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 (48 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 06:26:36 PM

Biological Ali: 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".


Don't the really hardcore antiabortionists want it outlawed in even rape, incest or medical threat to the mother's life?
 
2013-08-19 06:27:01 PM

vygramul: 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.


Why does that matter. You want a philosophical conversation. Prove to me that loss of life is a bad thing.
 
2013-08-19 06:27:16 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.


Coincidentally, I brought up this very problem with serial_crusher in a previous abortion thread, and he said that he's OK with women dying from unsafe abortions because the blood of the unborn babies is on their hands, not his.  He said he wouldn't save a woman dying from an abortion unless it weren't terribly inconvenient to do so.

This is why I have him farkied as "Likes to watch women die from botched abortions."
 
2013-08-19 06:29:50 PM

austerity101: 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.

Coincidentally, I brought up this very problem with serial_crusher in a previous abortion thread, and he said that he's OK with women dying from unsafe abortions because the blood of the unborn babies is on their hands, not his.  He said he wouldn't save a woman dying from an abortion unless it weren't terribly inconvenient to do so.

This is why I have him farkied as "Likes to watch women die from botched abortions."


Good call! I just did the same.
 
2013-08-19 06:33:44 PM

Biological Ali: 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".


Depends on who you ask. The Catholic Church wouldn't need the incest or rape part. Nor Todd Akin. Nor a host of other opponents of abortion.
 
2013-08-19 06:34:25 PM

austerity101: 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.

Coincidentally, I brought up this very problem with serial_crusher in a previous abortion thread, and he said that he's OK with women dying from unsafe abortions because the blood of the unborn babies is on their hands, not his.  He said he wouldn't save a woman dying from an abortion unless it weren't terribly inconvenient to do so.

This is why I have him farkied as "Likes to watch women die from botched abortions."




See the Steinbeck quote above.
 
2013-08-19 06:36:17 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Good call! I just did the same.


And erase "whackadoo libertarian"?!  Not I, sir.
 
2013-08-19 06:38:10 PM

austerity101: 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.

Coincidentally, I brought up this very problem with serial_crusher in a previous abortion thread, and he said that he's OK with women dying from unsafe abortions because the blood of the unborn babies is on their hands, not his.  He said he wouldn't save a woman dying from an abortion unless it weren't terribly inconvenient to do so.

This is why I have him farkied as "Likes to watch women die from botched abortions."


Also, Nicolae Ceausescu felt that way. And look how he ended up.
 
2013-08-19 06:38:12 PM

Soup4Bonnie: A Dark Evil Omen: Good call! I just did the same.

And erase "whackadoo libertarian"?!  Not I, sir.


There is enough space for both if you abbreviate. For example. "whackadoo libertarian" is overly redundant.
 
2013-08-19 06:38:50 PM

austerity101: 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.

Coincidentally, I brought up this very problem with serial_crusher in a previous abortion thread, and he said that he's OK with women dying from unsafe abortions because the blood of the unborn babies is on their hands, not his.  He said he wouldn't save a woman dying from an abortion unless it weren't terribly inconvenient to do so.

This is why I have him farkied as "Likes to watch women die from botched abortions."


I want to know his answer to what the penalty should be for women who get an abortion. He made fun of the video where people didn't know or said there shouldn't be one as not being representative. I would like to hear his answer.
 
2013-08-19 06:39:12 PM

vygramul: Biological Ali: 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".

Depends on who you ask. The Catholic Church wouldn't need the incest or rape part. Nor Todd Akin. Nor a host of other opponents of abortion.


Sure, but there aren't very many of these people - they're a minority of the overall pro-life movement, at least in the US. Granted, they're a significant minority at around 40%, but still if we're characterizing the pro-life movement by what most of them believe we'd have to go with the ones who want these exceptions.
 
2013-08-19 06:40:10 PM

Repo Man: 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.


There are some striking parallels between this argument and the claim from TFA that abortionists are provoking their own shootings.
I tend to feel that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Crazy notion I know, but you should generally refrain from doing things that are illegal.
 
2013-08-19 06:42:41 PM

serial_crusher: Repo Man: 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.

There are some striking parallels between this argument and the claim from TFA that abortionists are provoking their own shootings.
I tend to feel that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Crazy notion I know, but you should generally refrain from doing things that are illegal.


The average person commit three felonies a day. If we were to enforce all the laws imparcially our incarceration rate would likely be over 90%.
 
2013-08-19 06:43:56 PM
The party of personal responsibility my @$$.
 
2013-08-19 06:44:52 PM

serial_crusher: Repo Man: 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.

There are some striking parallels between this argument and the claim from TFA that abortionists are provoking their own shootings.
I tend to feel that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Crazy notion I know, but you should generally refrain from doing things that are illegal.

serial_crusher: Repo Man: 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.

There are some striking parallels between this argument and the claim from TFA that abortionists are provoking their own shootings.
I tend to feel that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Crazy notion I know, but you should generally refrain from doing things that are illegal.




Sociopaths are well known for their inability to feel empathy.
 
2013-08-19 06:45:58 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!


Yeah, you would know a little about that.

serial_crusher:
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.

 
2013-08-19 06:46:12 PM

serial_crusher: I tend to feel that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions.


That requires an excessively myopic and simplistic view of the world and how it works.
 
2013-08-19 06:48:22 PM

serial_crusher: Repo Man: 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.

There are some striking parallels between this argument and the claim from TFA that abortionists are provoking their own shootings.
I tend to feel that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Crazy notion I know, but you should generally refrain from doing things that are illegal.


So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?
 
2013-08-19 06:51:45 PM
The AlbinoSaxon:

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!

Yeah, you would know a little about that.

serial_crusher:
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.


Government's goal shouldn't be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to zero, if that's what you're getting at.  At least, not now because the cost of implementing it would be too high.

It's enough to deal with unwanted outcomes when they arise.  On an individual level, that means manning up and being a parent to the child you created.  On a governmental level, that means punishing parents who fail to live up to their responsibilities (either by neglecting their children or killing them).
 
2013-08-19 06:53:06 PM

serial_crusher: The AlbinoSaxon:

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!

Yeah, you would know a little about that.

serial_crusher:
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.

Government's goal shouldn't be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to zero, if that's what you're getting at.  At least, not now because the cost of implementing it would be too high.

It's enough to deal with unwanted outcomes when they arise.  On an individual level, that means manning up and being a parent to the child you created.  On a governmental level, that means punishing parents who fail to live up to their responsibilities (either by neglecting their children or killing them).


"It is the appropriate role of government to do the stupid, needlessly punitive thing that doesn't produce any good effects because reasons and also furthermore." You're hilarious.
 
2013-08-19 06:54:03 PM

vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?


It's amazing how hard it is to get an answer to a simple question around here.
 
2013-08-19 06:55:03 PM

The Why Not Guy: vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?

It's amazing how hard it is to get an answer to a simple question around here.


He's stuck - he has to either present an unworkable penalty, or admit that his objection to the video was bullshiat.
 
2013-08-19 06:55:19 PM
Repo Man:

Sociopaths are well known for their inability to feel empathy

True, but we're pretty good with logic.
 
2013-08-19 06:55:27 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: The AlbinoSaxon:

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!

Yeah, you would know a little about that.

serial_crusher:
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.

Government's goal shouldn't be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to zero, if that's what you're getting at.  At least, not now because the cost of implementing it would be too high.

It's enough to deal with unwanted outcomes when they arise.  On an individual level, that means manning up and being a parent to the child you created.  On a governmental level, that means punishing parents who fail to live up to their responsibilities (either by neglecting their children or killing them).

"It is the appropriate role of government to do the stupid, needlessly punitive thing that doesn't produce any good effects because reasons and also furthermore." You're hilarious.


Don't forget more expensive in addition to that. Birth control is cheap compared to pregnancy, birth, supporting a healthy baby. Even more so if there are complications with the pregnancy.
 
2013-08-19 06:57:37 PM

The Why Not Guy: vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?

It's amazing how hard it is to get an answer to a simple question around here.


I gave one. He just didn't like it.
 
2013-08-19 06:59:22 PM

vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?


vygramul: I want to know his answer to what the penalty should be for women who get an abortion. He made fun of the video where people didn't know or said there shouldn't be one as not being representative. I would like to hear his answer.


I've said it before, but I'll say it again.  I'm not an expert in criminal rehabilitation, so I'm not qualified to set sentencing guidelines.  (Gets me out of jury duty too!)
As for what crime they should be charged with, I'm going to say murder to be general.  I wouldn't rule out manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc, because I don't know the technical distinctions between them and I have to be at the gym in 35 minutes so can't research at the moment.  But, basic point is you willfully killed a person without justifiable cause, so whatever the right niche for that is.
Same applies for the doctors, nurses, etc.  Same as if somebody hired a criminal organization to kill a cop.  Various people involved in the organization would be guilty of their own various contributions, yes?
 
2013-08-19 06:59:38 PM
The "Pro-Life" movement consists of terrorists.

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-08-19 07:02:58 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: The AlbinoSaxon:

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!

Yeah, you would know a little about that.

serial_crusher:
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.

Government's goal shouldn't be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to zero, if that's what you're getting at.  At least, not now because the cost of implementing it would be too high.

It's enough to deal with unwanted outcomes when they arise.  On an individual level, that means manning up and being a parent to the child you created.  On a governmental level, that means punishing parents who fail to live up to their responsibilities (either by neglecting their children or killing them).

"It is the appropriate role of government to do the stupid, needlessly punitive thing that doesn't produce any good effects because reasons and also furthermore." You're hilarious.


Kill people because it saves money!
Government-provided birth control would be alright if people used it, but it's not going to completely eliminate unwanted pregnancies.  You'd have a hard time doing that cheaper than dealing with unwanted children.
 
2013-08-19 07:02:59 PM

serial_crusher: vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?

vygramul: I want to know his answer to what the penalty should be for women who get an abortion. He made fun of the video where people didn't know or said there shouldn't be one as not being representative. I would like to hear his answer.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again.  I'm not an expert in criminal rehabilitation, so I'm not qualified to set sentencing guidelines.  (Gets me out of jury duty too!)
As for what crime they should be charged with, I'm going to say murder to be general.  I wouldn't rule out manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc, because I don't know the technical distinctions between them and I have to be at the gym in 35 minutes so can't research at the moment.  But, basic point is you willfully killed a person without justifiable cause, so whatever the right niche for that is.
Same applies for the doctors, nurses, etc.  Same as if somebody hired a criminal organization to kill a cop.  Various people involved in the organization would be guilty of their own various contributions, yes?


And these penalties would be applicable from conception?
 
2013-08-19 07:04:17 PM

serial_crusher: Kill people because it saves money!


Hey, look, more begging the question.
 
2013-08-19 07:06:58 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: Kill people because it saves money!

Hey, look, more begging the question.


I'm good with that. In fact I would love to see this system put into place:

assets.gearlive.com
 
2013-08-19 07:09:11 PM

Serpentile6: The Why Not Guy: vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?

It's amazing how hard it is to get an answer to a simple question around here.

I gave one. He just didn't like it.


No you didn't. You tried changing the subject.
 
2013-08-19 07:19:19 PM

vygramul: Serpentile6: The Why Not Guy: vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?

It's amazing how hard it is to get an answer to a simple question around here.

I gave one. He just didn't like it.

No you didn't. You tried changing the subject.


I did give you an answer. I said stone them. That is not changing the subject, it is a direct and simple answer to your very simplistic pseudo-philosophical question. Now if you feel that is not the  APPROPRIATE measure that should be taken then we stand apart. Though if you choose to engage in a dialogue on that then it would be you who is willing changing the subject on your own accord. I cannot be held responsible for your actions. I'm curious though what should be penalty for that?
 
2013-08-19 07:24:25 PM

Serpentile6: it is a direct and simple answer to your very simplistic pseudo-philosophical question.


It's actually a very pertinent question. Pro-lifers want to make abortion illegal, so I'd say it's reasonable to ask them what the penalty should be for a woman who gets an illegal abortion.

Your answer is "stone them" - duly noted.
 
2013-08-19 07:28:42 PM
Nice headline, subs.

Reminds me of the old saying that "the death penalty is killing those who kill in order to show others that killing is wrong."
 
2013-08-19 07:35:44 PM

vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?


Well if we're being consistent, it would be involuntary man-slaughter to a level of premeditated murder depending upon the circumstances. The Pro-Life argument is that personhood begins with conception and therefore the unborn is due their inalienable rights, one of which is the right to life. Therefore ending that life, even if it's by means of an illegal abortion, should hold the same penalties as ending a life under other circumstances.
 
2013-08-19 07:41:19 PM

The Why Not Guy: Serpentile6: it is a direct and simple answer to your very simplistic pseudo-philosophical question.

It's actually a very pertinent question. Pro-lifers want to make abortion illegal, so I'd say it's reasonable to ask them what the penalty should be for a woman who gets an illegal abortion.

Your answer is "stone them" - duly noted.


No it's a silly question so it gets an answer that is as well. Not that public stonings couldn't be quite entertaining. I hear they're something the whole village could get into in some countries. That aside, you're asking for a subjective answer to a hypothetical question. The appropriate measure to take for something that isn't happening in a conversation that wouldn't involve you or Vygramul in the decision making process in the first place. It would take place on a national level in the Judicial and Legislative branches of government. I'm going to go out on a limb hear and guess that neither of you are sitting justices, senators, or congressmen.
 
2013-08-19 07:44:19 PM

Serpentile6: No it's a silly question so it gets an answer that is as well. Not that public stonings couldn't be quite entertaining.


How is it a silly question? As far as I know, punishment is the end result of making something illegal, therefore, personally, I think it's a fair question to ask what punishment would be involved once the act is made illegal; and really, it wasn't that difficult to come up with an answer consistent with the pro-life argument being used. Why not just answer it and move on to the next point?
 
2013-08-19 07:49:28 PM
.

CanisNoir: Serpentile6: No it's a silly question so it gets an answer that is as well. Not that public stonings couldn't be quite entertaining.

How is it a silly question? As far as I know, punishment is the end result of making something illegal, therefore, personally, I think it's a fair question to ask what punishment would be involved once the act is made illegal; and really, it wasn't that difficult to come up with an answer consistent with the pro-life argument being used. Why not just answer it and move on to the next point?



Because it isn't illegal here. It is the same conversation and saber rattling that has been going on for decades. I've seen the same arguments here on fark every time there is an abortion thread, just by different people. I will say that The Why Not Guy is at least a perfect name choice for this type of debate.
 
2013-08-19 07:51:14 PM

vygramul: 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?


Now that's just deliberately obtuse of you.
All rights have limitations.

You, as a putative male, will never, ever get an abortion. That's a limitation that cannot, barring an extreme change in medical technology, be overcome. Since you are not the owner of a uterus, you don't get a say.

You asked, using a crappy analogy that has nothing at all to do with personal medical decisions, whether I would limit your choice of arms.
I replied that active duty and active Militia members who were trained, proficient, sane noncriminals, and could afford the weapon and ammunition to feed it, should not. I also have firm opinions about how arms should be stored, and that certain weapons should not be in individual hands.
 
2013-08-19 07:52:40 PM

serial_crusher: Government-provided birth control would be alright if people used it, but it's not going to completely eliminate unwanted pregnancies.  You'd have a hard time doing that cheaper than dealing with unwanted children.


Unwanted children are invariably more expensive to take care of than providing birth control.  Same with abortions.
 
2013-08-19 07:56:22 PM

Serpentile6: Because it isn't illegal here. It is the same conversation and saber rattling that has been going on for decades. I've seen the same arguments here on fark every time there is an abortion thread, just by different people. I will say that The Why Not Guy is at least a perfect name choice for this type of debate.


It's not illegal here true, but the purpose behind the Pro-Life Movement is to criminalize it because they feel that it is ending the life of a defenseless innocent. Therefore I think a valid question is, if your goals are met (criminalizing abortion) under what judicial punishment scheme should it fall. Likewise, the easy answer, if you're Pro-Life because you feel it is ending the life of the unborn, is to say under the same guidelines of ending a life in any other form. It certainly leaves less room for more distraction than say, answering with, "stone them".
 
2013-08-19 07:59:44 PM

CanisNoir: Serpentile6: Because it isn't illegal here. It is the same conversation and saber rattling that has been going on for decades. I've seen the same arguments here on fark every time there is an abortion thread, just by different people. I will say that The Why Not Guy is at least a perfect name choice for this type of debate.

It's not illegal here true, but the purpose behind the Pro-Life Movement is to criminalize it because they feel that it is ending the life of a defenseless innocent. Therefore I think a valid question is, if your goals are met (criminalizing abortion) under what judicial punishment scheme should it fall. Likewise, the easy answer, if you're Pro-Life because you feel it is ending the life of the unborn, is to say under the same guidelines of ending a life in any other form. It certainly leaves less room for more distraction than say, answering with, "stone them".


That bolded part, though, is exactly why pro-lifers dance around it or don't want to answer it outright. They are having a hard enough time getting people to support their point of view for making abortion illegal. To add prosecuting women and doctors for murder/manslaughter/etc on top of that, they'd have an even harder time getting political support or even keeping the support they already have.
 
2013-08-19 08:08:20 PM

Urbn: That bolded part, though, is exactly why pro-lifers dance around it or don't want to answer it outright. They are having a hard enough time getting people to support their point of view for making abortion illegal. To add prosecuting women and doctors for murder/manslaughter/etc on top of that, they'd have an even harder time getting political support or even keeping the support they already have.


Then they are not being consistent nor true to their cause. The root argument is when does "personhood" begin and that's where they should focus the debate. Once you have convinced people that personhood begins then it's simply a matter of course that the penalties should be commensurate with ending a life. We charge people who kill others in auto accidents with involuntary man-slaughter, why should someone who kills another in via abortion (once illegal) be any different? It's like trying to argue that a fetus isn't a person because it can't take care of itself outside of the mothers body, but that also leads you to the conclusion that mentally handicapped people are likewise not persons because they too cannot take care of themselves without the assistance of a third party - should mothers be allowed to kill their mentally or physically handicapped teenagers under the same thought process?

Any strident pro-lifer who dances around the question of punishment for an illegal abortion lacks the consistency of their espoused position and should just take their shinebox and go the fark home because they're doing their side a disservice.
 
2013-08-19 08:15:21 PM

CanisNoir: Urbn: That bolded part, though, is exactly why pro-lifers dance around it or don't want to answer it outright. They are having a hard enough time getting people to support their point of view for making abortion illegal. To add prosecuting women and doctors for murder/manslaughter/etc on top of that, they'd have an even harder time getting political support or even keeping the support they already have.

Then they are not being consistent nor true to their cause. The root argument is when does "personhood" begin and that's where they should focus the debate. Once you have convinced people that personhood begins then it's simply a matter of course that the penalties should be commensurate with ending a life. We charge people who kill others in auto accidents with involuntary man-slaughter, why should someone who kills another in via abortion (once illegal) be any different? It's like trying to argue that a fetus isn't a person because it can't take care of itself outside of the mothers body, but that also leads you to the conclusion that mentally handicapped people are likewise not persons because they too cannot take care of themselves without the assistance of a third party - should mothers be allowed to kill their mentally or physically handicapped teenagers under the same thought process?

Any strident pro-lifer who dances around the question of punishment for an illegal abortion lacks the consistency of their espoused position and should just take their shinebox and go the fark home because they're doing their side a disservice.


They sure should be willing to shout it from the hilltops. I agree. I actually wish they would. It would help their cause be marginalized and rejected even faster than it already is.
 
2013-08-19 08:26:37 PM
As much as I disagree/dislike abortion on demand, there is no way in hell I would ever defend the actions of this group and others like them.
 
2013-08-19 08:45:33 PM

Serpentile6: A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: Kill people because it saves money!

Hey, look, more begging the question.

I'm good with that. In fact I would love to see this system put into place:

[assets.gearlive.com image 474x371]


Thunderdome Uterus is my new band's name, as a matter of fact.
 
2013-08-19 08:47:46 PM

austerity101: serial_crusher: Government-provided birth control would be alright if people used it, but it's not going to completely eliminate unwanted pregnancies.  You'd have a hard time doing that cheaper than dealing with unwanted children.

Unwanted children are invariably more expensive to take care of than providing birth control.  Same with abortions.


Agreed.  I meant you'd have a hard time cheaply implementing a draconian police state capable of preventing all unwanted pregnancies.  Expensive in terms of both money and moral cost.
 
2013-08-19 08:49:58 PM

Carth: Soup4Bonnie: A Dark Evil Omen: Good call! I just did the same.

And erase "whackadoo libertarian"?!  Not I, sir.

There is enough space for both if you abbreviate. For example. "whackadoo libertarian" is overly redundant.


The term "overly redundant" is itself excessive.  Unless there's some acceptable level of redundancy.  But "whackadoo libertarian" is only two words, so is therefore the minimum possible amount of redundant.
 
2013-08-19 09:00:15 PM

serial_crusher: Carth: Soup4Bonnie: A Dark Evil Omen: Good call! I just did the same.

And erase "whackadoo libertarian"?!  Not I, sir.

There is enough space for both if you abbreviate. For example. "whackadoo libertarian" is overly redundant.

The term "overly redundant" is itself excessive.  Unless there's some acceptable level of redundancy.  But "whackadoo libertarian" is only two words, so is therefore the minimum possible amount of redundant.


Yes, so is saying "The department of redundancy department" that is the point of the phrasing. You show me a libertarian who doesn't have whackadoo beliefs and I'll stop thinking they are synonymous
 
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