|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 06 2015 14:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2015 14:14 zlefin wrote:
wegandi - that sounds too much like crazy ranting to me, far too much extreme rhetoric. That's not going to convince anyone. If that's extreme you should read Sanger, and the history of PP. She did some good with the overturning of Comstock laws and what not, even if she was a vapid white supremacist, but if she only stuck with birth control we'd all be better off. There's a huge gulf between birth control of all varieties, and abortions, especially given her raison d'etre. Given that one of the biggest reasons I see pulled out of the abortion hat is 'financial' and better to kill the unborn than have them live in a poor household with 'unfit' parents, and or, it puts too much stress on society, that I don't see any meaningful difference between a lot of today's abortion supporters and Sanger and her eugenic filth. Then, there's these facts: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/abortions-racial-gap/380251/Again, one of the main reasons for PP and abortions in the first place. To keep the 'undesirable' population in check. So, please, again tell me who's on the extreme side here?
I fail to see how the facts prove there is some kind of eugenic movement targeting black people through abortions. According to your source,
"The only demographic in which African-Americans do not have the highest abortion rate is among women below the poverty line, where Latinas come in first. Upadhyay attributed this to language and cultural barriers that may limit poorer recent immigrants’ ability to obtain birth control, as well as a fear of legal repercussions among those that are undocumented.
On average, black and Hispanic adolescents receive less thorough educations on reproductive health and birth control than their white counterparts within the same income bracket, according to a study co-authored by Dhelendorf and published last year in the American Journal of Public Health." a lack of proper sex education and access to birth control seems like the reason for the increased unwanted pregnancies and hence the abortions.
|
a lack of proper sex education and access to birth control seems like the reason for the increased unwanted pregnancies and hence the abortions.
Clearly pulling a Jeb and pulling the funding and putting into abstinence only education is the way to go.
|
On August 06 2015 15:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +a lack of proper sex education and access to birth control seems like the reason for the increased unwanted pregnancies and hence the abortions. Clearly pulling a Jeb and pulling the funding and putting into abstinence only education is the way to go.
Right, because all of us against abortion are religious zealots. None of us ever could be humanists. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex, the human body, sex education, birth control, and all sorts of other associative health issues. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with exceptions in cases of death to the mother (as the "fetus" is a trespasser, you are allowed to defend yourself and meet like force with like force. You cannot however, merely kill a trespasser for the only act of trespassing).
The fact that so many make blase statements that it's ok to kill the unborn because of financial reasons is beyond grotesque and disturbed. The wanton disregard for your fellow human beings, the most innocent that cannot even defend themselves is really mentally disturbing. As for the "choice" non-sense, sure, ya, tell yourselves that, since you're so 'pro-choice' about all sorts of other stuff like market choices, zoning, permits, and regulations. Sure. sure.
![[image loading]](http://img.memecdn.com/for-the-record-i-am-pro-choice_o_1271965.jpg)
|
The Fetus is not a trespasser, it is, strictly speaking, a parasite.
Your other argument goes in both ways, your so pro choice on anything, but when it comes to one of the most live changing things "morals" are suddenly important.
And i really don't get what being "pro choice" or not has to do with being left or right... At least if we don't assume that right = religious/evangelical, which would be ridiculous to do.
Btw: Your comic is just stupid... Because all these things you can actually do, despite some people being against it.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 06 2015 18:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2015 15:38 GreenHorizons wrote:a lack of proper sex education and access to birth control seems like the reason for the increased unwanted pregnancies and hence the abortions. Clearly pulling a Jeb and pulling the funding and putting into abstinence only education is the way to go. Right, because all of us against abortion are religious zealots. None of us ever could be humanists. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex, the human body, sex education, birth control, and all sorts of other associative health issues. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with exceptions in cases of death to the mother (as the "fetus" is a trespasser, you are allowed to defend yourself and meet like force with like force. You cannot however, merely kill a trespasser for the only act of trespassing). The fact that so many make blase statements that it's ok to kill the unborn because of financial reasons is beyond grotesque and disturbed. The wanton disregard for your fellow human beings, the most innocent that cannot even defend themselves is really mentally disturbing. As for the "choice" non-sense, sure, ya, tell yourselves that, since you're so 'pro-choice' about all sorts of other stuff like market choices, zoning, permits, and regulations. Sure. sure.
That's not the argument the leading Republican politicians are making I think is the point.
As for you personally, when are you thinking the fetus is a human being? I notice you didn't mention rape either?
Are you suggesting you would be okay with the government forcing rape victims to carry their attackers "trespasser"?
|
Anarchocaps speaking out against abortion, let's go
So out of curiosity Wegendi, do you believe that there should be some sort of enforcing agent that makes sure that most pregnancies are not disturbed or terminated?
And I hate liberals just as much as you do, but that comic is a really bad straw argument.
|
On August 06 2015 18:33 Shiragaku wrote:
Anarchocaps speaking out against abortion, let's go
So out of curiosity Wegendi, do you believe that there should be some sort of enforcing agent that makes sure that most pregnancies are not disturbed or terminated?
And I hate liberals just as much as you do, but that comic is a really bad straw argument.
Because of the nature of the relationship and the inability of the unborn to either 1) all ready have had the faculties to have made legal arrangements via wills, power of attorneys, etc. 2) be currently cognizant to defend themselves, it means that practically speaking there isn't much you can do except as long as you would be contracted under your legal authority which has recognized said rights. So, I am under no delusion that there wouldn't be people and areas where abortion weren't illegal. Outside of State-actors claiming said monopoly practical enforcement outside entities which have recognized said rights is almost impossible. I do think that abortion is merely a reflection of societies values, so, I think the more important avenue is education (scientific and classical liberal morality). I do think we'll eventually get to a point where if the mother doesn't want to carry she can always 'evict' the baby, and it will be carried to term via incubation. Right now, it's what, like 22 weeks where we can do this.
The comic is meant to jab those who always proclaim themselves pro-choice. I really do dislike that term because it's such a misnomer. Why can't we just call ourselves pro, or anti-abortion which is much more apt. Just like I dislike the term pro-life, because so many pro-lifers are for the death penalty and rah rah War.
|
On August 06 2015 18:22 Velr wrote:
The Fetus is not a trespasser, it is, strictly speaking, a parasite.
Your other argument goes in both ways, your so pro choice on anything, but when it comes to one of the most live changing things "morals" are suddenly important.
And i really don't get what being "pro choice" or not has to do with being left or right... At least if we don't assume that right = religious/evangelical, which would be ridiculous to do.
Btw: Your comic is just stupid... Because all these things you can actually do, despite some people being against it.
They are not mutually exclusive terms. Morals are always important, where did you ever get the idea they aren't?
The point is that a lot of the "pro-choice" people are actively anti-choice on a wide-range of issues which aren't even life and death issues. It's a really dumb term, just like pro-life. No, you're not "pro-choice", you're pro-abortion (not specifically talking about you). The only people in the world that can really claim to be pro-life are Jainists.
|
wegandi - pro abortion isn't apt at all, since the people aren't in favor of abortion in general, but in favor of allowing the option for when its appropriate.
It is an annoyance in general that in politics terms are chosen that aren't very accurate due to their rhetorical power.
|
wegandi - pro abortion isn't apt at all
This should be obvious.
Wegandi makes it sound like people are pitching abortion like rocks on the jewelry channel.
+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc9Z83Klhkw
|
On August 06 2015 19:34 GreenHorizons wrote:This should be obvious. Wegandi makes it sound like people are pitching abortion like rocks on the jewelry channel. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc9Z83Klhkw
Pitching or not, it is extremely high.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/
Of the reported it's ~220/1,000 births. Nearly 25%. That's pitching to me, and there are a lot of people attempting to take away the social stigma of an abortion - so don't act like you're innocent bystanders here.
|
wegandi -
there's no need for there to be a social stigma attached to it.
what makes that "extremely high?" rather than simply high, or average?
we're not guilty of anything, so we're pretty clearly innocent.
You're operating under the belief that the embryo/fetus is a "human life", many others are not. The question of when something should receive the rights afford to a human is quite a complicated one.
|
Egh to the whole abortion debate. The argument is entirely about pro-life vs. pro-choice, even though most people are somewhere in the reasonable middle, with significant disagreements about where to draw the line. But those debates--over where you're talking about an infant and not an organ--don't get to be had because everybody's arguing about the poll numbers as to whether the people in favor of partial-birth abortion or the people against condoms and sex ed are more extreme.
Seriously? Let's debate the real criteria, which have nothing to do with public safety, financial concerns, government power or privacy or any of that, but instead have to do with what you think constitutes a human being. This has to be the debate. Within it, there are a number of reasonable positions. Go with nervous system function, vascular development, some marker of viability, point of individuation, whatever you want to argue for. But this liberal-conservative back and forth arguing only against the most extreme members of the other party is hardly helpful.
|
You cannot artificially narrow the discussion to the "human being" question because that distinction must be weighed against competing concerns. Concerns of public health and women's rights easily supersede the weight of armchair "human being" line drawing in my mind.
|
On August 06 2015 20:39 farvacola wrote:
You cannot artificially narrow the discussion to the "human being" question because that distinction must be weighed against competing concerns. Concerns of public health and women's rights easily supersede the weight of armchair "human being" line drawing in my mind.
Public health is great. Women's rights are great. But everybody would agree that if you simply transpose the argument to, say, a one-month-old child, and imagine giving mothers the right to kill them and give their organs to science, this would be a nightmare. It would endow women with more rights, increase the optionality of motherhood, and might well bring substantial public health benefits, all of which are great things, but pale next to the taking of a human life.
I cannot imagine you actually value public health or women's rights above that. Instead, I must presume that you are actually acting on an assumption that an unborn fetus is not a human and the baby is. Which is fine. But that's the key issue.
|
On August 06 2015 21:06 Yoav wrote:
Public health is great. Women's rights are great. But everybody would agree that if you simply transpose the argument to, say, a one-month-old child, and imagine giving mothers the right to kill them and give their organs to science, this would be a nightmare.
No, not everyone would agree.
|
Yeah... That pile of cells is clealry a human being. It hasn't yet developed lungs or any other organ required for (assisted) survival. Let's compare it to a 1 Month old.. Hell let's compare it to a 15 year old just for the sake of having a stupid argument.
|
On August 06 2015 21:06 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2015 20:39 farvacola wrote:
You cannot artificially narrow the discussion to the "human being" question because that distinction must be weighed against competing concerns. Concerns of public health and women's rights easily supersede the weight of armchair "human being" line drawing in my mind. Public health is great. Women's rights are great. But everybody would agree that if you simply transpose the argument to, say, a one-month-old child, and imagine giving mothers the right to kill them and give their organs to science, this would be a nightmare. It would endow women with more rights, increase the optionality of motherhood, and might well bring substantial public health benefits, all of which are great things, but pale next to the taking of a human life. I cannot imagine you actually value public health or women's rights above that. Instead, I must presume that you are actually acting on an assumption that an unborn fetus is not a human and the baby is. Which is fine. But that's the key issue.
False equivalencies are not a basis for proving your claim that the key distinction rests on the "human being" question. There are hundreds of ways in which a one-month year old child is distinguishable from an unborn fetus, and the "humanness" of the baby is only one of them.
|
On August 06 2015 21:18 Velr wrote:
Yeah... That pile of cells is clealry a human being. It hasn't yet developed lungs or any other organ required for (assisted) survival. Let's compare it to a 1 Month old.. Hell let's compare it to a 15 year old just for the sake of having a stupid argument.
Human beings aren't a collection of cells? If your lungs shut down, and you have to use synthetic ones, you're no longer a human being? Or if you were born with a dysfunction organ such that it never developed properly or at all, that makes you less human?
Only development of organs are required for survival? So a 1 month old baby left in an environment with no other humans has anything other than 0% survival?
Sorry to point this out but your drawing a line here yourself, arbitrarily, but being too bias to see it, which was kind of the previous posters point.
|
On August 06 2015 21:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2015 21:06 Yoav wrote:On August 06 2015 20:39 farvacola wrote:
You cannot artificially narrow the discussion to the "human being" question because that distinction must be weighed against competing concerns. Concerns of public health and women's rights easily supersede the weight of armchair "human being" line drawing in my mind. Public health is great. Women's rights are great. But everybody would agree that if you simply transpose the argument to, say, a one-month-old child, and imagine giving mothers the right to kill them and give their organs to science, this would be a nightmare. It would endow women with more rights, increase the optionality of motherhood, and might well bring substantial public health benefits, all of which are great things, but pale next to the taking of a human life. I cannot imagine you actually value public health or women's rights above that. Instead, I must presume that you are actually acting on an assumption that an unborn fetus is not a human and the baby is. Which is fine. But that's the key issue. False equivalencies are not a basis for proving your claim that the key distinction rests on the "human being" question. There are hundreds of ways in which a one-month year old child is distinguishable from an unborn fetus, and the "humanness" of the baby is only one of them.
Perhaps you're defining "humanity" more narrowly than I am. Which of those distinctions do you think is the relevant one in distinguishing?
On August 06 2015 21:18 Velr wrote:
Yeah... That pile of cells is clealry a human being. It hasn't yet developed lungs or any other organ required for (assisted) survival. Let's compare it to a 1 Month old.. Hell let's compare it to a 15 year old just for the sake of having a stupid argument.
Yeah. My comparison was with a month-old and a fetus at any stage of development, and my argument is predicated on the idea that there is some stage of (presumably) pre-natal development where we start crossing the line into human territory. I'm not saying a Zygote is morally equivalent to a Baby. I'm saying the question of moral value of life (and corresponding legal duty to protect life) is paramount, and the debate must be based on this question unless we have decided to leave it indeterminate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
