• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:57
CEST 18:57
KST 01:57
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202572RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced11BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 I offer completely free coaching services #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time What tournaments are world championships? Server Blocker
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025 WardiTV Mondays FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Simple editing of Brood War save files? (.mlx) Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
[G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food!
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 763 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2248

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 10093 Next
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.
Jockmcplop
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
United Kingdom9646 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-08-27 23:23:26
August 27 2015 23:21 GMT
#44941
On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:

I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.


Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking.
The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once.
In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb.
Now that's obtuse.
RIP Meatloaf <3
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13925 Posts
August 27 2015 23:27 GMT
#44942
On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.

So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.

And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal.

The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights?
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13925 Posts
August 27 2015 23:30 GMT
#44943
On August 28 2015 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:

I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.


Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking.
The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once.
In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb.
Now that's obtuse.

Pro life people understand their actions they simply value peoples lives over peoples rights. Its in the basic name scheme between the two sides. Pro choice people believe that peoples right to chose is more important then peoples right to live.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
August 27 2015 23:31 GMT
#44944
On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.

So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.

And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal.

The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights?

They are allowed to have that opinion and I respect that. Right until they try to write laws trying to enforce that point of view on others and take away rights. At that point my respect for them goes out the window.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
SpiritoftheTunA
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
United States20903 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-08-27 23:33:50
August 27 2015 23:33 GMT
#44945
from their point of view, pro-choicers are taking away the rights of fetuses to have a chance at life

like i'm also pro choice but it's one of those things where it's an unresolveable philosophical question, not a black and white one of "women's rights should win (because they exist already and thus take more precedence)", because that parenthetical reasoning is an opinion just like "the babies' rights should win"
posting on liquid sites in current year
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
August 27 2015 23:36 GMT
#44946
On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.

So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.

And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal.

The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights?

Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder.

We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
SpiritoftheTunA
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
United States20903 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-08-27 23:39:08
August 27 2015 23:37 GMT
#44947
Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder.

these are all philosophical opinions, not facts

the rest of your post is a questionable analogy, because denying a fetus access to your womb is not something i would call inaction
posting on liquid sites in current year
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
August 27 2015 23:39 GMT
#44948
On August 28 2015 08:30 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:
On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:

I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.


Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking.
The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once.
In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb.
Now that's obtuse.

Pro life people understand their actions they simply value peoples lives over peoples rights. Its in the basic name scheme between the two sides. Pro choice people believe that peoples right to chose is more important then peoples right to live.

I propose that pro life people be put on a registry for mandatory non fatal organ donation then. Whenever someone is dying and needs an organ that can be extracted without killing the donor (kidneys, partial liver and so forth) they take one from a pro lifer. If they resist then we'll chant resistance is murder at them and then make laws that allow us to take the organs by force.

You may call me a little extreme but think of all the lives that would be saved.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15686 Posts
August 27 2015 23:41 GMT
#44949
I have sometimes wondered what pro life people would describe if they were asked what the development of a human looks like weeks 1,2,3 til 8 or so. I think some people actually believe it looks even remotely like a baby pretty early on. It's just a bundle of goop for so long. Blows my mind to see that defended as human.
Ghostcom
Profile Joined March 2010
Denmark4782 Posts
August 27 2015 23:42 GMT
#44950
On August 28 2015 08:12 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 07:50 Ghostcom wrote:
On August 28 2015 07:23 zlefin wrote:
On August 28 2015 07:12 Ghostcom wrote:
I think it is time for everyone on this page to go and read the mod note, then go to page one, and then stop violating rules 1-5. It has been going downhill for a long time in this thread, but debate is literally impossible now and it has become very very very frustrating to read + Show Spoiler +
"Don't read it then hurr durrr" - no, I'm interested in US politics, I want to follow discuss it, but the environment for that has been entirely destroyed


EDIT: Damn you CCstealthblue - everyone minus CCstealthblue.

well, I've made threads in website feedback pushing for higher moderation standards in this thread and in general discussion, but there has not been much interest, so I expect we're just too reasonable for most people


Well, I've been debating about making that post for weeks as I'm largely against backseat moderating and would much rather leave that stuff to the mods, but frankly they have been, and are, failing in this thread - despite the very nice start it had.

Very nice start this thread had? Do you know how fucking long it took us to stop arguing about health care? Gh is a much more tame version of samisdat and johhny/daunt is tame compared to the people who got weeded out at the start.

My point has nothing to do with abortion. Replace the issue with any other issue and suddenly calling the other half of america (that doesn't agree with you) no better then ISIS is completely unacceptable. The whole issue is unarguable because its ruined from the beginning. People don't agree when life begins so one side believes its a balance between subjugation and murder while the other side thinks the first side just wants subjugation for the sake of subjugation. Basic differences in terms use makes the gun control debate look coherent.


I was here from the start of the thread, so yes. All the posters you are mentioning were no more destructive (including sam!zdat whom I for the record was very happy to see go) than what we see now. There was a very nice period where people would back up what they wrote with sources, argue the ACTUAL points of their opposition, and in general follow rules 1-5.

I'm unsure about how your second paragraph pertains to me encouraging people to be more respectful? I think we agree, except it seems to me that you have simply given up on, whereas I hope people can go back to what they did at one (admittedly long gone) point? Perhaps we should continue this discussion in PMs so as to not derail this thread further?
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
August 27 2015 23:43 GMT
#44951
On August 28 2015 08:39 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 08:30 Sermokala wrote:
On August 28 2015 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:
On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:

I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.


Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking.
The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once.
In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb.
Now that's obtuse.

Pro life people understand their actions they simply value peoples lives over peoples rights. Its in the basic name scheme between the two sides. Pro choice people believe that peoples right to chose is more important then peoples right to live.

I propose that pro life people be put on a registry for mandatory non fatal organ donation then. Whenever someone is dying and needs an organ that can be extracted without killing the donor (kidneys, partial liver and so forth) they take one from a pro lifer. If they resist then we'll chant resistance is murder at them and then make laws that allow us to take the organs by force.

You may call me a little extreme but think of all the lives that would be saved.

We also need to force them to sign up for adoption agencies so they can adopt all the lives they are saving. Its clear the parents don't want these children because they want a abortion and those children shouldn't grow up in an loveless home.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13925 Posts
August 27 2015 23:45 GMT
#44952
On August 28 2015 08:31 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote:
On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.

So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.

And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal.

The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights?

They are allowed to have that opinion and I respect that. Right until they try to write laws trying to enforce that point of view on others and take away rights. At that point my respect for them goes out the window.

This is the same argument that the NRA has about guns. Can you understand how that's being a bit unreasonable?
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-08-27 23:50:19
August 27 2015 23:49 GMT
#44953
On August 28 2015 08:45 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 08:31 Plansix wrote:
On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote:
On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.

So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.

And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal.

The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights?

They are allowed to have that opinion and I respect that. Right until they try to write laws trying to enforce that point of view on others and take away rights. At that point my respect for them goes out the window.

This is the same argument that the NRA has about guns. Can you understand how that's being a bit unreasonable?

I don't see it as unreasonable. I don't disrespect the NRA view, I just disagree with it. It comes down to liberty. The NRA believes that the government stops before it gets to people's guns. Pro-choice people believe that government stops before it gets to your body (but some draw the line after gun and before body). Pro-life people believe that government goes all the way inside you.

You can draw the line at different points and argue it. Personally I think there is a huge difference between legislating on possessions and legislating on body parts.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Ghostcom
Profile Joined March 2010
Denmark4782 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-08-27 23:58:52
August 27 2015 23:50 GMT
#44954
On August 28 2015 08:39 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 08:30 Sermokala wrote:
On August 28 2015 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:
On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:

I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.


Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking.
The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once.
In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb.
Now that's obtuse.

Pro life people understand their actions they simply value peoples lives over peoples rights. Its in the basic name scheme between the two sides. Pro choice people believe that peoples right to chose is more important then peoples right to live.

I propose that pro life people be put on a registry for mandatory non fatal organ donation then. Whenever someone is dying and needs an organ that can be extracted without killing the donor (kidneys, partial liver and so forth) they take one from a pro lifer. If they resist then we'll chant resistance is murder at them and then make laws that allow us to take the organs by force.

You may call me a little extreme but think of all the lives that would be saved.


The two situations are not actually morally comparable. It's the classic trolley problem just rephrased. In this case, pushing the fat man on the tracks is the abortion whilst changing the tracks is the organ donation. If you really wanted a good parallel you would quote Judith Jarvis Thomson and the violinist issue. Which can also arguably be deconstructed.

EDIT: Of course I'm talking laymans terms, this is a video-game forum...
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
August 27 2015 23:52 GMT
#44955
On August 28 2015 08:45 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 08:31 Plansix wrote:
On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote:
On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.

So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.

And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal.

The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights?

They are allowed to have that opinion and I respect that. Right until they try to write laws trying to enforce that point of view on others and take away rights. At that point my respect for them goes out the window.

This is the same argument that the NRA has about guns. Can you understand how that's being a bit unreasonable?

I'm not taking away their right to vote. I don't want them to die or even move. They can live next to me and I won't have an issue. They can buy food, protest what they want and I won't care.

I just don't feel any need to be nice to them. If engaged by them, I will tell them that I don't' like their opinion and don't respect it. I don't have to be nice to them if the topic of abortion comes up. That's America. We exist next to people that we think kinda suck and we all vote once a year.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
August 27 2015 23:53 GMT
#44956
On August 28 2015 08:50 Ghostcom wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 08:39 KwarK wrote:
On August 28 2015 08:30 Sermokala wrote:
On August 28 2015 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:
On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:

I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.


Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking.
The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once.
In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb.
Now that's obtuse.

Pro life people understand their actions they simply value peoples lives over peoples rights. Its in the basic name scheme between the two sides. Pro choice people believe that peoples right to chose is more important then peoples right to live.

I propose that pro life people be put on a registry for mandatory non fatal organ donation then. Whenever someone is dying and needs an organ that can be extracted without killing the donor (kidneys, partial liver and so forth) they take one from a pro lifer. If they resist then we'll chant resistance is murder at them and then make laws that allow us to take the organs by force.

You may call me a little extreme but think of all the lives that would be saved.


The two situations are not actually morally comparable. It's the classic trolley problem just rephrased. In this case, pushing the fat man on the tracks is the abortion whilst changing the tracks is the organ donation. If you really wanted a good parallel you would quote Judith Jarvis Thomson and the violinist issue. Which can also arguably be deconstructed.

You're assuming that an abortion has to be an active measure and that babies just passively happen if you don't change your prepregancy routine. Firstly, that's not how it works. Secondly, the counterexample of a woman who abuses her body routinely to the point of an induced miscarriage.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Karis Vas Ryaar
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
United States4396 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-08-28 00:16:25
August 27 2015 23:53 GMT
#44957
On August 28 2015 08:50 Ghostcom wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 08:39 KwarK wrote:
On August 28 2015 08:30 Sermokala wrote:
On August 28 2015 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:
On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:

I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.


Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking.
The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once.
In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb.
Now that's obtuse.

Pro life people understand their actions they simply value peoples lives over peoples rights. Its in the basic name scheme between the two sides. Pro choice people believe that peoples right to chose is more important then peoples right to live.

I propose that pro life people be put on a registry for mandatory non fatal organ donation then. Whenever someone is dying and needs an organ that can be extracted without killing the donor (kidneys, partial liver and so forth) they take one from a pro lifer. If they resist then we'll chant resistance is murder at them and then make laws that allow us to take the organs by force.

You may call me a little extreme but think of all the lives that would be saved.


The two situations are not actually morally comparable. It's the classic trolley problem just rephrased. In this case, pushing the fat man on the tracks is the abortion whilst changing the tracks is the organ donation. If you really wanted a good parallel you would quote Judith Jarvis Thomson and the violinist issue. Which can also arguably be deconstructed.


technically any viewpoint of absoluteness can be deconstructed (or even any writing, that's the whole point of differance and arche writing). that's the entire point of deconstruction . you think the objections can be raised to the argument fine but don't talk about deconstruction because that's something entirely different. thanks

(or at least clarify you mean the laymen's term of deconstructed. sry if this came off as a bit harsh. If you want to talk about actual deconstruction then you could use it to deconstruct abrtion bans as an attempt by the people in power to consolidate their power and continue the marginalization of the the outside term in the binary opposite of man/women )
"I'm not agreeing with a lot of Virus's decisions but they are working" Tasteless. Ipl4 Losers Bracket Virus 2-1 Maru
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13925 Posts
August 27 2015 23:56 GMT
#44958
On August 28 2015 08:36 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote:
On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.

So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.

And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal.

The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights?

Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder.

We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society.

I'm not arguing about abortion kwark. I can't actually argue with your first paragraph at all I've never seen it from that point of view.I'm arguing that calling half the country who don't agree with you, regardless of the issues let alone one thats so personally held on either side, terrorists and no better then ISIS is utterly unacceptable and completely shameless.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-08-28 00:00:16
August 27 2015 23:59 GMT
#44959
On August 28 2015 08:56 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 08:36 KwarK wrote:
On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote:
On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.

So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.

And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal.

The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights?

Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder.

We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society.

I'm not arguing about abortion kwark. I can't actually argue with your first paragraph at all I've never seen it from that point of view.I'm arguing that calling half the country who don't agree with you, regardless of the issues let alone one thats so personally held on either side, terrorists and no better then ISIS is utterly unacceptable and completely shameless.

Only around 20% of the country thinks abortion should be illegal under any circumstances, which is what she is talking about. And you're real complaint is that Hilary might have hurt the feelings of people that will never vote for her?
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
August 28 2015 00:03 GMT
#44960
On August 28 2015 08:56 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2015 08:36 KwarK wrote:
On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote:
On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.

So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.

And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal.

The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights?

Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder.

We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society.

I'm not arguing about abortion kwark. I can't actually argue with your first paragraph at all I've never seen it from that point of view.I'm arguing that calling half the country who don't agree with you, regardless of the issues let alone one thats so personally held on either side, terrorists and no better then ISIS is utterly unacceptable and completely shameless.

Nobody said that the Republican party is literally ISIS. Only ISIS is literally ISIS. You're disagreeing with something that nobody anywhere said or thinks. Also nobody called anyone terrorists and nobody said anyone was no better than ISIS.

However the comparison, in terms of religious fundamentalist views on controlling women, is apt. Maybe better comparisons could have been made but the comparison holds up. A comparison can have a limited scope. If I called you as dumb as a rock that doesn't mean I'm a making a comment about your hardness, durability or composition.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Prev 1 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
CSO Cup
16:00
#83
Liquipedia
PSISTORM Gaming Misc
15:55
FSL Teamleague: CN vs ASH
Freeedom21
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Hui .388
SpeCial 272
BRAT_OK 97
ProTech77
goblin 45
MindelVK 26
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 18512
Bisu 3405
Shuttle 2573
Jaedong 2256
Flash 2050
EffOrt 1080
BeSt 888
Nal_rA 514
firebathero 367
actioN 358
[ Show more ]
Soma 150
sorry 127
Rush 117
Dewaltoss 98
Shine 70
Shinee 53
Aegong 37
JYJ32
scan(afreeca) 32
zelot 30
Terrorterran 17
IntoTheRainbow 7
Stormgate
BeoMulf184
Dota 2
Gorgc6701
qojqva3066
420jenkins507
League of Legends
Dendi775
Counter-Strike
fl0m4158
ScreaM1185
sgares378
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor496
Other Games
Beastyqt1127
B2W.Neo1006
FrodaN285
oskar156
KnowMe111
Trikslyr62
QueenE50
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick284
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• LUISG 19
• Adnapsc2 15
• tFFMrPink 4
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2906
Other Games
• Shiphtur322
Upcoming Events
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1h 3m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
16h 3m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
21h 3m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 1h
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
The PondCast
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Korean StarCraft League
6 days
[ Show More ]
CranKy Ducklings
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL Team Wars
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.