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 05:35:01 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: 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.


Why is it you're willing to attack me, when I discuss the philosophical differences between the two stances, but you're unwilling to condemn the guy who wants to beat women to death for having a late-term abortion of which he doesn't approve? That seems odd to me.
 
2013-08-19 05:35:04 PM

serial_crusher: 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Earlier count withdrawn.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?


No. Murdering another person is wrong. Your analogy is too simplistic to be useful.
 
2013-08-19 05:35:56 PM
imageshack.us
 
2013-08-19 05:37:23 PM
 
2013-08-19 05:37:40 PM

jst3p: serial_crusher: 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?

No. Murdering another person is wrong. Your analogy is too simplistic to be useful.


That's kind of the point.  Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake.  It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.
 
2013-08-19 05:39:22 PM

vygramul: 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.


Really? Abortion  isn't a medical decision made by adult women who are not a wards of the court?
 
2013-08-19 05:40:12 PM

serial_crusher: 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.


Well, then maybe you pro-lifers should lay down the aborted fetus posters and stop harassing clinics for 2 seconds and spend some cycles pushing for universal healthcare and the welfare reforms that would be necessary to even consider your draconian world view for women.
 
2013-08-19 05:41:47 PM

serial_crusher: Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake. It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.


Not really. Say your bookie needed a kidney or would die. Can your bookie force you to undergo surgery and 9 months of rehab so that they can have your kidney, against your will?
Even a person has no right to do that to another person, their own impending doom notwithstanding. Hence why the debate over whether an embryo is a person or not is irrelevant.
 
2013-08-19 05:42:14 PM

serial_crusher: That's kind of the point. Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake. It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.


If it isn't a person, then no person's life is at stake. I fail to see how that makes your point.
 
2013-08-19 05:42:36 PM

vygramul: 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.


Not only is nobody doing that, that doesn't really even make sense. People aren't going to hear "anti-choice" and assume that these fundamentalists are against literally all choice, ever. Nobody's going to think "Damn, if these anti-choice people take power I won't be able to choose what kind of cereal I can buy or what kind of socks I want to wear." No, people will understand that "anti-choice" is about restricting specific people from having specific choices.

Indeed, "anti-choice" is probably more accurate than "anti-abortion", since these people aren't even consistently against abortions. At the very least, it isn't obviously less accurate than "anti-abortion".
 
2013-08-19 05:42:51 PM

jst3p: serial_crusher: That's kind of the point. Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake. It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.

If it isn't a person, then no person's life is at stake. I fail to see how that makes your point.


Nevermind, I misread that.
 
2013-08-19 05:43:30 PM

serial_crusher: 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).


So what about cases like, say, my niece? My sister-in-law was 37 when she became pregnant, so the doctors automatically did everything they recommend for high-risk pregnancies. They did blood tests and followed up with an amnio. They also did consistent ultrasounds to monitor development. The tests showed that not only did she have Down syndrome, but she had a hole in her heart that appeared to be inoperable for months. It took until the final ultrasound at 22 weeks for the hospital's pediatric cardiology team to say that the surgeons could correct the heart defect with one surgery; before then, the prognosis was basically death by two years and spending all of that time in the hospital on life support. If they had been in a jurisdiction with a 20-week abortion ban, I'm positive they would have aborted before that final ultrasound because the information they had at 19 weeks was that her life would be cruel and hopeless.

Anyway, so my question: should my brother and sister-in-law have been forced to give birth to a baby that every medical professional they dealt with said would be in constant, unquenchable pain for her entire life because they had sex?
 
2013-08-19 05:45:19 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: 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.

Really? Abortion  isn't a medical decision made by adult women who are not a wards of the court?


Exactly. There are no conditions. That's what pro-choice means.

So your limitations and conditions regarding the Militia are anti-choice. Or are you saying we can limit who gets an abortion and still call ourselves pro-choice?
 
2013-08-19 05:45:36 PM

Urbn: Well, then maybe you pro-lifers should lay down the aborted fetus posters and stop harassing clinics for 2 seconds and spend some cycles pushing for universal healthcare and the welfare reforms that would be necessary to even consider your draconian world view for women.


"God hates deductibles!"
"No child left behind is murder!"

Those guys are probably more trouble than they're worth.  I'm happy staying in my own niche without them.
 
2013-08-19 05:47:55 PM

Biological Ali: vygramul: 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.

Not only is nobody doing that, that doesn't really even make sense. People aren't going to hear "anti-choice" and assume that these fundamentalists are against literally all choice, ever. Nobody's going to think "Damn, if these anti-choice people take power I won't be able to choose what kind of cereal I can buy or what kind of socks I want to wear." No, people will understand that "anti-choice" is about restricting specific people from having specific choices.

Indeed, "anti-choice" is probably more accurate than "anti-abortion", since these people aren't even consistently against abortions. At the very least, it isn't obviously less accurate than "anti-abortion".


When someone says they're pro-life, do you automatically know they're against the death penalty against war? Nope. Not ever. Nobody thinks that if these pro-life people take power, "Oops! My state won't be able to put to death mass murderers or defend the country against foreign invaders!" No, people will understand that "pro-life" is about restricting specific people from what they consider killing a person.
 
2013-08-19 05:49:43 PM
 
2013-08-19 05:51:33 PM

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake. It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.

Not really. Say your bookie needed a kidney or would die. Can your bookie force you to undergo surgery and 9 months of rehab so that they can have your kidney, against your will?
Even a person has no right to do that to another person, their own impending doom notwithstanding. Hence why the debate over whether an embryo is a person or not is irrelevant.


No no, see, there's no reason for him to be a bookie in that analogy, so it doesn't work.
I have the following choices:
I pay the bookie the money I owe him
Bookie murders my family members one by one until I pay
I murder the bookie and go to prison for it

None of those are desirable, but that's the corner I've painted myself into.
Would be great if I could murder the bookie without legal repercussions, but those darn Republicans just want to punish me for gambling!
 
2013-08-19 05:52:37 PM

Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?


This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.
 
2013-08-19 05:53:42 PM
That sound you did not hear just now was a bunch of FBI spooks shuffling around inside this organization.
 
2013-08-19 05:56:19 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake. It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.

Not really. Say your bookie needed a kidney or would die. Can your bookie force you to undergo surgery and 9 months of rehab so that they can have your kidney, against your will?
Even a person has no right to do that to another person, their own impending doom notwithstanding. Hence why the debate over whether an embryo is a person or not is irrelevant.

No no, see, there's no reason for him to be a bookie in that analogy, so it doesn't work.
I have the following choices:
I pay the bookie the money I owe him
Bookie murders my family members one by one until I pay
I murder the bookie and go to prison for it

None of those are desirable, but that's the corner I've painted myself into.
Would be great if I could murder the bookie without legal repercussions, but those darn Republicans just want to punish me for gambling!


This analogy should have been aborted.
 
2013-08-19 05:56:26 PM

vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.


Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.
 
2013-08-19 05:57:25 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: 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.


Can I send you an information packet and T-shirt too?
 
2013-08-19 05:57:29 PM

serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.


What do you think the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion should be?
 
2013-08-19 06:00:21 PM
My whole issue with the "Having sex confers consent to being forced to go thru a pregnancy and then a medical procedure which may include tearing open your abdominal wall, if you are unlucky, all to protect the life of someone else," is that we don't create implied consent in any other circumstance.  Ever.

There are no, absolutely, no medical procedure we force, thru governmental coercion, people to go thru to help save the life of another person.  I can drive drunk, hit a child, and have the only blood that can save that child, and no one can force me to donate that blood.  I can beat someone so badly that they need one of my kidneys to live, and no one will force me to give that person a kidney.  We don't even take organs from DEAD people to help living people, if it is not made clear that the dead person would wish to.  We don't even force people to try to save another person life, even if that effort would be minimal.

But women, by having sex, are going to be forced to provide 9 months of biological support and have to undergo a medical procedure much more invasive than just giving blood to save someone else?  Ridiculous.  Keep abortions legal, safe and used as often as they need be.


/father of 3, wife pregnant with #4
 
2013-08-19 06:00:46 PM

jst3p: serial_crusher: 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?

No. Murdering another person is wrong. Your analogy is too simplistic to be useful.


Why is it wrong? Because you were told that? Because you came to that conclusion on your own? If that's the case why? Have you ever tried killing someone? It might change your mind.
 
2013-08-19 06:03:02 PM

serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.




And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.
 
2013-08-19 06:04:05 PM

vygramul: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

What do you think the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion should be?


His Boobies advocated letting them die from botched self induced abortions.
 
2013-08-19 06:04:56 PM
His initial post.
 
2013-08-19 06:05:07 PM

vygramul: When someone says they're pro-life, do you automatically know they're against the death penalty against war? Nope. Not ever. Nobody thinks that if these pro-life people take power, "Oops! My state won't be able to put to death mass murderers or defend the country against foreign invaders!" No, people will understand that "pro-life" is about restricting specific people from what they consider killing a person.


I'm not even talking about death penalty or war - I'm talking about the specific context of abortion that we've already limited the discussion to. "Anti-choice", if we're looking at what these people actually support, is at the very least as appropriate as "pro-life" or "anti-abortion".
 
2013-08-19 06:06:11 PM
There's derptards on both sides.

i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-19 06:07:01 PM
I don't understand how anyone who advocates "small government" can want to make abortion illegal. You are literally forcing a person to undergo a  potentially fatal medical procedure, lose wages from their job, and provide around the clock medical care for 9 months. That is about as invasive and big government as you can get. The only way it could get bigger would be if men who get women pregnant were forced to support them financially for the entire pregnancy or face jail terms.
 
2013-08-19 06:09:31 PM

Repo Man: vygramul: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

What do you think the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion should be?

His Boobies advocated letting them die from botched self induced abortions.


But what about non-botched abortions? What about doctors who conduct illegal abortions? What should the penalty be?
 
2013-08-19 06:10:58 PM

Biological Ali: vygramul: When someone says they're pro-life, do you automatically know they're against the death penalty against war? Nope. Not ever. Nobody thinks that if these pro-life people take power, "Oops! My state won't be able to put to death mass murderers or defend the country against foreign invaders!" No, people will understand that "pro-life" is about restricting specific people from what they consider killing a person.

I'm not even talking about death penalty or war - I'm talking about the specific context of abortion that we've already limited the discussion to. "Anti-choice", if we're looking at what these people actually support, is at the very least as appropriate as "pro-life" or "anti-abortion".


Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are. You rely on things OUTSIDE abortion in order to generalize pro-life as wrong.
 
2013-08-19 06:13:15 PM
quotesjpg.com
 
2013-08-19 06:14:06 PM
f.kulfoto.com
 
2013-08-19 06:15:25 PM
www.voiceable.org
 
2013-08-19 06:15:48 PM

vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are


Than maybe the terms need to be changed. Pro-reproductive choice and Pro-fetal life work for you?
 
2013-08-19 06:16:47 PM

vygramul: Repo Man: vygramul: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

What do you think the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion should be?

His Boobies advocated letting them die from botched self induced abortions.

But what about non-botched abortions? What about doctors who conduct illegal abortions? What should the penalty be?


Stone them.
 
2013-08-19 06:18:15 PM

Carth: vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are

Then maybe the terms need to be changed. Pro-reproductive choice and Pro-fetal life work for you?


I bet you can't get either side to sign onto those, even though those are accurate.
 
2013-08-19 06:19:05 PM

Serpentile6: vygramul: Repo Man: vygramul: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

What do you think the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion should be?

His Boobies advocated letting them die from botched self induced abortions.

But what about non-botched abortions? What about doctors who conduct illegal abortions? What should the penalty be?

Stone them.


I'm still waiting for serial crusher to prove that the fetus is exactly the same as a person and that abortion is murder.
 
2013-08-19 06:19:05 PM
assets.diylol.com
 
2013-08-19 06:19:42 PM
Pro-Lifers: in almost any abortion thread I ask why you are not standing with me demanding comprehensive sex education in our schools as well as easy, stigma free access to contraception? You know, two things that actually reduce the number of abortions?

None of the Pro-Lifers ever answer. But I'll ask again:

Why you are not standing with me demanding comprehensive sex education in our schools as well as easy, stigma free access to contraception? You know, two things that actually reduce the number of abortions?
 
2013-08-19 06:20:45 PM
www.weakstream.us
 
2013-08-19 06:20:59 PM

vygramul: Repo Man: vygramul: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

What do you think the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion should be?

His Boobies advocated letting them die from botched self induced abortions.

But what about non-botched abortions? What about doctors who conduct illegal abortions? What should the penalty be?


Umm..the same as would happen for any other medical malpractice or practicing without a license? Why do you think abortion should be held out as separate from every other medical procedure or service? Seriously, if it weren't for the fear of attracting the ire of violent, terrorist pro-lifers most abortions would probable be safely done in hospitals or doctor's offices. It's the pro-lifers who have pushed it into clinics that are constantly under harassment and threat of violence.
 
2013-08-19 06:23:09 PM

vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are. You rely on things OUTSIDE abortion in order to generalize pro-life as wrong.


What? I just told you that I rely on the fact that they're not even consistently against abortions, as with the "rape and incest" exceptions.

There are other inconsistencies if we're talking about unborn children in general, as with their (non-) stance about whether miscarriages should be investigated as potential murders and negligent homicides, but the rape/incest is a case of them specifically being okay with certain kinds of abortions.

Now, if you were to argue that people shouldn't say things like "anti-choice" on the grounds of civility and that addressing these people in the terms of their own choosing (such as "pro-life") is more likely to convince them to change their minds or compromise, that would be a respectable argument. But to suggest that "anti-choice" is somehow less logical than "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" or what have you - that just doesn't make sense.
 
2013-08-19 06:23:31 PM

vygramul: Carth: vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are

Then maybe the terms need to be changed. Pro-reproductive choice and Pro-fetal life work for you?

I bet you can't get either side to sign onto those, even though those are accurate.


Yea, it just seems like if people want to actually talk to something and not just yell talking points they should at least use accurate terms. Most 'pro-choice' people aren't advocating the ability to choose infanticide and most 'pro-life' people don't care much about the death penalty or intervention in foreign conflicts to aid civilians.
 
2013-08-19 06:23:44 PM

Repo Man: And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.


When I was a lad, my family was a part of the pro-life movement (went to protests, all that jazz), and we were always drilled into our head that there were a million people looking to adopt right now! And there were a million abortions or so a year, so all those babies, if allowed to be born, would be able to go to those loving homes, today.

But, this got me thinking.  What happens after all those million babies get adopted?  Or even if 3/4 of the newly born are kept, what happens in four years? Because, at some point, all those people looking to adopt, will have adopted.  What you got left are millions of unwanted children, without homes, with no one supporting them financially but the government, living in orphanages/unwanted childrens' homes.  Just like we used to have in the days before legal abortion.  Once I started on that train of thought, it wasn't long before I realized that there was no utopia at the end of the "outlaw all abortions" road, just a lot of nightmares.
 
2013-08-19 06:24:20 PM

Urbn: Umm..the same as would happen for any other medical malpractice or practicing without a license? Why do you think abortion should be held out as separate from every other medical procedure or service? Seriously, if it weren't for the fear of attracting the ire of violent, terrorist pro-lifers most abortions would probable be safely done in hospitals or doctor's offices. It's the pro-lifers who have pushed it into clinics that are constantly under harassment and threat of violence.


The question under discussion is, if abortion were illegal, what should the penalty be for women who get an abortion.
 
2013-08-19 06:25:21 PM

Carth: vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are

Than maybe the terms need to be changed. Pro-reproductive choice and Pro-fetal life work for you?


Strictly speaking, the latter would have to be "Pro-fetal life except in cases of incest or rape".
 
2013-08-19 06:26:31 PM

Carth: vygramul: Carth: vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are

Then maybe the terms need to be changed. Pro-reproductive choice and Pro-fetal life work for you?

I bet you can't get either side to sign onto those, even though those are accurate.

Yea, it just seems like if people want to actually talk to something and not just yell talking points they should at least use accurate terms. Most 'pro-choice' people aren't advocating the ability to choose infanticide and most 'pro-life' people don't care much about the death penalty or intervention in foreign conflicts to aid civilians.


Not only that, but they actually enjoy (though they won't admit) the implied smear that it puts on the other side. Pro-life must mean the other side is anti-life.
 
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