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 (34 weeks 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 04:43:01 PM

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?


No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.
 
2013-08-19 04:46:32 PM

vygramul: ginandbacon: So since fetuses aren't babies, we're all good now, right?

That's the fundamental disagreement, and it's unresolvable. (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)


Actually, the fact that medical science can save profoundly premature babies resolves the issue totally: abortionists ARE murderers and it should be perfectly legal, under the 'defense of others' doctrine, to blow their heads off.
 
2013-08-19 04:47:07 PM

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

Actually, the orgiginal translation would be something like "Thou shalt not kill without good reason" or something. This is evidenced in the old testament itself when Moses proceeds to put the calf worshipers (his own people) to the sword as soon as he's off the mountain.


Really?

You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' 44"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous....


But that's only Jesus Christ talking. No right wing Christian actually listens to him.
 
2013-08-19 04:48:08 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.


What religion, if any, do you practice?
 
2013-08-19 04:48:34 PM

serial_crusher: I liken it to gambling.


Except medical science has made it so that it is actually nothing at all like gambling. What you are arguing for is akin to opposing the double-down option at the blackjack table, regardless of whether it will help your current situation, simply because you morally oppose it. And what's more, you'd like to make sure that, because you personally object to use of the double-down option, the casino must forbid any other player at any other table from using said option. That's not principled, that's just ignorant.
 
2013-08-19 04:49:06 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.




Having the police investigating miscarriages is a stupid bet. An intensely stupid bet.
 
2013-08-19 04:49:33 PM

Serious Black: serial_crusher: Serious Black: What's your opinion about the approximately 50% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in a woman's uterus and, consequently, die?

Accidents happen.  I'm not appalled and outraged against the universe, if that's what you mean.  How do you feel about people dying of old age?  Same thing.

This makes very little sense to me. I mean, if you literally believe that the moment egg and sperm fuse starts life, then every time a fertilized egg doesn't implant, that life is dying. Period. It's not necessarily intentional act which means there may be no murder, but it is unequivocally a death.

To borrow your dying of old age issue, we have spent countless trillions of dollars on trying to extend life by a few more months; Medicare has consistently reported that half of their budget goes to patients who are in their last two months of life. We clearly care a great deal about trying to extend life by a month or two even though it is a fact of the universe that people die. But ensuring that fertilized eggs implant and extending their lives by 80+ years isn't important enough to deserve research or funding? That's insane and wildly hypocritical. Every life has merit. Every life is dignified. Right?


Whoa, don't put words into my mouth.  That sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to spend money researching.  I'm not losing any sleep over that particular problem not being solved, just like I'm not losing any sleep over people I don't know dying of old age.

The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!  Let's just put old people in cryo-stasis for the same reason, amirite?
 
2013-08-19 04:50:07 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.

And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)

They can believe all they want about the thing growing in my body, the fact of the matter is that any actual action regarding the thing in my body stops at... wait for it... me.

They can believe all they want about it, that doesn't stop it from being mine and mine alone.


Right you are. However, that in turn doesn't stop  them from shooting your provider. If they're willing to do that, your freedom of choice has been somewhat constrained.

If one is willing to break the law in order to impose their beliefs, then the law has no value, at least from the point of view of one's victims.
 
2013-08-19 04:51:20 PM

Serious Black: There's a (modestly) big Christian adoption movement that has really taken hold in foreign countries, where they'll go in and pressure women who have already decided against an abortion to give up their kid because the white American Christian parents will do a better job of raising them. It's very creepy.


I had a question about this some time ago - is there something about American Christianity that makes their followers...well, bellicose? If we threw in the adjective 'white', maybe it could be explained by Euro-centrism, but I feel like I miss the big picture...
 
2013-08-19 04:52:28 PM

Serious Black: What religion, if any, do you practice?


None.  It is possible for somebody to be opposed to abortion without being part of a religious group.  The association with right wing Christians is a huge pet peeve of mine.  People get that an agnostic could value an adult's life, but are suddenly perplexed that one might similarly value an embryo's.
 
2013-08-19 04:53:22 PM

Nabb1: 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,


What percentage of pro-lifers do not support exemptions in cases of rape or incest? If that's the majority, then your claim is correct.
 
2013-08-19 04:54:55 PM

Zik-Zak: Serious Black: There's a (modestly) big Christian adoption movement that has really taken hold in foreign countries, where they'll go in and pressure women who have already decided against an abortion to give up their kid because the white American Christian parents will do a better job of raising them. It's very creepy.

I had a question about this some time ago - is there something about American Christianity that makes their followers...well, bellicose? If we threw in the adjective 'white', maybe it could be explained by Euro-centrism, but I feel like I miss the big picture...


It's power and privilege. When you have all the money, all the power and feel you have a right to impose your beliefs on others... well, that leads to bellicosity.
 
2013-08-19 04:55:14 PM
I only read 10 posts, but I just wanted to say, I'm 'in' on the baby seal clubbing.
 
2013-08-19 04:55:38 PM

Serious Black: Emposter: Voiceofreason01: "Coalition for life" huh? What a sick euphemism.

I'm gonna start a new list.

List of words and phrases "Conservatives" have destroyed the meaning of:
Pro-life
Fiscal responsibility
Family
Conservative
Socialist/Communist

Personal responsibility is at the top of the list.


The whole time I was writing my post, there was something on the tip of my tongue, and that was it.
 
2013-08-19 04:57:28 PM
Actually, this is a little too real for me. And brutal.
invisiblecollege.weblog.leidenuniv.nl
 
2013-08-19 04:57:42 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: Maybe I'm miscounting, but I count more than two: you're on the right side for (i) don't believe mother should be protected from legal consequences; (ii) you oppose contraception and sex ed; (iii) you're fine with exceptions for rape and incest; (iv) you're in favor of banning D&X abortion.

(i) chart applies to people who do believe the mother should be protected from legal consequences
(ii) typo, said opposite of what I meant.  Contraception good.
the other 2, yes I'm on the chart.  But its conclusions are ridiculous.

Theaetetus: But that "agree to disagree" is the fundamental thing we're talking about - if you think that women automatically consent to 9-months of forced pregnancy when they have sex, that's wanting to control women by taking away their ability to consent to specific things. Like, you can consent to sky diving, but not crashing. You can consent to surgery for your hernia, but not castration. You can consent to sex now, but not sex tomorrow. And you can consent to sex, but not pregnancy.
Removing that ability to consent or not consent to various things takes away the ability of a woman to control her own life, which is basically what we're accusing you of wanting to do.

Yeah, but don't characterize that as wanting to take away all ability for a woman to choose, or taking a single specific choice off the table simply because a woman is the one who wants to choose it.  That's where the "war on women" starts getting silly.


Look serial_crusher, can I call you "Crush"? I think we might be able to enter into an alliance of sorts. I know I support everything you stand against and it seems like a bad idea but if we team up temporarily put aside our differences we can accomplish a common goal. You see Crush we have a common enemy: Theaetetus.  You see Theaetetus is a lawyer and like all lawyers she likes to argue. Even if the point is so morally bankrupt that it makes fetuses weep. However Theaetetus is unlike other lawyers in one respect, she's a patent attorney. Crush, do you know what she's trying to patent?, an automated abortion machine. No doctor to kill anymore. And that's where I have a problem. You see I might be Pro-Death, but I also believe in a human spirit. So I like good 'ol person against person violence. The way God intended. but with this machine everything will be sterile and clinical.  I can't have that, and you won't be able to temporarily shut down clinics by killing the doctor anymore.

So we need to stop Theatetus. I know you abhor violence so I'll make a compromise with you. I need you to start writing your congressman to ban the automated baby killer. They won't listen to me, I'm on too many watch lists (long story, tell you later). In addition you need to write them and have Theaetetus captured and sent to prison for helping to create something so awful. I know that seems extreme, but otherwise her project might become reality. A reality that neither of us want to live in. And if it makes it any less of a burden on top of all those other despicable things, I have it on good authority she drives a Prius.

Good luck to you sir!
 
2013-08-19 05:00:48 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Zik-Zak: Serious Black: There's a (modestly) big Christian adoption movement that has really taken hold in foreign countries, where they'll go in and pressure women who have already decided against an abortion to give up their kid because the white American Christian parents will do a better job of raising them. It's very creepy.

I had a question about this some time ago - is there something about American Christianity that makes their followers...well, bellicose? If we threw in the adjective 'white', maybe it could be explained by Euro-centrism, but I feel like I miss the big picture...

It's power and privilege. When you have all the money, all the power and feel you have a right to impose your beliefs on others... well, that leads to bellicosity.


That sounds about right.
 
2013-08-19 05:01:21 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.


That's a different question, having to do with acceptable risk. My question was why you believe that it's consent.
For example, you can reduce the probability of fatal car accidents by driving slowly, only during the day, in nice weather, and wearing your seatbelt, but if you want to avoid them altogether, you have to choose not to drive... But that doesn't mean that you consent to dying if you do drive.

Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.


Agreed, just like the pregnant woman can't take back the sex. However, she has multiple options to select from to deal with that, just like you have the option to go get some money from the ATM or have your knees broken by the bouncer... but for some reason, you want to take away the "get some money" option. Do you consent to having your knees broken every time you gamble, just because it's a possibility if you're really unlucky? Of course not. At most, you consent to making a choice in the future as to what to do if you incur a debt, just like a woman who has sex, at most, consents to making a choice in the future if she gets pregnant.
 
2013-08-19 05:01:24 PM

un4gvn666: serial_crusher: I liken it to gambling.

Except medical science has made it so that it is actually nothing at all like gambling. What you are arguing for is akin to opposing the double-down option at the blackjack table, regardless of whether it will help your current situation, simply because you morally oppose it. And what's more, you'd like to make sure that, because you personally object to use of the double-down option, the casino must forbid any other player at any other table from using said option. That's not principled, that's just ignorant.


That's kind of a silly argument, but I'll roll with it.  Abortion is a problem because one person is making a decision on behalf of another.
That's sort of the case with doubling down, if you want to be that jackass at the table who tries to tell everybody how to play.  "Yeah sure dude, I doubled down on an 8, but if I had just hit and gotten that 2, I would have hit again and taken the 10 that busted you, then the dealer would have busted and everybody at the table would have won and the pit boss would have comped us all a trip to the buffet for no apparent reason.  So sorry to not play by the book, asshole."
Anyhow, that guy has the option of getting up and moving to another table if he's not satisfied with other peoples' bets causing him to lose his money.  Embryos don't have the same luxury.
 
2013-08-19 05:01:38 PM

vygramul: 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?


In favor of retroactively aborting you? Sure!
 
2013-08-19 05:03:44 PM

serial_crusher: The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!


Note that your argument earlier was that if women want to avoid nine months of pregnancy and labor, they have to not have sex.
 
2013-08-19 05:03:54 PM

vpb: vygramul: There is no duty to retreat under Kansas law and it's a CC State.

I believe that even in duty to retreat states, that duty is obviated when the perp has a firearm.

You can't outrun a bullet.



imageshack.us

"If you're Neo, you won't have to."
 
2013-08-19 05:04:23 PM

HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.


Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.
 
2013-08-19 05:06:39 PM

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


Sure it does. It has exemptions that allows abortions as stated to Moses by God when he shows Moses how to use bitter herbs to induce a miscarriage.
 
2013-08-19 05:06:42 PM

vygramul: HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.

Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.


Why?

The death penalty is always a good idea.
 
2013-08-19 05:06:58 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?


Yes. They are taking measures to take control of a life-changing part of my life. They are trying to control women.
 
2013-08-19 05:07:01 PM

Serpentile6: However Theaetetus is unlike other lawyers in one respect, she's a patent attorney. Crush, do you know what she's trying to patent?, an automated abortion machine.


cdn.ebaumsworld.com
Unfortunately, merely automating an existing manual process is considered obvious per se and is unpatentable.
 
2013-08-19 05:08:41 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: vygramul: 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?

In favor of retroactively aborting you? Sure!


namatad: 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.


How about that?
 
2013-08-19 05:09:13 PM

serial_crusher: That's kind of a silly argument, but I'll roll with it.  Abortion is

 not  a problem because one person is making a medical   decision on behalf of another. herself.
/Fixed that to reflect reality.
//It's your emotionally-fueled/bad theology "inspired" false premise that keeps tripping you up.
 
2013-08-19 05:11:10 PM

serial_crusher: Serious Black: What religion, if any, do you practice?

None.  It is possible for somebody to be opposed to abortion without being part of a religious group. The association with right wing Christians is a huge pet peeve of mine.  People get that an agnostic could value an adult's life, but are suddenly perplexed that one might similarly value an embryo's.


That's why I asked. What you seem to be endorsing is a complete rejection of the doctrine of double effect. The intention behind an act is irrelevant; all that matters is its outcome. That seems to be a very radical notion to me. I think most people in America believe that you're committing a morally acceptable act by killing in self-defense because the point is to preserve your own life, but if you've rejected any concern for what the intention is, then self-defense kills are still murder.
 
2013-08-19 05:12:07 PM

vygramul: HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.

Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.


Are you sane, trained, and a non-criminal who will serve in the active, state-sponsored and officered Militia or in active Federal service?
If you answer "yes" and you can afford a basic load and practice rounds, go for it.
 
2013-08-19 05:13:10 PM

Theaetetus: And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?


The big difference there is that the EMTs usually don't have to kill anybody else to help you out.  If you were looking at a broken leg with 9 months worth of rehab time, the EMTs wouldn't be justified in killing a bystander to harvest his leg and give you a transplant.  You'd have to just suck it up and do your 9 months of rehab.
 
2013-08-19 05:13:35 PM
FACT: Barack Hussein Infitada Jihad Obamohammed encourages abortions amongst infidels to hasten the global caliphate.
 
2013-08-19 05:13:53 PM

vygramul: HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.

Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.


"Choice" in this context refers to personal decisions regarding one's own body. Like the choice to end your life if you have a terminal illness. It has nothing to do with other kinds of choices. Not wanting to give up the remote does not make me anti-choice.
 
2013-08-19 05:14:47 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.

Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.

Are you sane, trained, and a non-criminal who will serve in the active, state-sponsored and officered Militia or in active Federal service?
If you answer "yes" and you can afford a basic load and practice rounds, go for it.


Choice does not include conditions. Anyway, don't change the subject.
 
2013-08-19 05:14:49 PM

someonelse: Nabb1: 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,

What percentage of pro-lifers do not support exemptions in cases of rape or incest? If that's the majority, then your claim is correct.


I don't think its so clear cut as that. Even accepting completely that a fertilized egg is a person entitled to all the rights that implies by virtue of being alive and having a complete set of DNA, those rights sit in direct opposition to the right of the mother to control her own body drawn from the same source. One set of rights must prevail over the other. Weighing one party in the equation voluntarily taking actions that led to the creation of the other heavily when making the judgment isn't exactly a wildly unreasonable thing to do.

To compare to interactions amongst the grown, you generally are allowed to kill someone if they are breaking into your house but are not allowed to kill them if you invited them in then withdrew that invitation and they nonviolently refused to leave(crapholes like Texas excluded)

Well it holds for the rape exemption anyway. Never really grasped why incest gets listed I'm these things.
 
2013-08-19 05:16:01 PM

someonelse: vygramul: HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.

Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.

"Choice" in this context refers to personal decisions regarding one's own body. Like the choice to end your life if you have a terminal illness. It has nothing to do with other kinds of choices. Not wanting to give up the remote does not make me anti-choice.


*facepalm*

Pro-choice and pro-life are both only in this context. Duh. That's the point.
 
2013-08-19 05:18:22 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

The big difference there is that the EMTs usually don't have to kill anybody else to help you out. If you were looking at a broken leg with 9 months worth of rehab time, the EMTs wouldn't be justified in killing a bystander to harvest his leg and give you a transplant.  You'd have to just suck it up and do your 9 months of rehab.


Exactly! And in this case, the woman is the bystander who isn't required to help the fetus with 9 months of rehab, even if it'll die.
 
2013-08-19 05:20:59 PM

vygramul: Pro-choice and pro-life are both only in this context. Duh. That's the point.


Considering that women will face higher risks of complications and deaths due to the ban on D&X abortions, while the ban does not reduce the number of abortions at all since there are other, less safe procedures used, the "pro-lifers" are not pro-life even within this context.
 
2013-08-19 05:21:57 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.


So you are in the "punish them for having sex" group. Gotcha.


/an abortion is dealing with the result.
 
2013-08-19 05:25:25 PM

Mambo Bananapatch: The My Little Pony Killer: vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.

And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)

They can believe all they want about the thing growing in my body, the fact of the matter is that any actual action regarding the thing in my body stops at... wait for it... me.

They can believe all they want about it, that doesn't stop it from being mine and mine alone.

Right you are. However, that in turn doesn't stop  them from shooting your provider. If they're willing to do that, your freedom of choice has been somewhat constrained.

If one is willing to break the law in order to impose their beliefs, then the law has no value, at least from the point of view of one's victims.


My freedom of choice has not been constrained though. They've made it less safe for me to seek my abortion, but they haven't stopped me in the least.

People being willing to break laws doesn't suddenly mean that we should not have them. It means that we need to be trying them accordingly. These "pro"-lifers are terrorists, we need to treat them as such.
 
2013-08-19 05:27:35 PM

Serious Black: serial_crusher: Serious Black: What religion, if any, do you practice?

None.  It is possible for somebody to be opposed to abortion without being part of a religious group. The association with right wing Christians is a huge pet peeve of mine.  People get that an agnostic could value an adult's life, but are suddenly perplexed that one might similarly value an embryo's.

That's why I asked. What you seem to be endorsing is a complete rejection of the doctrine of double effect. The intention behind an act is irrelevant; all that matters is its outcome. That seems to be a very radical notion to me. I think most people in America believe that you're committing a morally acceptable act by killing in self-defense because the point is to preserve your own life, but if you've rejected any concern for what the intention is, then self-defense kills are still murder.


I'm not following how you reached that conclusion.  I certainly don't see things that way.
Outcome and intentions are both important.  You need to make smart choices to make sure you get the outcome you intend, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you always necessarily can achieve the desired outcome (i.e. having sex without getting pregnant).
 
2013-08-19 05:28:11 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

The big difference there is that the EMTs usually don't have to kill anybody else to help you out.  If you were looking at a broken leg with 9 months worth of rehab time, the EMTs wouldn't be justified in killing a bystander to harvest his leg and give you a transplant.  You'd have to just suck it up and do your 9 months of rehab.


So I'm sure you support universal healthcare then, because the costs of remaining healthy and getting medical support throughout those 9 months ain't free. And I hope you don't mind picking up the tab as a taxpayer for the birth and following when the baby basically becomes a ward of the state unless adopted? I'm sure if there are complications and the mother has to go on bedrest you're all for paying her living expenses and those of other dependents who rely on her income?

/Surprise, being idealistic doesn't get rid of the real world issues that result
//More surprise, sometimes an abortion can be the most 'responsible' decision
 
2013-08-19 05:28:41 PM

vygramul: *facepalm*

Pro-choice and pro-life are both only in this context. Duh. That's the point.


Actually, the point is that "pro-life" is purportedly premised on the sacredness of life in general, whereas in practice it amounts to nothing more than wanting some specific medical procedures to be made or kept illegal. It would be like if a movement claimed to be against the death penalty when in reality they were only against hanging... and were apparently alright with firing squads, lethal injections and electric chairs.

The pro-choice argument on the other hand, makes no sweeping claims that lend themselves to these kinds of internal contradictions - likely because this argument is based not in religion but on a modern, civilized understanding of rights and ethics.
 
2013-08-19 05:28:44 PM

jst3p: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.

So you are in the "punish them for having sex" group. Gotcha.

/an abortion is dealing with the result.


so, back to the gambling analogy, can I kill my bookie?
 
2013-08-19 05:28:46 PM

Theaetetus: vygramul: Pro-choice and pro-life are both only in this context. Duh. That's the point.

Considering that women will face higher risks of complications and deaths due to the ban on D&X abortions, while the ban does not reduce the number of abortions at all since there are other, less safe procedures used, the "pro-lifers" are not pro-life even within this context.


Sigh. Thaetus, you're confusing a ban with the philosophical argument about it.
 
2013-08-19 05:29:27 PM

vygramul: The My Little Pony Killer: vygramul: 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?

In favor of retroactively aborting you? Sure!

namatad: 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.

How about that?


Where did I ever say I was "changing my mind" about having a baby? I've stated multiple times in multiple threads now that if I were to discover I was pregnant, I would without a doubt abort it. It doesn't matter if I find out five minutes after conception or five minutes prior to birth.

My mind was already made up. Get out of my way.
 
2013-08-19 05:31:43 PM
Book of Numbers 5:11-31

One of these days I'm putting it on a t-shirt
 
2013-08-19 05:33:12 PM

Urbn: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

The big difference there is that the EMTs usually don't have to kill anybody else to help you out.  If you were looking at a broken leg with 9 months worth of rehab time, the EMTs wouldn't be justified in killing a bystander to harvest his leg and give you a transplant.  You'd have to just suck it up and do your 9 months of rehab.

So I'm sure you support universal healthcare then,


Actually, yes.

because the costs of remaining healthy and getting medical support throughout those 9 months ain't free. And I hope you don't mind picking up the tab as a taxpayer for the birth and following when the baby basically becomes a ward of the state unless adopted?

With the caveat that both unwitting parents should pay child support until such time as the child is adopted.  In cases where they're unable to, yeah the responsibility goes to the taxpayers next.
 
2013-08-19 05:33:13 PM

Biological Ali: vygramul: *facepalm*

Pro-choice and pro-life are both only in this context. Duh. That's the point.

Actually, the point is that "pro-life" is purportedly premised on the sacredness of life in general, whereas in practice it amounts to nothing more than wanting some specific medical procedures to be made or kept illegal. It would be like if a movement claimed to be against the death penalty when in reality they were only against hanging... and were apparently alright with firing squads, lethal injections and electric chairs.

The pro-choice argument on the other hand, makes no sweeping claims that lend themselves to these kinds of internal contradictions - likely because this argument is based not in religion but on a modern, civilized understanding of rights and ethics.


If only that were the case. It's not. The anti-choice label is to generalize anti-abortion to being a philosophical opposition to choice in general. Anti-abortion makes sense. Anti-choice is intentionally moving the objection to something from the specific that is, in itself a generality. Otherwise, anti-choice could be used as a surrogate for gun control advocates for the exact same reason.
 
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