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 09:08:27 PM
Participating in this thread has inspired me to write a play.

Setting: a cocktail party

The Why Not Guy: Hi, nice to meet you.
Fred: You too, thanks.
The Why Not Guy: So what do you do?
Fred: I'm an advocate for a group that wants to outlaw reading books
The Why Not Guy: Oh, wow. What would the penalty be for someone who reads a book?
Fred: That's a stupid question which I won't answer seriously, and your name sucks too.

The End.
 
2013-08-19 09:17:55 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.


That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.

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.

You're still putting conditions on the choice. You're also totally missing the point - this isn't about the reasonableness of any conditions, it's about whether the terminology can be consistently applied outside abortion. Just as you point out it's a different issue, so, too, is crime and the death penalty. If anything, you're agreeing with me - to take pro-choice or pro-life outside the abortion debate is silly.
 
2013-08-19 09:18:36 PM

The Why Not Guy: Participating in this thread has inspired me to write a play.

Setting: a cocktail party

The Why Not Guy: Hi, nice to meet you.
Fred: You too, thanks.
The Why Not Guy: So what do you do?
Fred: I'm an advocate for a group that wants to outlaw reading books
The Why Not Guy: Oh, wow. What would the penalty be for someone who reads a book?
Fred: That's a stupid question which I won't answer seriously, and your name sucks too.

The End.


Five stars, would read again.
 
2013-08-19 09:21:49 PM
It will never stop creeping me out that there are this many people in the United States who think I should have to take their religious beliefs into account when deciding on my own medical care.

The fact that they're a powerful lobby and that they're actually managing to affect the medical choices of real women every day makes me sick to my stomach.
 
2013-08-19 09:28:59 PM

vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.


Do you realize that the second sentence directly contradicts the first?

Abortion is a private medical decision, not a crime against a person.
 
2013-08-19 09:35:48 PM

Genevieve Marie: It will never stop creeping me out that there are this many people in the United States who think I should have to take their religious beliefs into account when deciding on my own medical care.

The fact that they're a powerful lobby and that they're actually managing to affect the medical choices of real women every day makes me sick to my stomach.


What creeps me out that they clothe their agenda to control and subjugate women in anti-biblical, false theology.

/I also have a strong prejudice against celibate men who wear skirts making rules for sex, family planning, and women's medical health.
//Nothing personal: Persecution at the hands of other religions overshadows much of our history.
 
2013-08-19 09:37:19 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.

Do you realize that the second sentence directly contradicts the first?

Abortion is a private medical decision, not a crime against a person.


By your own admission you have no idea what you're talking about and have no business making arguments about abortion either way.
 
2013-08-19 09:40:34 PM

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.

Do you realize that the second sentence directly contradicts the first?

Abortion is a private medical decision, not a crime against a person.

By your own admission you have no idea what you're talking about and have no business making arguments about abortion either way.


I don't know, I find your statement that men are more objective about abortion than women are because it doesn't affect your lives at all to be pretty disconcerting.
 
2013-08-19 09:49:05 PM

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.

Do you realize that the second sentence directly contradicts the first?
Abortion is a private medical decision, not a crime against a person.

By your own admission you have no idea what you're talking about and have no business making arguments about abortion either way.


Nice try.
I said that neither one of us has any bidness telling a woman what to do with her uterus.
 
2013-08-19 09:50:22 PM

vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.


There's a difference between arguing about whether specific people are guilty under established law, and whether that law should exist in the first place. In discussions of the latter type, you would perhaps be more disinterested, but you wouldn't be more objective.
 
2013-08-19 09:50:36 PM

Genevieve Marie: I don't know, I find your statement that men are more objective about abortion than women are because it doesn't affect your lives at all to be pretty disconcerting.


It's a bullshiat statement. But so is the idea that one doesn't have anything valuable to add to a discussion just because they may or may not be endowed with particular genitalia. Society did that to women for millenia and did ourselves a tremendous disservice in the process.

Another point that is serious: trans-women receive a host of services from Planned Parenthood. Excluding them for not having a uterus when they're directly impacted by the results of abortion access is bullshiat.
 
2013-08-19 09:57:59 PM

vygramul: Genevieve Marie: I don't know, I find your statement that men are more objective about abortion than women are because it doesn't affect your lives at all to be pretty disconcerting.

It's a bullshiat statement. But so is the idea that one doesn't have anything valuable to add to a discussion just because they may or may not be endowed with particular genitalia. Society did that to women for millenia and did ourselves a tremendous disservice in the process.

Another point that is serious: trans-women receive a host of services from Planned Parenthood. Excluding them for not having a uterus when they're directly impacted by the results of abortion access is bullshiat.


I would absolutely agree that trans-women and men definitely need to be included in the discussion of Planned Parenthood services and that we need to get away from any conversation that equates genitalia with gender identity, but I do think there's some value in saying that people who can get pregnant are the ones affected by abortion restrictions, and therefore people who can't get pregnant should avoid advocating for restrictions that won't conceivably impact their life choices.
 
2013-08-19 10:17:10 PM

Genevieve Marie: vygramul: Genevieve Marie: I don't know, I find your statement that men are more objective about abortion than women are because it doesn't affect your lives at all to be pretty disconcerting.

It's a bullshiat statement. But so is the idea that one doesn't have anything valuable to add to a discussion just because they may or may not be endowed with particular genitalia. Society did that to women for millenia and did ourselves a tremendous disservice in the process.

Another point that is serious: trans-women receive a host of services from Planned Parenthood. Excluding them for not having a uterus when they're directly impacted by the results of abortion access is bullshiat.

I would absolutely agree that trans-women and men definitely need to be included in the discussion of Planned Parenthood services and that we need to get away from any conversation that equates genitalia with gender identity, but I do think there's some value in saying that people who can get pregnant are the ones affected by abortion restrictions, and therefore people who can't get pregnant should avoid advocating for restrictions that won't conceivably impact their life choices.


The null hypothesis should certainly default to that, I agree.
 
2013-08-19 10:49:20 PM

Genevieve Marie: It will never stop creeping me out that there are this many people in the United States who think I should have to take their religious beliefs into account when deciding on my own medical care.

The fact that they're a powerful lobby and that they're actually managing to affect the medical choices of real women every day makes me sick to my stomach.


Except that determining when Personhood begins is a philosophical question not a religious one; someone can believe that life and therefore personhood begins at conception without prescribing to any single religion. That's not to say that many if not most of the outspoken ones couch their beliefs under religions guise, that does not matter because it doesn't change the fact that determining when personhood begins and therefore when do we assign rights, is a philosophical question.

Basically, nobody is attempting to force you to take their religious beliefs into account when it comes to your medical care, but rather they are forcing you to take into consideration that personhood has not yet ideally been defined and therefore they want you to take it into account when you're determining the fate of a defenseless innocent person, as well as your medical care. An analogy would be if you had a button which if pressed would inject another person with a fatal dose of poison and the choice was, do you press that button or suffer medical problems yourself - how, with any clarity, can you decisively say you'd kill that other person to save yourself complications or permanent harm? It's not so cut and dry and to claim that people who fall on the side of possibly sacrificing yourself to save the other persons life are creepy and crazy just demonstrates a closed mind to the opposition.
 
2013-08-19 11:08:17 PM

CanisNoir: Basically, nobody is attempting to force you to take their religious beliefs into account when it comes to your medical care, but rather they are forcing you to take into consideration that personhood has not yet ideally been defined and therefore they want you to take it into account when you're determining the fate of a defenseless innocent person, as well as your medical care. An analogy would be if you had a button which if pressed would inject another person with a fatal dose of poison and the choice was, do you press that button or suffer medical problems yourself - how, with any clarity, can you decisively say you'd kill that other person to save yourself complications or permanent harm? It's not so cut and dry and to claim that people who fall on the side of possibly sacrificing yourself to save the other persons life are creepy and crazy just demonstrates a closed mind to the opposition.


Yea, no. Not even a little bit. There are no doubt complicated philosophical issues around when life begins, and I have my own ideas about it, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that no one else's philosophical or spiritual beliefs should impact my ability to make choices about my own healthcare. Abortion should ALWAYS be between a woman, her medical team, her partner if he's in the picture, and her own conscience, and no one else's personal beliefs have any business determining her medical options.
 
2013-08-19 11:14:06 PM
(late to thread)
obligatory reference

ie many of the people who recieve abortions think it should be illegal for anyone else

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
 
2013-08-19 11:14:34 PM

Genevieve Marie: Yea, no. Not even a little bit. There are no doubt complicated philosophical issues around when life begins, and I have my own ideas about it, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that no one else's philosophical or spiritual beliefs should impact my ability to make choices about my own healthcare. Abortion should ALWAYS be between a woman, her medical team, her partner if he's in the picture, and her own conscience, and no one else's personal beliefs have any business determining her medical options.


Except in the case of personhood is determined to exist at or shortly after conception. At that point, an abortion is infringing upon another persons inalienable right to life. The government maintains the authority to forcibly keep people from the general population (Sorry the exact word I'm looking for eludes me) if they happen to be carrying a highly contagious and deadly disease. It's not out of a wish to keep down or control the disease carrier but a wish to protect the innocent people that might be infected and therefore killed because of it. The same principle applies - once personhood is assigned, then that persons rights come into play as well and must be considered.
 
2013-08-19 11:20:52 PM

CanisNoir: Genevieve Marie: Yea, no. Not even a little bit. There are no doubt complicated philosophical issues around when life begins, and I have my own ideas about it, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that no one else's philosophical or spiritual beliefs should impact my ability to make choices about my own healthcare. Abortion should ALWAYS be between a woman, her medical team, her partner if he's in the picture, and her own conscience, and no one else's personal beliefs have any business determining her medical options.

Except in the case of personhood is determined to exist at or shortly after conception. At that point, an abortion is infringing upon another persons inalienable right to life. The government maintains the authority to forcibly keep people from the general population (Sorry the exact word I'm looking for eludes me) if they happen to be carrying a highly contagious and deadly disease. It's not out of a wish to keep down or control the disease carrier but a wish to protect the innocent people that might be infected and therefore killed because of it. The same principle applies - once personhood is assigned, then that persons rights come into play as well and must be considered.


Except that there is absolutely no medical or scientific reason for assigning "personhood" to a fetus at or shortly after conception. That comes down to individual religious/philosophical beliefs which vary by individual, and therefore it can't be a legal standard that's used to determine the medical rights of ALL women.

And even if there was? An individual person still has no legal right to another person's body. Just as you can't legally compel someone to donate a kidney, you can't legally compel someone to share their uterus for nine months. You don't just want to give a fetus personhood rights, you want to give it separate rights that don't exist for anyone else.
 
2013-08-19 11:33:53 PM
I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty. If you want someone killed, I can try to help. But it's your choice.
 
2013-08-19 11:33:55 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.


But you are an expert at determining when life begins and therefore qualified to set policy for other people?
 
2013-08-19 11:40:08 PM

Genevieve Marie: And even if there was? An individual person still has no legal right to another person's body. Just as you can't legally compel someone to donate a kidney, you can't legally compel someone to share their uterus for nine months. You don't just want to give a fetus personhood rights, you want to give it separate rights that don't exist for anyone else.


And this is where it gets tricky because it goes back to when do you assign personhood and what does that constitute? Shoot, hold on, missed the first paragraph, let me quote then come back...

Except that there is absolutely no medical or scientific reason for assigning "personhood" to a fetus at or shortly after conception. That comes down to individual religious/philosophical beliefs which vary by individual, and therefore it can't be a legal standard that's used to determine the medical rights of ALL women.

Every law is based upon philosophical beliefs - you can't separate the two. There is every reason for assigning personhood to a fetus depending on the definition of personhood - and because that defines when rights are assigned I'd say it's a far more interesting and pertinent debate. (And the ground the Pro-life movement should be fighting on versus the "Jeebus said so" turf)

Okay now going back to the first quoted paragraph - what constitutes personhood? You say we're forcing someone to *share* their uterus for nine months, however, if "personhood" is determined to begin at conception, than the woman would enter into an assumed agreement when she has sex (Just as the guy would enter into the agreement to provide for any possible births that come from it) and therefore she agreed at the time to share her uterus and therefore an abortion would be prematurely terminating that contract and killing another person by doing so. If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

It's a very tricky issue and one that requires much thought and even the decision in Roe v Wade addresses this and the judges saw the pitfall of their decisions. Anyway, my podcast has finished downloading, I hope, at the very least I gave you some food for thought, after all, conversion was not my purpose, and with luck you can see, despite idiots like those this article is about, there are many facets to the Pro-Life argument and not just Jeebus told me so.

I always enjoy debating with you GM - Have a good evening!
 
2013-08-19 11:49:31 PM

CanisNoir: It's a very tricky issue and one that requires much thought and even the decision in Roe v Wade addresses this and the judges saw the pitfall of their decisions. Anyway, my podcast has finished downloading, I hope, at the very least I gave you some food for thought, after all, conversion was not my purpose, and with luck you can see, despite idiots like those this article is about, there are many facets to the Pro-Life argument and not just Jeebus told me so.

I always enjoy debating with you GM - Have a good evening!


I appreciate the friendly sign off, but you didn't give me any food for thought here. I've heard  this argument in all of its variations a million times, and I just can't be dispassionate about the idea that women are "consenting" to a pregnancy when they consent to sex. (And that's even leaving out the fact that women get pregnant via sex they haven't consented to frequently enough that it's a real argument against that standard.)

Possibly it's easier to be detached from this if you don't have a woman's body and don't have any real experience, but I mean... menstruate once a month and see if you can consider an egg a person after that. It just doesn't have any basis in reality.

Plus I mean... you can debate this to death, but the most important factor in keeping women out of poverty is making it easy for them to choose when to have children.

And as for the mentally and physically handicapped people comparison- there is an enormous difference between needing assistance and needing someone else's body parts. The two aren't comparable.
 
2013-08-19 11:55:12 PM

CanisNoir: Okay now going back to the first quoted paragraph - what constitutes personhood? You say we're forcing someone to *share* their uterus for nine months, however, if "personhood" is determined to begin at conception, than the woman would enter into an assumed agreement when she has sex (Just as the guy would enter into the agreement to provide for any possible births that come from it) and therefore she agreed at the time to share her uterus and therefore an abortion would be prematurely terminating that contract and killing another person by doing so. If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?


There is so much wrong with this gobbledygook, I don't even know where to begin.

Consenting to sex is not consenting to parenthood. Those are two very separate issues. Besides, farking requires informed consent.

Amendment XIII rules out involuntary servitude, in spite of the citizen in question being the proud owner of a uterus.

Assume personhood begins at first breath. Good: You're now in line with pretty much every human society and system of law ever.

Does a mentally or physically handicapped person have any right to your lungs, blood, kidneys, digestive system, immune system, etc., etc., etc.? How much less so when it comes with a risk to your very life?
Conversely, do physically handicapped or other mentally handicapped people have a right to move into your body?

/(Do I get dibs on one of your kidneys if I need one and you're a match? Thought not.)
 
2013-08-20 12:13:51 AM
A fetus is not a person because it has no sense of identity. It's not aware of its surroundings or that it is in any way separate from those surroundings. It is nothing more than an incredibly complex stimulus-response machine.

And all the same can be said of infants before a certain age. So we're all drawing arbitrary lines in the sand about when life begins because we all have different thresholds for when we're willing to project our own thoughts and feelings onto a developing human being.

It's an incredibly messy topic, because there is no actual and real clear point at which a person becomes a person.

So we can only hash out where we in general as a society tend to think that happens. And we've pretty much decided that abortion is acceptable some of the time, and that's not changing. So pro-lifers who can't accept that can fark off and go join a different society. And pro-choicers who want to act like it's a simple matter of when the fetus can feel pain or when it can survive on its own can fark off too. Your nonsense is arbitrary hogwash that you tell yourself to feel better about the ugly choices you know that sometimes have to be made.

The mother must be the one to carry the child. She is the one burdened with that significant responsibility, and no one else. And so she gets all the power, including the power to decide to keep the baby or not. To say she doesn't flies in the face of everything we've established about freedom and personal responsibility. Responsibility without equal and matching power is slavery.
 
2013-08-20 12:29:30 AM

Genevieve Marie: CanisNoir: It's a very tricky issue and one that requires much thought and even the decision in Roe v Wade addresses this and the judges saw the pitfall of their decisions. Anyway, my podcast has finished downloading, I hope, at the very least I gave you some food for thought, after all, conversion was not my purpose, and with luck you can see, despite idiots like those this article is about, there are many facets to the Pro-Life argument and not just Jeebus told me so.

I always enjoy debating with you GM - Have a good evening!

I appreciate the friendly sign off, but you didn't give me any food for thought here. I've heard  this argument in all of its variations a million times, and I just can't be dispassionate about the idea that women are "consenting" to a pregnancy when they consent to sex. (And that's even leaving out the fact that women get pregnant via sex they haven't consented to frequently enough that it's a real argument against that standard.)

Possibly it's easier to be detached from this if you don't have a woman's body and don't have any real experience, but I mean... menstruate once a month and see if you can consider an egg a person after that. It just doesn't have any basis in reality.

Plus I mean... you can debate this to death, but the most important factor in keeping women out of poverty is making it easy for them to choose when to have children.

And as for the mentally and physically handicapped people comparison- there is an enormous difference between needing assistance and needing someone else's body parts. The two aren't comparable.


To play devil's advocate, it is commonly held that men consent to 18+ years of child support payments when they consent to sex...
 
2013-08-20 12:42:35 AM

jst3p: To play devil's advocate, it is commonly held that men consent to 18+ years of child support payments when they consent to sex...


That is assuming that a man who was not responsible enough to put a wrapper on it is responsible enough to pay child support. I work with several guys that have made not paying child support into a regional sport.
 
2013-08-20 12:44:34 AM

ginandbacon: 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.)

Viability has basically been the same since we figured out ventilation and developed vaccines for RSV. "Profoundly premature" fetuses still die. You don't get to any real chances of survival until 26 weeks, by which point, no one is even having an abortion unless there is some horrible fetal abnormality. Only one percent of abortions occur after 21 weeks. Since we haven't been able to impact viability under 24 weeks at all for almost 2 decades, I have NO farking idea what you think you are talking about.

I am also remembering now that I am pretty sure you show up in every abortion thread spouting the same lies and misinformation.

I need to start farkying people.


The baby doesn't have any REAL chance of survival, or at least long term survival, true; it's true that all the "miracle babies" you hear about who are magically saved at 22 weeks and 14 ounces are all the ones there are. And it's also true that you never hear that either those "miracle babies' died six months or a year later, having never left the neonatal intensive care unit, or that they survived with massive neurological defects; all that is true.

It is also true that NONE OF THAT is what the anti-abortion foes are talking about. For them, egg+sperm = baby and that is all. It doesn't matter to them if medical technology could save all the babies born at 20 weeks, or none of them, or if viability was scientifically declared to begin at 8 months and 14 days or at .025 seconds past conception. They do not care. So far as they have invested any thought in the matter, they are on a holy Crusade as meaningful and meaningless as taking Jerusalem back from the infidels: Deus Veult!

So trying to argue this logically and rationally is pointless. It just can't be done. It has nothing to do with whether the baby is wanted or loved or healthy or "viable" or can be saved or if the mother is fit or was raped or is a drooling retard. Sperm + egg = baby and baby must be born. Period. And they're not thinking past that point, either, and you can't make them. We here may think that advances in technology make a difference; but they don't. We may think that appeals to economy or sociology would make sense; but they don't. When it comes to holy fanatics, nothing can change their minds except possibly death.
 
2013-08-20 01:12:33 AM

Genevieve Marie: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.

Do you realize that the second sentence directly contradicts the first?

Abortion is a private medical decision, not a crime against a person.

By your own admission you have no idea what you're talking about and have no business making arguments about abortion either way.

I don't know, I find your statement that men are more objective about abortion than women are because it doesn't affect your lives at all to be pretty disconcerting.


THANK YOU
time to block  vygramul
either a troll or insane
either way - tata
 
2013-08-20 01:20:34 AM
jst3p: To play devil's advocate, it is commonly held that men consent to 18+ years of child support payments when they consent to sex...

I don't think it's as commonly held as you're trying to make us believe. According to the U.S. Census, 42% of mothers owed child support received the total amount due. 70.5% received at least some (which could range from 1% to 100% of the total amount, and includes the 42% previously mentioned).

That leaves 29.5% receiving no child support at all. Please note that 29.5% of fathers not taking responsibility is significantly higher than the abortion rate.
 
2013-08-20 02:02:56 AM
So basically it's open season on these idiots? If one of them approaches you you should fear for your life?
 
2013-08-20 03:01:21 AM

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


You'd be wrong about that. What about war? What about murdering the prophets of Ba'al? And so on...
 
2013-08-20 03:37:19 AM

The Why Not Guy: jst3p: To play devil's advocate, it is commonly held that men consent to 18+ years of child support payments when they consent to sex...

I don't think it's as commonly held as you're trying to make us believe. According to the U.S. Census, 42% of mothers owed child support received the total amount due. 70.5% received at least some (which could range from 1% to 100% of the total amount, and includes the 42% previously mentioned).

That leaves 29.5% receiving no child support at all. Please note that 29.5% of fathers not taking responsibility is significantly higher than the abortion rate.


I think the idea is that if women are 100% responsible for having the baby, men should be 100% responsible for supporting the thing, no ifs, ands or buts.

And if that were 100% true, abortion could be totally ignored.
 
2013-08-20 04:52:26 AM

GhostFish: A fetus is not a person because it has no sense of identity. It's not aware of its surroundings or that it is in any way separate from those surroundings. It is nothing more than an incredibly complex stimulus-response machine.

And all the same can be said of infants before a certain age. So we're all drawing arbitrary lines in the sand about when life begins because we all have different thresholds for when we're willing to project our own thoughts and feelings onto a developing human being.

It's an incredibly messy topic, because there is no actual and real clear point at which a person becomes a person.

So we can only hash out where we in general as a society tend to think that happens. And we've pretty much decided that abortion is acceptable some of the time, and that's not changing. So pro-lifers who can't accept that can fark off and go join a different society. And pro-choicers who want to act like it's a simple matter of when the fetus can feel pain or when it can survive on its own can fark off too. Your nonsense is arbitrary hogwash that you tell yourself to feel better about the ugly choices you know that sometimes have to be made.

The mother must be the one to carry the child. She is the one burdened with that significant responsibility, and no one else. And so she gets all the power, including the power to decide to keep the baby or not. To say she doesn't flies in the face of everything we've established about freedom and personal responsibility. Responsibility without equal and matching power is slavery.


Wrong.  There is an incredibly clear point at which a person becomes a person.  A person becomes a person when they exist as an independent life form- specifically, when the umbilical chord is severed.  Until that point, the developing not yet a baby does not exist as an individual life form and therefor receives no individual rights.
 
2013-08-20 07:14:17 AM

namatad: Genevieve Marie: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.

Do you realize that the second sentence directly contradicts the first?

Abortion is a private medical decision, not a crime against a person.

By your own admission you have no idea what you're talking about and have no business making arguments about abortion either way.

I don't know, I find your statement that men are more objective about abortion than women are because it doesn't affect your lives at all to be pretty disconcerting.

THANK YOU
time to block  vygramul
either a troll or insane
either way - tata


You want to club to death women who get abortions you don't agree with and I'm the one who is insane? OK.
 
2013-08-20 07:48:38 AM

CanisNoir: The government maintains the authority to forcibly keep people from the general population (Sorry the exact word I'm looking for eludes me) if they happen to be carrying a highly contagious and deadly disease. It's not out of a wish to keep down or control the disease carrier but a wish to protect the innocent people that might be infected and therefore killed because of it. The same principle applies - once personhood is assigned, then that persons rights come into play as well and must be considered.


If a person was dying and needed a lung/kidney transplant do you think the government should be able to force compatible donors to undergo surgery to save the person's life? If every life is sacred and we can force a women to carry a baby for 9 months why can't we force people to donate organs.
 
2013-08-20 08:00:32 AM

vygramul: You want to club to death women who get abortions you don't agree with and I'm the one who is insane? OK.


You don't understand. Famed internet tough guy  namatad was told it was okay by a guy behind a pulpit!

Seriously. I bet these people would start shiatting their pants if people came armed to escort their family members and friends into the clinic.
 
2013-08-20 08:01:40 AM

Carth: If a person was dying and needed a lung/kidney transplant do you think the government should be able to force compatible donors to undergo surgery to save the person's life? If every life is sacred and we can force a women to carry a baby for 9 months why can't we force people to donate organs.


Honestly, I think organ donation SHOULD be mandatory. At the very least, you should be ineligible if you are not willing to be a donor yourself.

You have a limited pool of resources. Only those people willing to be a part of the pool themselves should be able to draw from the pool.
 
2013-08-20 08:07:11 AM

hardinparamedic: vygramul: You want to club to death women who get abortions you don't agree with and I'm the one who is insane? OK.

You don't understand. Famed internet tough guy  namatad was told it was okay by a guy behind a pulpit!

Seriously. I bet these people would start shiatting their pants if people came armed to escort their family members and friends into the clinic.


I'm thinking of finding my local abortion clinic and offering to escort patients for free while carrying my STAG-AR.
 
2013-08-20 08:17:37 AM

vygramul: I'm thinking of finding my local abortion clinic and offering to escort patients for free while carrying my STAG-AR.


I drive by planned parenthood on the way into the hospital every day I go to work. It's always the same three people, one of them propped up on their walker, and they look well past retirement age.

You have to give the anti-abortion groups credit. At least they keep the elderly from being isolated in their homes and sedentary.
 
2013-08-20 08:28:10 AM

hardinparamedic: vygramul: I'm thinking of finding my local abortion clinic and offering to escort patients for free while carrying my STAG-AR.

I drive by planned parenthood on the way into the hospital every day I go to work. It's always the same three people, one of them propped up on their walker, and they look well past retirement age.

You have to give the anti-abortion groups credit. At least they keep the elderly from being isolated in their homes and sedentary.


When I worked for the Obama Campaign, our offices were about three blocks, give or take, from an abortion clinic. There was this crazy old coot who stood in front of it waving a large (maybe 3') crucifix at people, especially those entering the parking lot, while holding a giant bible in the other hand a la Statue of Liberty. At some point, he figured out that we were there and instead stood at the entrance of our parking lot waving that stupid cross at everyone who entered or exited the parking lot.

I think eventually he decided his time was better spent in front of the abortion clinic, because he only lasted about a week.
 
2013-08-20 09:24:03 AM
Gee, that stock image looks a lot like the Westboro protesters, not the Kansas Coalition for Life...
 
2013-08-20 10:38:02 AM
CanisNoir: If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

This is a dishonest argument. Before a certain timepoint (~50% chance of survival - likely with many temporary or permanent complications - at 26 weeks) a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, regardless of whatever medical support is given. It cannot support itself AND it cannot be supported by others. Many handicapped individuals cannot support themselves but can survive with support from others.
 
2013-08-20 10:55:46 AM

fiddlehead: CanisNoir: If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

This is a dishonest argument. Before a certain timepoint (~50% chance of survival - likely with many temporary or permanent complications - at 26 weeks) a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, regardless of whatever medical support is given. It cannot support itself AND it cannot be supported by others. Many handicapped individuals cannot support themselves but can survive with support from others.


That's true of a fetus as well.  Only difference is there's only one person qualified to give the fetus the support it needs (barring significant advances in medical technology).
It would be fine to argue that the invalid's caretakers need to take the job voluntarily, but that wouldn't be relevant to the question of whether or not the invalid was "a person".
 
2013-08-20 11:04:15 AM

serial_crusher: fiddlehead: CanisNoir: If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

This is a dishonest argument. Before a certain timepoint (~50% chance of survival - likely with many temporary or permanent complications - at 26 weeks) a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, regardless of whatever medical support is given. It cannot support itself AND it cannot be supported by others. Many handicapped individuals cannot support themselves but can survive with support from others.

That's true of a fetus as well.  Only difference is there's only one person qualified to give the fetus the support it needs (barring significant advances in medical technology).
It would be fine to argue that the invalid's caretakers need to take the job voluntarily, but that wouldn't be relevant to the question of whether or not the invalid was "a person".


Curious, do you think a child has the right to force one of its parents to give it blood or an organ if it would die otherwise? If so, do you think the state should enforce the child's right? After all, the parents supposedly consented to have this child, just as you argue that a woman consented to be pregnant by having sex.
 
2013-08-20 11:16:03 AM

fiddlehead: serial_crusher: fiddlehead: CanisNoir: If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

This is a dishonest argument. Before a certain timepoint (~50% chance of survival - likely with many temporary or permanent complications - at 26 weeks) a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, regardless of whatever medical support is given. It cannot support itself AND it cannot be supported by others. Many handicapped individuals cannot support themselves but can survive with support from others.

That's true of a fetus as well.  Only difference is there's only one person qualified to give the fetus the support it needs (barring significant advances in medical technology).
It would be fine to argue that the invalid's caretakers need to take the job voluntarily, but that wouldn't be relevant to the question of whether or not the invalid was "a person".

Curious, do you think a child has the right to force one of its parents to give it blood or an organ if it would die otherwise? If so, do you think the state should enforce the child's right? After all, the parents supposedly consented to have this child, just as you argue that a woman consented to be pregnant by having sex.


No, of course not, silly. That might actually adversely impact himself one day rather than just women who should have no say over their own bodies. We're just incubators, you know, not people.
 
2013-08-20 11:22:27 AM

fiddlehead: serial_crusher: fiddlehead: CanisNoir: If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

This is a dishonest argument. Before a certain timepoint (~50% chance of survival - likely with many temporary or permanent complications - at 26 weeks) a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, regardless of whatever medical support is given. It cannot support itself AND it cannot be supported by others. Many handicapped individuals cannot support themselves but can survive with support from others.

That's true of a fetus as well.  Only difference is there's only one person qualified to give the fetus the support it needs (barring significant advances in medical technology).
It would be fine to argue that the invalid's caretakers need to take the job voluntarily, but that wouldn't be relevant to the question of whether or not the invalid was "a person".

Curious, do you think a child has the right to force one of its parents to give it blood or an organ if it would die otherwise? If so, do you think the state should enforce the child's right? After all, the parents supposedly consented to have this child, just as you argue that a woman consented to be pregnant by having sex.


Redundant organs that can be safely transplanted (kidneys, etc), yes.  Vital organs that the parent would die without (heart, brain), no.
You'd have to be a seriously farked up farkup of a parent to watch your kid die knowing you could help him.  I'm ok with that kind of person going to jail.

Now, I'm not certain on whether it would be better for the state to force the organ transplant or to charge the parents with murder after it's too late.  Obviously the first option is better from the kid's perspective, but the whole pre-crime thing is kind of a tough issue.  I'll have to think on that a little more.
 
2013-08-20 11:26:56 AM

Urbn: No, of course not, silly. That might actually adversely impact himself one day rather than just women who should have no say over their own bodies. We're just incubators, you know, not people.


You think somebody might consensually have sex with me one day?  I admire your optimism!
 
2013-08-20 11:30:40 AM

serial_crusher: fiddlehead: serial_crusher: fiddlehead: CanisNoir: If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

This is a dishonest argument. Before a certain timepoint (~50% chance of survival - likely with many temporary or permanent complications - at 26 weeks) a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, regardless of whatever medical support is given. It cannot support itself AND it cannot be supported by others. Many handicapped individuals cannot support themselves but can survive with support from others.

That's true of a fetus as well.  Only difference is there's only one person qualified to give the fetus the support it needs (barring significant advances in medical technology).
It would be fine to argue that the invalid's caretakers need to take the job voluntarily, but that wouldn't be relevant to the question of whether or not the invalid was "a person".

Curious, do you think a child has the right to force one of its parents to give it blood or an organ if it would die otherwise? If so, do you think the state should enforce the child's right? After all, the parents supposedly consented to have this child, just as you argue that a woman consented to be pregnant by having sex.

Redundant organs that can be safely transplanted (kidneys, etc), yes.  Vital organs that the parent would die without (heart, brain), no.
You'd have to be a seriously farked up farkup of a parent to watch your kid die knowing you could help him.  I'm ok with that kind of person going to jail.

Now, I'm not certain on whether it would be better for the state to force the organ transplant or to charge the parents with murder after it's too late.  Obviously the first option is better from the kid's perspective, but the whole pre-crime thing is kind of a tough issue.  I'll have to think on that a little more.


Wow you really want the government to be involved in people's medical care and lives. Who should be paying for these forced medical procedures? Is there at least a single payer system or are we going to bankrupt them do to medical bills and forced time off.
 
2013-08-20 01:03:52 PM

Jorn the Younger: Wrong. There is an incredibly clear point at which a person becomes a person. A person becomes a person when they exist as an independent life form- specifically, when the umbilical chord is severed. Until that point, the developing not yet a baby does not exist as an individual life form and therefor receives no individual rights.


to clarify, your position is that 0.1 seconds before the cord is severed, it is not a human being. but 0.1 seconds after the cord is severed, it is a human being. therefore the difference between a piece of biomass meant for the garbage disposal and a human being is 0.2 seconds?

that strikes me as pretty hard to accept and i think most people would agree that "humanhood" is more of a continuum than a boolean.

what about when the cord is 50% severed?
75%?
90%?
at what percentage does the baby transform from garbage disposal trash to human?

and the other side is equally ridiculous with the idea of full humanhood at conception.

I think that each side is going to have to get rid of their ideas that are really just manufactured to float their position, in favor of something more... sane.
 
2013-08-20 01:27:55 PM

Jorn the Younger: Wrong. There is an incredibly clear point at which a person becomes a person. A person becomes a person when they exist as an independent life form- specifically, when the umbilical chord is severed. Until that point, the developing not yet a baby does not exist as an individual life form and therefor receives no individual rights.


also, woulndt this mean that someone could abort a baby that was already completely outside the body of the mother? after they have been born?
 
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