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).
Serpentile6: However Theaetetus is unlike other lawyers in one respect, she's a patent attorney. Crush, do you know what she's trying to patent?, an automated abortion machine.
serial_crusher: Theaetetus: Maybe I'm miscounting, but I count more than two: you're on the right side for (i) don't believe mother should be protected from legal consequences; (ii) you oppose contraception and sex ed; (iii) you're fine with exceptions for rape and incest; (iv) you're in favor of banning D&X abortion.(i) chart applies to people who do believe the mother should be protected from legal consequences(ii) typo, said opposite of what I meant. Contraception good.the other 2, yes I'm on the chart. But its conclusions are ridiculous.Theaetetus: But that "agree to disagree" is the fundamental thing we're talking about - if you think that women automatically consent to 9-months of forced pregnancy when they have sex, that's wanting to control women by taking away their ability to consent to specific things. Like, you can consent to sky diving, but not crashing. You can consent to surgery for your hernia, but not castration. You can consent to sex now, but not sex tomorrow. And you can consent to sex, but not pregnancy.Removing that ability to consent or not consent to various things takes away the ability of a woman to control her own life, which is basically what we're accusing you of wanting to do.Yeah, but don't characterize that as wanting to take away all ability for a woman to choose, or taking a single specific choice off the table simply because a woman is the one who wants to choose it. That's where the "war on women" starts getting silly.
Nabb1: ikanreed: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way. His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.It's not a valid or invalid response in and of itself, it just seems odd for a person who I know to be intelligent and articulate to go that route. Disappointment more than anything.
Marcus Aurelius: When a woman gets infected by a man, it's no one else's business when it comes to the course of treatment she decides upon.
A Dark Evil Omen: Good call! I just did the same.
vpb: vygramul: There is no duty to retreat under Kansas law and it's a CC State.I believe that even in duty to retreat states, that duty is obviated when the perp has a firearm.You can't outrun a bullet.
Dafatone: The Why Not Guy: Dafatone: Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.My intention is not to punish compromise - but if someone is willing to say abortion is acceptable based on the circumstance of conception, that tells me they don't truly believe it's the murder of a precious innocent.Move it ahead a few years to where everyone agrees it's murder. Would you ever say "killing a 3 year old is murder, unless they're the product of rape or incest in which case it's ok"? I sure as hell wouldn't.I agree that the logic sucks. But that's largely cause I'm on the pro-choice side to begin with.I don't see how getting the other side to go "well fine! We'll just say fark it to rape and incest exceptions, if you're holding that against us. So there!" achieves anything.
FloydA: Gietzen is actively calling for people to start shooting clinic patients and escorts.
doglover: Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.Actually, the orgiginal translation would be something like "Thou shalt not kill without good reason" or something. This is evidenced in the old testament itself when Moses proceeds to put the calf worshipers (his own people) to the sword as soon as he's off the mountain.
theorellior: The only moral abortion is my abortion.
ikanreed: I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.
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.)
The My Little Pony Killer: And whoever interviewed them took that answer seriously instead of laughing right in their delusional faces?Let's stop allowing these people to believe they have a point.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 28 2017 01:40:27
Runtime: 0.548 sec (547 ms)