from the mother. Not because Jesus, but because the developing fetus has separate DNA, at some point develops its own organs, at some point has a heart beat, and at some point can feel pain.

Person A believes that all human life, regardless of what stage, deserves the protection of the law and deserves to have its human rights preserved - even if the human life is not mentally independent, and even if that human life is not cognizant of these rights.

Therefore, Person A, who absolutely hates all religions, thinks God is a lie, maybe even has a TF account, and who would relish the idea of banging Richard Dawkins in a mosque on top of a ripped up Bible while giving a Bhuddist monk the finger, believes that abortion should be illegal.

It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.
 
2012-10-13 01:56:15 PM  

plushpuppy: I wish people would stop saying pro-life most of these people believe in the death penalty(also, if you say why not kill it in the womb and skip the middle man, they do not see the humour in that statement) they are anti-abortionist and pro-life is a spin doctor term

/anyone who doesn't believe in abortion needs to be adopting children from the foster system, put your money where your mouth is


I have been saying for a while that private adoptions should not be a choice until the adopting parents have fostered at least 3 children in their home. I feel that if they want children, an infant shouldn't be the first choice. There are 3,4,5 year olds that are certainly viable options. It bothers me when I see people waiting for children but they don't see the children waiting for them (the foster care children).
 
2012-10-13 02:08:39 PM  

bk3k: Jorn the Younger: I'm not pro-abortion (nobody actually is, really) but I am anti-theocrat, and will always stand in opposition to tyrany.

I'm pro-abortion in many cases, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Its lines like that - abortion apologist like you - are the reason why pro lifers keep gaining ground in the realm of public opinion. I'm not afraid to defend abortion itself. Abortion is not evil, Abortion is not wrong. Abortion is not murder. Its a medical procedure.

I'd like to see fathers have some rights on the abortion matter. While the decision should ultimately rest with the mother, the father should be able to request an abortion. No one should be forced into having an abortion(aside from in China where they really need to do that) - but if the father requests it and is willing to pay for it - the mother choosing to keep it waives all rights to child support. Its ridiculous that currently the father has no rights nor say at all in the matter - yet still is on the hook for decisions he can't make.


You're right. My hyperbole was a little loose. I agree that abortion is not murder, and is not wrong. I had meant to convey that I do not, nor do I think does anyone else, think that an abortion is a wonderful experience, or something to be aspired to. It is absolutely a valid, and in many cases the right choice to make in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, and not something anyone should be looked down on for, or asked to apologize for.

Thank you for calling me on it, I will endevour to use better language in the future.

I do disagree on the "fathers rights" side of the issue. A father already has the right to request an abortion- he can ask the mother to get one. I've had this discussion before, and while I can kind of see where it comes from, it's not a point of view I can really sympathize or empathyze with too well. I've never been interested in casual sex, so on some level I don't really grasp the idea of impregnating a woman I'm not willing to father a child with. The conversation in the circumstance of an unwanted pregnancy is "What are we going to do?" not "What are you going to do?" because my sexual partner is just that- my partner. I'm not making a judgement on those who have a different mindset regarding sex and intimacy, just letting you know where I'm coming from.

I disagree with the "waive child support if the mother doesn't get the abortion the father requested" because that seems basically like "I want the law to say it's ok to be a deadbeat dad" and I don't think it's ok to be a deadbeat dad whether the law says it is or not. Fatherhood isn't just a financial obligation.

I don't think unwanted fatherhood is actually that prevalant of an issue, though I have seen it brought up in every Fark thread I've read on the topic of abortion, and honestly I think if abortion were destygmatized it would be even less of an issue, but that'll come hand in hand with improved sex education and stuff anyway, which will make those cases more rare as well.
 
2012-10-13 02:24:20 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: If I am ever raped and become pregnant as a result, I am listing Rick Berg as the father and then giving up all of my parental rights.


I like the cut of your jib. Fancy going for a drink somewhere?
 
2012-10-13 02:26:26 PM  

daveUSMC: I have already stated and re-stated the non-religious argument numerous times. I'll do it again.
It's not a very complicated argument.

Person A, who is not religious, believes that humans are still, in fact, entitled to certain rights, the most important being the right to life.

Person A also believes that the beginning of a human life, and thus the starting point for entitlement to said rights, begins at the point where the male and female love juices have been sloshed together to the point that that a sperm has fertilized an egg and the human's development has actively begun.

Person A defines human life in more expansive terms than physically separated from the mother. Not because Jesus, but because the developing fetus has separate DNA, at some point develops its own organs, at some point has a heart beat, and at some point can feel pain.

Person A believes that all human life, regardless of what stage, deserves the protection of the law and deserves to have its human rights preserved - even if the human life is not mentally independent, and even if that human life is not cognizant of these rights.

Therefore, Person A, who absolutely hates all religions, thinks God is a lie, maybe even has a TF account, and who would relish the idea of banging Richard Dawkins in a mosque on top of a ripped up Bible while giving a Bhuddist monk the finger, believes that abortion should be illegal.

It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.


But why does person A think that human life starts at conception? What science justifies that assertion?
You state that person A "believes" this to be true, but believes it why? And if they believe that full human rights are awarded immediately upon conception, do zygotes get to vote?

Now, I know you can't tell me why person A believes that, because you're not person A. That's because person A doesn't exist. Nobody is making that argument. You keep insisting that they are, but you're not actually making the argument (and refusing to do so by repeating that this is not your opinion, which prevents an actual argument from happening because that requires supporting evidence you cannot provide, and response to criticisms of that evidence, which you wouldn't give even if you provided evidence because it's not your argument.)

See, you haven't actually furnished the argument I'm asking you to- which is why I kept asking you for it. You've provided the framework that such an argument could follow, but that's pretty useless without someone to actually follow it, and provide evidence for their claims and engage in discourse about it. I can give you the framework for an argument that the moon is full of jellybeans, but without someone to actually make the argument, all we can do is sit here and laugh at the imaginary anti-religious homosexual TFer who is anti-abortion and thinks the moon is full of jellybeans.
 
2012-10-13 02:27:41 PM  
Humans have the right not to have another human living inside them.
No person has the right to inhabit another oeron's body.
No person should be forced

daveUSMC: It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.


The argument is not outside the scope of belief and subjective ideas about personhood though, and it requires the existence of a right for a person to inhabit another persons body. It also enables the state to force one person to sustain another person's life at the detriment of their own health, possibly incapacitating them for months and hurting their ability to earn a living, so the argument creates new rights while allowing the violation of others.
 
2012-10-13 02:28:32 PM  
Dammit, edit fail.
 
2012-10-13 02:34:56 PM  

Dansker: Humans have the right not to have another human living inside them.
No person has the right to inhabit another person's body.
No person should be forced daveUSMC: It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.

The argument is not outside the scope of belief and subjective ideas about personhood though, and it requires the existence of a right for a person to inhabit another persons body. It also enables the state to force one person to sustain another person's life at the detriment of their own health, possibly incapacitating them for months and hurting their ability to earn a living, so the argument creates new rights while allowing the violation of others.


You are correct. Anti-abortionists would give a fetus rights that supercede the rights of the mother, who already is a person. There is no scientific justification for this.
 
2012-10-13 03:04:27 PM  
Or adoption. Most states have Safe Harbor laws (well, the caring states do) you can drop off an infant at a firestation, hospital, church or other designated place with no questions asked and there is no responsibility to raise the child.
 
2012-10-13 03:14:21 PM  

Dansker: Humans have the right not to have another human living inside them.
No person has the right to inhabit another oeron's body.
No person should be forced daveUSMC: It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.

The argument is not outside the scope of belief and subjective ideas about personhood though, and it requires the existence of a right for a person to inhabit another persons body. It also enables the state to force one person to sustain another person's life at the detriment of their own health, possibly incapacitating them for months and hurting their ability to earn a living, so the argument creates new rights while allowing the violation of others.


There is no such right. The inconvenience of pregnancy would be weighed against the interest the other person. In fact, Roe v. Wade is exactly the opposite and said that after a fetus is viable (a person), the rights of the person far exceed the inconvenience of the remaining term. There is such a large duty to children that it is placed on nearly every person in society to protect them. You cannot even neglect children in your care, let alone kill them.

Such a view is very far-right extremist. It's individual rights taken to anarchy when duty to others is never weighed against the cost of exercising that right.
 
2012-10-13 03:24:58 PM  

Chimperror2:

after a fetus is viable (a person),


So when is that, exactly? Does it depend on whether there is a NICU within a certain distance of the interested parties?

Does it depend on whether the fetus has health insurance? because without an expensive hospital stay, no preemie born at 5 months gestation is going to make it. Hell, without a NICU the vast majority of babies born at the 7month wouldn't make it.
 
2012-10-13 03:41:34 PM  

Chimperror2:
There is no such right.


There is no right to occupy another persons body. Your right to life does not exceed my right to ownership of my self.

There is such a large duty to children that it is placed on nearly every person in society to protect them.

There is no duty to sustain their life with your own blood.
 
2012-10-13 04:17:13 PM  
After serving his sentence does daddy get visitation?
 
2012-10-13 04:29:06 PM  

Jorn the Younger: daveUSMC: I have already stated and re-stated the non-religious argument numerous times. I'll do it again.
It's not a very complicated argument.
...

But why does person A think that human life starts at conception? What science justifies that assertion?
You state that person A "believes" this to be true, but believes it why? And if they believe that full human rights are awarded immediately upon conception, do zygotes get to vote?

Now, I know you can't tell me why person A believes that, because you're not person A. That's because person A do ...


Well, I guess believing life to exist because of all of the things I listed about having its own set of DNA, and replicating on its own, etc does not satisfy your definition of Person A's scientific component of his argument. There's really no further to go down that road if you don't even consider the possibility that there is a reasonable basis for believing that biologically, a life has been created upon fertilization of an egg.

And to the other Farkers' points:

More non-religious arguments to counter:
1. The right to life of the zygote/blob/cell clump/ supersedes the right to health of the mother (not too convincing in many cases, I guess it depends on the definition of "health,"). Those rights are balanced when the life of the mother is reasonably jeopardized. In that case, it's a simultaneous catch. The mother's rights trump the fetus' due to Touchdown Seahawks, i.e. Tie goes to the Offensive team. (Bad joke, but it made me chuckle)

2. Inalienable human rights trump civil rights.

Just to clarify, my own position is really one of humbly acknowledging that I do NOT in fact know when life begins, so I can't really claim to be passionately for or against abortion on a national level. I guess I'd leave it legal on a national level and punt to the States to decide what restrictions, if any, are appropriate. It's really something I can't justify forcing on everyone else, because I just don't know. I would acquiesce more to the scientific crowd for some better benchmarks on when it is just too clear that it should be illegal, i.e. 3rd trimester, the thing is basically renting a house and paying bills inside there, just waiting to pop out.

Wow that was rambling. I hope that kind of made sense. I'm really farking tired.
 
2012-10-13 05:11:10 PM  

Summoner101: So our laws are being challenged, argued, and ruled on in front of a judge(s) to determine their veracity under precedent and constitutionality? Excuse me while I quell my outrage.


Either the Hyde Amendment is as close to carved-in-stone as we're going to get ("The Hyde amendment has only been around for almost 30 years"), or it's being challenged and may one day not too far off be overturned. It can't be both.

And I'd imagine that the people arguing against the Hyde Amendment wouldn't would have principles that don't agree with your principles.

It would be principled if they honestly argued that, but where are there people arguing to straight-up overturn the Hyde Amendment these days? I've seen the occasional leftist congressmember talk a good game once in a while, but it's all talk - there's been no such legislation proposed in recent memory, putting aside the social conservative argument that Obamacare is a weaselly means to circumvent the amendment. Moving to repeal it legislatively would be political suicide in all but the most left-wing congressional districts. Like I said, principles go by the wayside when power is at stake. They went by the wayside when the amendment was passed in the first place, too, since the amendment contains the rape/incest exception, the logic for which amounts to "okay, that abortion we'll pay for because the alternatives are too much of a political pain in the ass to consider. Also, eww."
 
2012-10-13 05:14:11 PM  

Gulper Eel: Either the Hyde Amendment is as close to carved-in-stone as we're going to get ("The Hyde amendment has only been around for almost 30 years"), or it's being challenged and may one day not too far off be overturned. It can't be both.


Now that I think of it, the amendment is attached to whatever pieces of funding legislation deal with women's reproductive issues, each time a bill like that comes up. There's nothing to actually repeal...it only need not be included in a bill, if I'm reading things right.
 
2012-10-13 05:26:29 PM  

Coco LaFemme: This is what I don't understand about some of these pro-life assholes. They believe that a clump of cells that hasn't formed anything resembling a human being, is actually a human being, and killing it (abortion) should be illegal. However, once said clump of cells turns into a human being and is then born, they could give less than a 1/10th of a fark about he/she after that.

Are they trying to say that human beings are like cars, in that once you come screaming out of your mom's snatch, you begin to depreciate in value....like a car does once you drive it off the lot? The pre-born are infinitely more valuable and worthy than the already born, whether they're toddlers, soldiers, or the elderly?

I know this may sound like a stupid question, but where's the farking logic in that?


Hmm... This analogy actually works- These people think that just like a car, a person starts to depreciate at birth. Depreciation continues until the person is old (a classic) at which point they start to have some value again, so old people with a terminal illness can't choose to put themselves out of their misery, either.
 
2012-10-13 05:59:52 PM  

dickfreckle: coco ebert: That is a CSB. Who the fark doesn't love Earth, Wind, & Fire, anyway?

I am the only known white boy who can recite the lyrics to every song in the entire EWF catalog (special editions...maybe).

Go ahead. Test me.

/has rhythm, too, which surprised my entire family
//Someday, I will relate the story


Hey, you're a NOLA boy, of course you got da funk! :D
 
2012-10-13 06:03:52 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: dickfreckle: The issue wasn't touched once in office.

It never is. It's just pandering to people too stupid to realize the fact.


Maybe not at the national level, but there have been shiatloads of restrictions passed in various state legislatures.
 
2012-10-13 06:05:12 PM  

bk3k: .... I don't know who their Lord is - but it sure isn't Jesus.


QFT
 
2012-10-13 06:13:09 PM  

Greek: Coco LaFemme: This is what I don't understand about some of these pro-life assholes. They believe that a clump of cells that hasn't formed anything resembling a human being, is actually a human being, and killing it (abortion) should be illegal. However, once said clump of cells turns into a human being and is then born, they could give less than a 1/10th of a fark about he/she after that.

Are they trying to say that human beings are like cars, in that once you come screaming out of your mom's snatch, you begin to depreciate in value....like a car does once you drive it off the lot? The pre-born are infinitely more valuable and worthy than the already born, whether they're toddlers, soldiers, or the elderly?

I know this may sound like a stupid question, but where's the farking logic in that?

Hmm... This analogy actually works- These people think that just like a car, a person starts to depreciate at birth. Depreciation continues until the person is old (a classic) at which point they start to have some value again, so old people with a terminal illness can't choose to put themselves out of their misery, either.


If we want to liken this to cars, pro-lifers would be arguing that a car is a car the moment the engineers started designing it.
 
2012-10-13 07:12:55 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Chimperror2:

after a fetus is viable (a person),

So when is that, exactly? Does it depend on whether there is a NICU within a certain distance of the interested parties?

I don't claim to know when a person begins. I'm prone to give someone the benefit of the doubt though.


Dansker: Chimperror2:
There is no such right.

There is no right to occupy another persons body. Your right to life does not exceed my right to ownership of my self.

There is such a large duty to children that it is placed on nearly every person in society to protect them.

There is no duty to sustain their life with your own blood.


Why do you think that? People have a duty to serve in armed conflict and suffer wounds that bleed and that's a duty to society. Trumps their rights. Consent is not necessary when there is a draft either.

Also, let's say you are a live kidney donor and they just removed the other persons kidney. When do you think you can "opt out?" After a certain stage, you are committed.

Like I said,there are duties placed on us in a society, It is a very far right-wing position that individual rights exists beyond reasonable constraints. All rights are constrained somewhat to allow society to function. Pregnancy is a natural condition that has formed every person on the planet. Arguing that being in a natural condition for a time certain is an unbearable hardship, barring any other complication, is a losing argument.
 
2012-10-13 07:16:19 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: What a dick. I will never fathom why a woman person who makes less than 7 figures would vote GOP.


FTFY
 
2012-10-13 07:55:30 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Women, I'm sorry. I'd just like to inform you that if I'm on your jury when you end these people... You'll go free. It's all good. Do what you need to do. I completely understand.


As a woman, a sincere thanks. We need as many sane men as we can get speaking up.
 
2012-10-13 09:55:23 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Women, I'm sorry. I'd just like to inform you that if I'm on your jury when you end these people... You'll go free. It's all good. Do what you need to do. I completely understand.


What about the woman that has a baby in the restroom of a sports stadium after a full term and then drowns him in the toilet? Is that close enough? I mean she probably hasn't passed all the placenta so she's still pregnant. amiright? Is that okay?

Okay, now that your over that. Where do you draw the line? What's okay and what's not okay?

What if she was trying to get pregnant and doesn't know if baby daddy is rapist or husbands? Doctor says safest for baby is not to get amnio. Do you give her a 1 retroactive abortion card because she have killed him at week 1 if she knew?

Funny that the baby gets the death penalty but rapist doesn't. More funny is that groups that oppose death penalty for low-life POS rapist, support it for baby. The best interview in the world would be "I'm grateful to rape victim mom for having the courage to keep me, I didn't know my dad because he was put to death."
 
2012-10-13 10:22:11 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: What the fark is wrong with these people?


I put it more on the half of the populace that supports these people. It doesn't excuse them for what they say, but people like this wouldn't have any real power without the mouthbreather segment cheering them on.
 
2012-10-13 11:02:20 PM  

Chimperror2: NewportBarGuy: Women, I'm sorry. I'd just like to inform you that if I'm on your jury when you end these people... You'll go free. It's all good. Do what you need to do. I completely understand.

What about the woman that has a baby in the restroom of a sports stadium after a full term and then drowns him in the toilet? Is that close enough? I mean she probably hasn't passed all the placenta so she's still pregnant. amiright? Is that okay?

Okay, now that your over that. Where do you draw the line? What's okay and what's not okay?

What if she was trying to get pregnant and doesn't know if baby daddy is rapist or husbands? Doctor says safest for baby is not to get amnio. Do you give her a 1 retroactive abortion card because she have killed him at week 1 if she knew?

Funny that the baby gets the death penalty but rapist doesn't. More funny is that groups that oppose death penalty for low-life POS rapist, support it for baby. The best interview in the world would be "I'm grateful to rape victim mom for having the courage to keep me, I didn't know my dad because he was put to death."


Best interview in the world? Really? Wouldn't "My mother and father didn't get forced to have me before they were ready, my father wasn't a rapist, and I had two loving and supportive parents." be better?
 
2012-10-13 11:57:17 PM  

Jorn the Younger: Chimperror2:

Funny that the baby gets the death penalty but rapist doesn't. More funny is that groups that oppose death penalty for low-life POS rapist, support it for baby. The best interview in the world would be "I'm grateful to rape victim mom for having the courage to keep me, I didn't know my dad because he was put to death."

Best interview in the world? Really? Wouldn't "My mother and father didn't get forced to have me before they were ready, my father wasn't a rapist, and I had two loving and supportive parents." be better?


I'm pretty sure your story is the pretty nuch the standard. There are "abortion survivor" stories of people that survived an abortion. I'd rather read about he woman who was pressured to have an abortion and chose not to.
 
2012-10-14 01:22:23 AM  

daveUSMC: 2. Inalienable human rights trump civil rights.


Exactly. So are you saying that women are not eligible for having inalienable human rights, but fetuses are?
 
2012-10-14 01:24:39 AM  
And if so, I hope to god you never have sex with anything, ever.
 
2012-10-14 01:44:18 AM  

Chimperror2: Jorn the Younger: Chimperror2:

Funny that the baby gets the death penalty but rapist doesn't. More funny is that groups that oppose death penalty for low-life POS rapist, support it for baby. The best interview in the world would be "I'm grateful to rape victim mom for having the courage to keep me, I didn't know my dad because he was put to death."

Best interview in the world? Really? Wouldn't "My mother and father didn't get forced to have me before they were ready, my father wasn't a rapist, and I had two loving and supportive parents." be better?

I'm pretty sure your story is the pretty nuch the standard. There are "abortion survivor" stories of people that survived an abortion. I'd rather read about he woman who was pressured to have an abortion and chose not to.


You said "the best interview in the world" and I provided an example of a better one. Here are some more:

"Being the first human being to set foot on Mars was awesome. Like a million hot dogs."
"So I decided to channel my efforts to providing unlimited free energy to the world, and I succeeded."
"Which is how faster that light travel became a reality"
"And this is how I cured cancer:"
 
2012-10-14 02:56:09 AM  

daveUSMC: I have already stated and re-stated the non-religious argument numerous times. I'll do it again.
It's not a very complicated argument.

Person A, who is not religious, believes that humans are still, in fact, entitled to certain rights, the most important being the right to life.

Person A also believes that the beginning of a human life, and thus the starting point for entitlement to said rights, begins at the point where the male and female love juices have been sloshed together to the point that that a sperm has fertilized an egg and the human's development has actively begun.

Person A defines human life in more expansive terms than physically separated from the mother. Not because Jesus, but because the developing fetus has separate DNA, at some point develops its own organs, at some point has a heart beat, and at some point can feel pain.

Person A believes that all human life, regardless of what stage, deserves the protection of the law and deserves to have its human rights preserved - even if the human life is not mentally independent, and even if that human life is not cognizant of these rights.

Therefore, Person A, who absolutely hates all religions, thinks God is a lie, maybe even has a TF account, and who would relish the idea of banging Richard Dawkins in a mosque on top of a ripped up Bible while giving a Bhuddist monk the finger, believes that abortion should be illegal.

It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.


It's a fictional argument. No one makes it.
 
2012-10-14 05:20:32 AM  

Alphax: daveUSMC: I have already stated and re-stated the non-religious argument numerous times. I'll do it again.
It's not a very complicated argument.

Person A, who is not religious, believes that humans are still, in fact, entitled to certain rights, the most important being the right to life.

Person A also believes that the beginning of a human life, and thus the starting point for entitlement to said rights, begins at the point where the male and female love juices have been sloshed together to the point that that a sperm has fertilized an egg and the human's development has actively begun.

Person A defines human life in more expansive terms than physically separated from the mother. Not because Jesus, but because the developing fetus has separate DNA, at some point develops its own organs, at some point has a heart beat, and at some point can feel pain.

Person A believes that all human life, regardless of what stage, deserves the protection of the law and deserves to have its human rights preserved - even if the human life is not mentally independent, and even if that human life is not cognizant of these rights.

Therefore, Person A, who absolutely hates all religions, thinks God is a lie, maybe even has a TF account, and who would relish the idea of banging Richard Dawkins in a mosque on top of a ripped up Bible while giving a Bhuddist monk the finger, believes that abortion should be illegal.

It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.

It's a fictional argument. No one makes it.


People make it all the time. TFers kill kittens for Richard Dawkins. It's their favorite South Park, You are correct though, that TFers rarely stand up for those that can't speak for themselves.

Actually the argument that Person A has to believe in a point where life begins is a fallacy. Simply not knowing where life begins but giving them the benefit of the doubt is a better argument. Not giving them the benefit of the doubt led to things like 3/5's compromise and all sorts of lovely arguments.

"no your honor, I didn't think it could possibly be a person when I sucked it's brain through a straw and evacuated the rest her uterus. 2o weeks is just a mass of proptoplasm. 3/5's a person."

Nice.
 
2012-10-14 11:38:16 AM  
Men need to STFU and MYOB on this issue. They have no right to make a decision for women.
 
2012-10-14 01:29:01 PM  

AbbeySomeone: Men need to STFU and MYOB on this issue. They have no right to make a decision for women.


It's not a decision.

Do you feel the same way about wife-beaters?
 
2012-10-14 07:19:30 PM  

bk3k: There is a study that shows Atheists overwhelmingly support abortion.


In the sense of "as a legally available choice"; and, on generic "any reason" abortion, marginally less than Agnostics and Deists do (all about 2:1). Doubters tend to be split more evenly (3:2 or 1:1), while those claiming to be certain of God's existence lean opposite (7:3).

(Woohoo! Berkeley SDA has the GSS back up.)

daveUSMC: The "correct" answer just hinges on whether or not it is a human life


Pedantically: to what degree is it a person, what rights associate to that degree of personhood, and how do those rights balance against other persons' rights?

And, since "rights" are an ought-based concept, such answer indeed depends in turn on what bridge you use to cross the is-ought divide, as well as potentially what ladder you use to climb from experience to induction of "is".
 
2012-10-15 08:30:59 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: What a dick. I will never fathom why a woman would vote GOP.


Because modern feminism fails to acknowledge that their number one adversary is not men, we'll do whatever makes us more successful at getting in your pants. But here's the thing- being a complete asshole does not affect a man's ability to get laid. Women choose to sleep with assholes quite often. Hell, there are dating sites for women to chat with men who are in PRISON. The women who do that and the women who vote how their men tell them to vote are your true adversaries, not us. As soon as being an asshole removes a man's ability to date and get laid, some problems will finally start sorting themselves out.
 
Displayed 47 of 247 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report