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.

(Salon)   Anti-abortion activists: "We wouldn't murder you if you wouldn't murder babies"   (salon.com) divider line 416
    More: Dumbass, George Tiller, tillers, gun violence, police escort, carrying a gun  
•       •       •

2914 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2013 at 3:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-19 02:27:01 PM

namatad: society has always included the concept of viability in its laws. when you killed a mother who was gravid, you were guilty of killing her unborn. when you killed a women, who was 1 week pregnant and no one knew, you were jsut guilty of killing the mother.

TBH - I am in favor of retroactive abortion of people who are trolls pretending to be that dumb. but go ahead.


Hey, The My Little Pony Killer, do you agree with the above?
 
2013-08-19 02:27:07 PM

vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: namatad: vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.

But how can one justify being opposed to a late-term abortion if the fetus is not a baby until birth?

"Late term" abortions are emergency medical procedures. You're both callous and ignorant if you don't understand that. They come up mostly because of horrific defects in the fetus. Fark would ban me if I posted images of what is being aborted. The mothers health is very rarely an issue that far along although it does come up and should also be considered an emergency.

Wait - NAMATAD said they should be beaten like baby seals but I'M the one who's callous?


I was responding to the conversation, not you specifically.
 
2013-08-19 02:27:19 PM
That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.
 
2013-08-19 02:30:06 PM

ginandbacon: vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: namatad: vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.

But how can one justify being opposed to a late-term abortion if the fetus is not a baby until birth?

"Late term" abortions are emergency medical procedures. You're both callous and ignorant if you don't understand that. They come up mostly because of horrific defects in the fetus. Fark would ban me if I posted images of what is being aborted. The mothers health is very rarely an issue that far along although it does come up and should also be considered an emergency.

Wait - NAMATAD said they should be beaten like baby seals but I'M the one who's callous?

I was responding to the conversation, not you specifically.


Ah, ok. Because I don't think I ever said that late-term abortions weren't the result an extreme situation demanding action.
 
2013-08-19 02:30:32 PM
If we're going to use medical technological advances in regard to premature birth survivability as a baseline for when a fetus becomes a baby, then that means denying a woman and the premature baby/fetus all the proper care necessary so that it survives due to inability to pay for it, or lack of proper hospital resources for those technologies is nothing more than committing an abortion, just as if the woman had decided to terminate it directly.
 
2013-08-19 02:30:47 PM

Nabb1: That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.


But that is not their GOALS. Their goals are to punish poor women who get pregnant and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.
 
2013-08-19 02:31:40 PM

Aarontology: If we're going to use medical technological advances in regard to premature birth survivability as a baseline for when a fetus becomes a baby, then that means denying a woman and the premature baby/fetus all the proper care necessary so that it survives due to inability to pay for it, or lack of proper hospital resources for those technologies is nothing more than committing an abortion, just as if the woman had decided to terminate it directly.


this
but logic has never been part of the anti-choice movement, just religion.
 
2013-08-19 02:32:31 PM

namatad: vygramul: namatad: vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.

But how can one justify being opposed to a late-term abortion if the fetus is not a baby until birth?

society has always included the concept of viability in its laws. when you killed a mother who was gravid, you were guilty of killing her unborn. when you killed a women, who was 1 week pregnant and no one knew, you were jsut guilty of killing the mother.

TBH - I am in favor of retroactive abortion of people who are trolls pretending to be that dumb. but go ahead.


One of the common arguments I hear in favor of abortion is that regardless of the fetus's personhood or rights, it's wrong for another person to latch onto your body and use your organs without your continued consent.  When I argue that consenting up front at the beginning of pregnancy locks you in to a 9 month commitment that you can't get out of, I'm told I'm a monster.

Until now I never thought to ask the question, why is it ok to lock her in during the third trimester?  In one recent thread Theaetetus and I talked about possible advances in science allowing you to transfer an early-term fetus to a willing recipient instead of killing it.  Her take seemed to be that killing it would still be ok, if the abortion procedure was safer for the mother than the transfer.  So, if your thought is that the mother should force premature delivery in the third trimester, as opposed to having an abortion, I'd urge you to consider that... which is more dangerous to her?  Does that make a difference?

My two cents, the baby should come out in the way safest to the baby, only when a doctor (or biology) says it should come out.

/ Seriously, not trolling or anything.  Would like to know what you guys think.
 
2013-08-19 02:38:51 PM

namatad: Nabb1: That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.

But that is not their GOALS. Their goals are to punish poor women who get pregnant and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.


I don't think that's the case with most people who oppose abortion. I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting, and they aren't motivated to punish women any more than you are motivated to support abortion because you want to kill babies. The problem with the abortion "debate" is that people let their passions get so inflamed that they spend more time trying to characterize their opposition's motives as evil more than trying to come to a consensus or compromise.
 
2013-08-19 02:49:32 PM

vygramul: FloydA: So, can we finally stop the charade of calling these people "pro-life" now?

Some of them are true to that term, some are not. But really, it's a politically-motivated choice, just like pro-choice is. There's really no reason not to call someone what they want to be called. I suppose it might be helpful if all one wants is an ideologically satisfying hostile confrontation, but if one wishes to convince people, pissing them off by calling them names isn't going to help.



Gietzen is actively calling for people to start shooting clinic patients and escorts.

We can debate whether or not a blastocyst is a "person," but there is no question that the adults entering that clinic are people. Gietzen is urging his supporters to murder them.  Once a person starts advocating murder, he loses the privilege of calling himself "pro-life."
 
2013-08-19 02:53:07 PM

Weaver95: Pro lifers are a very strange and paradoxical bunch. They kill in the name of preserving life and restrict the rights of others in the name of freedom. I find that a most curious way to live ones life.


Really Weav? Really?

War is Peace
Slavery is Freedom
Ignorance is Strength

This is their mantra. Served with a massive dose of 'do as I say not as I do'.
 
2013-08-19 02:55:52 PM

ginandbacon: And yeah: my uterus, my business.


Then how come you don't call it a myterus?

/don't forget to try the veal
 
2013-08-19 02:57:30 PM

FloydA: Gietzen is actively calling for people to start shooting clinic patients and escorts.


Oh, well, those people are monsters.
 
2013-08-19 02:57:52 PM

Theaetetus: ginandbacon: And yeah: my uterus, my business.

Then how come you don't call it a myterus?

/don't forget to try the veal


LOL should I tip my waitress?
 
2013-08-19 03:03:58 PM

serial_crusher: One of the common arguments I hear in favor of abortion is that regardless of the fetus's personhood or rights, it's wrong for another person to latch onto your body and use your organs without your continued consent. When I argue that consenting up front at the beginning of pregnancy locks you in to a 9 month commitment that you can't get out of, I'm told I'm a monster.


Yep. Mainly because you say that "if a woman has sex, she consents to a 9 month commitment, regardless of any of her attempts to avoid said commitment".
It's only consistent if you're anti-sex, which is monstrous.

Until now I never thought to ask the question, why is it ok to lock her in during the third trimester?

Pragmatism. Contrary to Nematoad's screed above, there aren't any women who change their mind during the last trimester and get an abortion. Rather, as ginandbacon said, late term abortions are due to horrible catastrophes that occur to mothers who want their babies. They deserve our sympathy and understanding of their choice when faced with such a horrible dilemma, rather than threats to beat them like baby seals. That's monstrous, too.

In one recent thread Theaetetus and I talked about possible advances in science allowing you to transfer an early-term fetus to a willing recipient instead of killing it. Her take seemed to be that killing it would still be ok, if the abortion procedure was safer for the mother than the transfer.

Yes, people are entitled to make medical decisions for themselves. Also, the fact that you presume that I'm female based on my argument is somewhat telling.

My two cents, the baby should come out in the way safest to the baby, only when a doctor (or biology) says it should come out.

Your two cents have previously advocated charging and convicting women who procure abortions with murder, "but maybe not sentencing them too badly," so I'mma say keep your change.
 
2013-08-19 03:06:03 PM
Anti abortion acttivists being assholes and threatening violence? Really?

Who D&C *that* coming?
 
2013-08-19 03:09:42 PM
Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.
 
2013-08-19 03:10:36 PM

Theaetetus: Your two cents have previously advocated charging and convicting women who procure abortions with murder, "but maybe not sentencing them too badly," so I'mma say keep your change.


Imma second that.
 
2013-08-19 03:11:06 PM

Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.


Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.
 
2013-08-19 03:13:20 PM

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.


www.amptoons.com
 
2013-08-19 03:15:54 PM
I still agree with what Carlin said "If you're pre-born you're fine,if you're born you're farked." Also the bit about wanting live babies to be dead soldiers.
 
2013-08-19 03:17:05 PM

Nabb1: Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.


Because more often than not, they also oppose things like comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and family planning, which would dramatically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore, the number of abortions. If they were truly "pro-life" instead of anti-sex zealots, they would be supportive of things that would do a lot to prevent the abortions they so hate.

It's not necessarily wanting to control the lives of women, but since they are the only ones biologically capable of becoming pregnant, they bear the brunt of the policies pro-lifers support. Informing people of contraception and having easier access to it shouldn't be the same sort of moral issue that abortion access is, yet they continually oppose it in favor of "abstinence only" which simply doesn't work on a societal scale.
 
2013-08-19 03:17:09 PM

Nabb1: Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.


i1123.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-19 03:17:50 PM

Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]


Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.
 
2013-08-19 03:19:34 PM

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.


How do you know I didn't make that chart?
 
2013-08-19 03:20:18 PM
The logical implications of "life begins at conception" lead to a pretty horrific society for women, given how common miscarriages are. And if we want to criminalize abortion, every miscarriage is going to need at least a cursory investigation by a qualified doctor and a a law enforcement agent.

Further, since women may not know that they're pregnant, any woman engaging in many activities (alcohol consumption, tobacco use, etc.) while pregnant could be endangering a life. It leads to just absurd restrictions on women and completely ignores fundamental biological concepts.

Now conversly, there's certainly a point where a fetus developes to the point where sustained brain activity and fetal viability mean it needs to be considered a person and elective abortion should no longer be an option. I'm not a biologist/ethicist/whatever so I couldn't tell you where that point is, but 20 - 24 weeks seems reasonable to me. I actually sort of think this is an issue where the status quo (Federally, at least) is spot on.
 
2013-08-19 03:20:57 PM

Weaver95: I thought that part was obvious. They hate you once you are born...but they'll murder others to make sure you get out of the womb.


There's no contradiction in that, these people just need something to hate, be it adult or neonate.
 
2013-08-19 03:21:13 PM

namatad: Nabb1: That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.

But that is not their GOALS. Their goals are to punish

poor women who get pregnant have sex and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.


FTFY
 
2013-08-19 03:21:42 PM
i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-19 03:22:00 PM

Nabb1: The problem with the abortion "debate" is that people let their passions get so inflamed that they spend more time trying to characterize their opposition's motives as evil more than trying to come to a consensus or compromise.


I thought we did that in 1973.
 
2013-08-19 03:22:11 PM

Aarontology: Nabb1: Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

Because more often than not, they also oppose things like comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and family planning, which would dramatically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore, the number of abortions. If they were truly "pro-life" instead of anti-sex zealots, they would be supportive of things that would do a lot to prevent the abortions they so hate.

It's not necessarily wanting to control the lives of women, but since they are the only ones biologically capable of becoming pregnant, they bear the brunt of the policies pro-lifers support. Informing people of contraception and having easier access to it shouldn't be the same sort of moral issue that abortion access is, yet they continually oppose it in favor of "abstinence only" which simply doesn't work on a societal scale.


Apart from seeming inconsistencies in the positions of some people, I am just curious as to why opposition to abortion is constantly couched by pro-choice persons in those terms. I find it to be rather disingenuous for many folks. For example, a find the practice abhorrent, but I support more comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and family planning. And I oppose the death penalty. But enough about me. I am merely asking a pointed question about why the abortion debate is framed in such a way. And that's not to say pro-life folks aren't often guilty of the same sorts of thing. There are just fewer of them here to ask such a question.

Also, I do not advocate overturning Roe v. Wade and believe it is settled law. I do believe one day humanity will move past the practice in the same way other primitive cultures abandoned human sacrifice to appease their gods and ensure a good harvest, and future societies will no doubt marvel at it with morbid curiosity.
 
2013-08-19 03:23:02 PM

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.


That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way.  His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.

I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.
 
2013-08-19 03:23:03 PM

Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.


Actually, it's more "shall not murder"

Many actions can result in justifiable killings per old testament law: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_punishable_by_death_in_the_Old_Te stament
 
2013-08-19 03:23:23 PM
 
2013-08-19 03:23:43 PM

Weaver95: brap: Congratulations, you are officially a terrorist organization.

Nonsense! Only brown people can be terrorists. The GOP said so!


Don't forget anti-capitalist, environmental and labor activists. We're terrorists until proven otherwise (which is never), no matter how peaceful/compliant/utterly obsequious we get. These guys, who actually engage in and support terrorist activity? Well, shoot, they're just concerned citizens.
 
2013-08-19 03:24:19 PM

vygramul: vpb: No, but the contention isn't over where to draw the line.  The anti-abortion people pretty much all draw it at conception.  I don't think that there is any way you can make a case that a fertilized egg is a baby.  That's like claiming that an acorn is an oak tree.

That's not a question of biology, that's simply a religious opinion.

There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

The opinions on whether a fetus is a person are often not informed by any objective notions on either side. There is discomfort on both sides of the argument with the extreme positions. There are pro-choice people who are not comfortable with an abortion the day before birth without a compelling reason. There are pro-life people who are not comfortable saying the day-after pill is the same as murder.


I prefer the Roman abortion limit pre-Hadrian.
 
2013-08-19 03:24:32 PM

ikanreed: I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.


Because deflection and comma furthermore.
 
2013-08-19 03:24:33 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Nabb1: The problem with the abortion "debate" is that people let their passions get so inflamed that they spend more time trying to characterize their opposition's motives as evil more than trying to come to a consensus or compromise.

I thought we did that in 1973.


I doubt you actually read the actual decision. No offense, but the Justices clearly recognized the passions on both sides of the debate, and even Justice White said the trimester system they created was probably imperfect, but they did the best they could based on medical science as it was then, and he said that in the future, as medical science advanced, it would be prudent to revise that. Of course, that hasn't happened, but that's what the Court seemingly hoped for at the time.
 
2013-08-19 03:24:58 PM

namatad: Nabb1: That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.

But that is not their GOALS. Their goals are to punish poor women who get pregnant and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.


says who?  I am against abortion because I think it's wrong. I couldn't care less about punishing the mother. Of course, I also support Obamacare and MedicId for all children too, because you can't tell a woman she must carry when she has no means for care for the child after she's done.

Be carefull throwing around accusations. The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?
 
2013-08-19 03:25:38 PM

ikanreed: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way.  His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.

I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.


It's not a valid or invalid response in and of itself, it just seems odd for a person who I know to be intelligent and articulate to go that route. Disappointment more than anything.
 
2013-08-19 03:26:05 PM

gilgigamesh: I wonder if Kansas has a "stand your ground" law. They're all but flat out calling on prolifers to murder clinic staff.

Again.

I know if I was escorting patients at this clinic, I'd have a sidearm.

shotgun.

If ever a situation called for a nice Benelli or Mossberg shotgun, this one does.
 
2013-08-19 03:26:21 PM

Theaetetus: the fact that you presume that I'm female based on my argument is somewhat telling


Now I'm running through previous threads in my mind trying to remember if you've ever played the "men don't have a say" card, because you're certainly outspoken on the subject.
 
2013-08-19 03:26:22 PM

theorellior: The only moral abortion is my abortion.


This attitude is entirely consistent with the broader notions brought up in The Authoritarians.  It's really telling that RWA will say that if one of their leaders said groups they themselves are members of are bad and need to be removed from society, they still support it, with the understanding that they aren't really members of that group.
 
2013-08-19 03:26:27 PM

Nabb1: Apart from seeming inconsistencies in the positions of some people, I am just curious as to why opposition to abortion is constantly couched by pro-choice persons in those terms. I find it to be rather disingenuous for many folks. For example, a find the practice abhorrent, but I support more comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and family planning. And I oppose the death penalty. But enough about me. I am merely asking a pointed question about why the abortion debate is framed in such a way. And that's not to say pro-life folks aren't often guilty of the same sorts of thing. There are just fewer of them here to ask such a question.

Also, I do not advocate overturning Roe v. Wade and believe it is settled law. I do believe one day humanity will move past the practice in the same way other primitive cultures abandoned human sacrifice to appease their gods and ensure a good harvest, and future societies will no doubt marvel at it with morbid curiosity.


I think it has a lot to do with what you said earlier about the debate inflaming passions to such a degree that people get incredibly hyperbolic about the motivations of their opponents. Plus, it ties into a whole host of other issues such as access to health care in general, privacy rights, the role of the state in regards to protecting the vulnerable, and so on.
 
2013-08-19 03:27:10 PM

rwhamann: Be carefull throwing around accusations. The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?


Yes. And in general (by a small but statistically significant margin) women support abortion rights more than men do anyway.
 
2013-08-19 03:27:44 PM

Nabb1: ikanreed: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way.  His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.

I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.

It's not a valid or invalid response in and of itself, it just seems odd for a person who I know to be intelligent and articulate to go that route. Disappointment more than anything.


Please don't take this as needlessly antagonistic, but personal disappointment by strangers on the internet isn't a driving force of how I and many others act.
 
2013-08-19 03:27:48 PM

Nabb1: Apart from seeming inconsistencies in the positions of some people, I am just curious as to why opposition to abortion is constantly couched by pro-choice persons in those terms.


Because the people who are rabid about banning abortion won't stop at just banning the practice. There are several countries in which miscarriages must be reported and investigated as possible abortions, with criminal charges for the mother. There are people who want to have a rational discussion and compromise about abortion and US law, but those aren't the people who are pushing present legislation.
 
2013-08-19 03:28:17 PM
So, if I'm walking in and they're harassing me
and I fear for my life,
I shoot one (or two) of them.

Can I claim the Trayvon defense?
 
2013-08-19 03:28:24 PM

rwhamann: namatad: Nabb1: That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.

But that is not their GOALS. Their goals are to punish poor women who get pregnant and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.

says who?  I am against abortion because I think it's wrong. I couldn't care less about punishing the mother. Of course, I also support Obamacare and MedicId for all children too, because you can't tell a woman she must carry when she has no means for care for the child after she's done.

Be carefull throwing around accusations. The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?


"Domestic slaves are often found to be traitors to their own people, for the purpose of gaining favor with their masters; and they are encouraged and trained up by them to report every plot they know of being formed about stealing anything or running away, or anything of the kind; and for which they are paid." - H. Bibb
 
2013-08-19 03:28:25 PM

Lanadapter: Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.

Actually, it's more "shall not murder"

Many actions can result in justifiable killings per old testament law: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_punishable_by_death_in_the_Old_Te stament


Well, that's the thing. The various sects of Christianity disagree on that one point to an amazing degree. Quakers are almost entirely pacifist, and oppose all forms of killing. Catholics are like that to some degree as well. Then you have denominations like the various evangelical protestant sects who aren't all that opposed to killing at all.
 
Displayed 50 of 416 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report