|
|
Someone kills a pile of cells. No human live is harmed. There is no moral dilemma. "Possible future human live" is harmed, but i doubt anyone would want to go there and seriously construct some werid argument out of this (nvm, i'm sure someone allready went there...)..
|
On August 17 2012 00:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 23:44 DoubleReed wrote:On August 16 2012 23:29 kwizach wrote:On August 16 2012 22:04 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it particularly offensive that assholes like xDaunt are defending this while calling themselves "conservative" or even more sickening, "libertarian." This is putting government between you and your doctor. This is government intervening in the most personal and dangerous of ways. As much as I agree with your position and very strongly disagree with basically every position of xDaunt policy-wise, you should refrain from insulting him. Insults have no place in a debate like this. I disagree. Acting so absurd and hypocritical deserves nothing short of insulting and mockery. If you treat disrespectful ideas with respect, you only give credence to their absolutely outlandish, offensive behavior. His attitude right now is misogynistic (or just apathetic), and I don't treat such opinions with respect. There's nothing disrespectful about pointing out that the vast majority of abortions are performed for birth control purposes. I specifically pointed out that fact because there are so many people who ignore and hide from the brutal moral consequences of what they're advocating when they're pro-choice. Looking at your reaction over the past couple pages, it looks like you're one of those people.
I think it's fairly disrespectful to suggest that irresponsible behavior on the part of the mother devalues her life to less than the value of a bundle of cells that may eventually become a person.
Morality isn't objective, by the way. I hope that isn't a difficult concept to understand.
|
On August 16 2012 23:35 Velr wrote:
Wow, this topic stayed pretty long away from the eternal classic that is US abortion laws.
Let's move on to Guns!
A well played sc2 game is like this thread, lots of action on multiple fronts simultaneously.
|
Ann Romney declares -- once again -- that she and her husband won’t be releasing any tax returns prior to 2010. “We have been very transparent to what's legally required of us,” she said. “There's going to be no more tax releases given." Mrs. Romney said if they release any more information, "it will only give them more ammunition."
Oh really? :D
|
On August 17 2012 00:59 MinusPlus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2012 23:44 DoubleReed wrote:On August 16 2012 23:29 kwizach wrote:On August 16 2012 22:04 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it particularly offensive that assholes like xDaunt are defending this while calling themselves "conservative" or even more sickening, "libertarian." This is putting government between you and your doctor. This is government intervening in the most personal and dangerous of ways. As much as I agree with your position and very strongly disagree with basically every position of xDaunt policy-wise, you should refrain from insulting him. Insults have no place in a debate like this. I disagree. Acting so absurd and hypocritical deserves nothing short of insulting and mockery. If you treat disrespectful ideas with respect, you only give credence to their absolutely outlandish, offensive behavior. His attitude right now is misogynistic (or just apathetic), and I don't treat such opinions with respect. There's nothing disrespectful about pointing out that the vast majority of abortions are performed for birth control purposes. I specifically pointed out that fact because there are so many people who ignore and hide from the brutal moral consequences of what they're advocating when they're pro-choice. Looking at your reaction over the past couple pages, it looks like you're one of those people. I think it's fairly disrespectful to suggest that irresponsible behavior on the part of the mother devalues her life to less than the value of a bundle of cells that may eventually become a person. Morality isn't objective, by the way. I hope that isn't a difficult concept to understand.
I hope you understand that this isn't exactly a settled proposition.
|
On August 17 2012 00:50 Velr wrote:
Someone kills a pile of cells. No human live is harmed. There is no moral dilemma. "Possible future human live" is harmed, but i doubt anyone would want to go there and seriously construct some werid argument out of this (nvm, i'm sure someone allready went there...)..
That pile of cells is a living creature that will one day become a human. Seeing everything in black and white is a major problem in this debate. With your strangely callous description of the fetus you're just as bad as the pro-lifers who think abortion shouldn't be allowed under any circumstance, even when the mother's life is greatly endangered. Fetus =/= person doesn't mean Fetus =/= any rights whatsoever.
|
On August 17 2012 01:01 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +
Ann Romney declares -- once again -- that she and her husband won’t be releasing any tax returns prior to 2010. “We have been very transparent to what's legally required of us,” she said. “There's going to be no more tax releases given." Mrs. Romney said if they release any more information, "it will only give them more ammunition."
Oh really? :D
"We have nothing to hide but we're not going to show anything that isn't actually legally required of us."
I can't even... even being sarcastic, I can't use the word "transparent". She actually uses the word "transparent" in describing how they're going to show only what is literally the absolute required minimum.
She certainly is a politician's wife.
It really goes to show the respect Romney has for being the face of our nation. This isn't a job application. You are going to be the face of our country, and you can't even show the people what you paid in taxes a few years ago? Republicans love to talk about our founding fathers. We know a lot about our founding fathers, because they didn't hide behind notions of "privacy". Their various enterprises weren't considered sacred and private, that the public was forbidden from investigating. How you make your money, what you spend it on, what you pay in taxes, all speaks to who you are.
Thanks Romney, for being so transparent as to give the American people literally the least you can give of yourself.
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 16 2012 06:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 06:01 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2012 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:If everything here is true, which is presumably is, I don't see how Ryan could be considered moderate: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2yxDx.jpg) Eh, I think some of those points may be off. For example, I know that failing to support the Lilly Ledbetter act does not mean that you're against the EPA. All it means that is that you do not favor looser statutes of limitations for reporting Title VII claims based on unequal payment than what is already allowed for. Here are sources: Sources: 1. "Paul Ryan: Just Plain Bad for Women," New York Daily News, August 13, 2012 http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/08/paul-ryan-just-plain-bad-for-women2. "Statement on Mitt Romney's Selection As Rep. Paul Ryan for His Vice-Presidential Running Mate," NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 11, 2012 http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/elections-press-releases/2012/pr08112012_vppick_1.html"Paul Ryan's Extreme Abortion Views," The Daily Beast, August 11, 2012 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-s-extreme-abortion-views.html3. Ibid. 4. "Paul Ryan's Extreme Abortion Views," The Daily Beast, August 11, 2012 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-s-extreme-abortion-views.html"The Ryan Reaction: This Election Is Now about 'Choice,'" RH Reality Check, August 12, 2012 http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/08/11/ryan-reaction-this-election-is-now-about-choice5. Ibid. The big thing is planned parenthood and birth control generally speaking. Regardless of how someone feels about abortion, you're not going to find many people outside the far right who disagree with birth control or planned parenthood. A huge majority of teenage girls have used planned parenthood at some time in their lives, most often to obtain birth control in their teens. There's a lot more wrong with Ryan than just his equal pay voting. I don't doubt that #2 and #3 are true. I know that the subtext of #1 is false. I think #4 is exaggerated if not false. My understanding is that Ryan has not said that he supports criminalizing abortions so much as he has said that he opposes abortion and would leave the issue for the states to regulate. As for #5, I haven't seen the legislation at issue, but I find it hard to believe that he or anyone else would oppose all forms of in vitro fertilization. I'm guessing that it's wrong.
IVF typically involves using hormones to generate a bunch of eggs, fertilising them all and then implanting a few of the more promising ones. The others are discarded or frozen indefinitely, hence why it'd be outlawed under that law.
|
Rawls charged his readers to design a society from the ground up, from an original position, and he imposed the ignorance constraint so that readers would abandon any foreknowledge of their particular social status — their wealth, their health, their natural talents, their opportunities or any other goodies that the cosmos may have thrown their way. In doing so, he hoped to identify principles of justice that would best help individuals maximize their potential, fulfill their objectives (whatever they may happen to be) and live a good life. He called this presumption the “veil of ignorance.”
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/the-veil-of-opulence/
Very interesting discussion of bias when it comes to defining "fairness".
|
On August 17 2012 00:37 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:27 Budmandude wrote:On August 16 2012 23:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 16 2012 23:17 RCMDVA wrote:Reasons for abortions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[44] The source of this information, however, takes findings into account from 27 nations including the United States, so these findings might not be typical for most American women. 25.9% Want to postpone childbearing 21.3% Cannot afford a baby 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job 7.9% Want no (more) children 3.3% Risk to fetal health 2.8% Risk to maternal health 2.1% Other So. Less than 10% are health/rape/incest related. On August 16 2012 23:27 RCMDVA wrote:
The relevence is that the chart proves the statment "abortion is predominantly used as retro-active birth control " is true.
Notice that this list makes no effort to determine whether the pregnancy was the result of failed birth control or no birth control. "Retroactive birth control" implies that the woman did not use a form of birth control during intercourse. This table shows no such thing. Nit picking semantics much? It's being used for cntrolling whether the prospective mother wants a child or not without respect to health in 90% of cases. What do you think condoms/pills are for? On August 17 2012 00:21 DoubleReed wrote:On August 16 2012 23:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 16 2012 23:17 RCMDVA wrote:Reasons for abortions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[44] The source of this information, however, takes findings into account from 27 nations including the United States, so these findings might not be typical for most American women. 25.9% Want to postpone childbearing 21.3% Cannot afford a baby 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job 7.9% Want no (more) children 3.3% Risk to fetal health 2.8% Risk to maternal health 2.1% Other So. Less than 10% are health/rape/incest related. On August 16 2012 23:27 RCMDVA wrote:
The relevence is that the chart proves the statment "abortion is predominantly used as retro-active birth control " is true.
Notice that this list makes no effort to determine whether the pregnancy was the result of failed birth control or no birth control. "Retroactive birth control" implies that the woman did not use a form of birth control during intercourse. This table shows no such thing. It also doesn't have a rape category (which people would lie about and put themselves in another category). And yet he includes rape/incest in his conclusion. Yeah, if only it had a category that included every reason not specifically listed  . This isn't semantics. The phrase "retroactive birth control" is inflammatory and intended to paint the recipients of abortions as irresponsible. It's extremely important to understand that many abortions result from the failure of birth control. So you saying "that's what condoms are for" is also massively condescending, as well as a bit snarky with just a hint of deliberate ignorance.
There's the whole part where using things correctly comes into account. Condoms have approximately a 2% failure rate, spermicide has an approximate 8% failure rate, and birth control pills are at about .3% (all when used properly). That's a .00048% chance of failure if you use those correctly. Using the US cenus number of 1.2 million abortions in 2007 and even assuming half of those (a majority) are from failed properly used birth control that's 1.25 billion vaginal sexual interactions over 62 million women between 15 and 44. Unfortunately I don't know the numbers for vaginal sexual activity in that range or the percentage of those women that would be willing to have an abortion, you can fill that in if you want: assuming 100% for both (I'd guess it's closer to 10-20% combined when you take age and willingness factors into account) that's >20 interactions per year for every female between 15 and 44, that's massive (for 44 year olds of course  )! I can not believe that majority of people getting abortions are from failures of properly used birth control.
In a case as serious as sex where a child's life could be on the line not bothering to properly use protection is morally reprehensible. I don't have much pity for people who decide to have sex without taking the proper precautions, it is for the purpose of making new humans after all. The fact is the majority of abortions in the US are due to irresponsibility in the proper use of birth control. If you're not willing to properly use birth control or find out how to properly use it to prevent a conception, but are willing to use an abortion after a conception--is that not retroactive birth control?
(Standard disclaimer saying this post has nothing to do with rape, incest, or health endangerment)
EDIT: I refuse to get into a discussion on the morality of abortion as it will always turn into pro-life people calling pro-choice people baby killers and pro-choice people saying pro-life people hate women. I'm only pointing out that it's not "massively condescending, as well as a bit snarky with just a hint of deliberate ignorance" to call someone who was irresponsible, irresponsible.
|
On August 17 2012 01:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:59 MinusPlus wrote:On August 17 2012 00:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2012 23:44 DoubleReed wrote:On August 16 2012 23:29 kwizach wrote:On August 16 2012 22:04 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it particularly offensive that assholes like xDaunt are defending this while calling themselves "conservative" or even more sickening, "libertarian." This is putting government between you and your doctor. This is government intervening in the most personal and dangerous of ways. As much as I agree with your position and very strongly disagree with basically every position of xDaunt policy-wise, you should refrain from insulting him. Insults have no place in a debate like this. I disagree. Acting so absurd and hypocritical deserves nothing short of insulting and mockery. If you treat disrespectful ideas with respect, you only give credence to their absolutely outlandish, offensive behavior. His attitude right now is misogynistic (or just apathetic), and I don't treat such opinions with respect. There's nothing disrespectful about pointing out that the vast majority of abortions are performed for birth control purposes. I specifically pointed out that fact because there are so many people who ignore and hide from the brutal moral consequences of what they're advocating when they're pro-choice. Looking at your reaction over the past couple pages, it looks like you're one of those people. I think it's fairly disrespectful to suggest that irresponsible behavior on the part of the mother devalues her life to less than the value of a bundle of cells that may eventually become a person. Morality isn't objective, by the way. I hope that isn't a difficult concept to understand. I hope you understand that this isn't exactly a settled proposition.
I feel like the part where you'd argue that it isn't actually helps prove that it is. That bit was tacked on as an afterthought, by the way. It's cute how you only responded to part of what Leporello had to say above, and I posted mainly because he more or less summed up what I wanted to say (and you "responded" to a minor part of his post). Here, I'll help out a bit and bold the parts you skipped.
On August 16 2012 22:55 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 12:45 xDaunt wrote:
The aspect of the abortion debate that I find particularly offensive is that pro-choice proponents always focus on the need for the availability of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and saving the mother's life, while completely ignoring the fact that abortion is predominantly used as retro-active birth control (regardless of whether other forms of birth control was previously used). Debating the need for available abortions for rape victims offends you? The only reason the debate exists is because some people in your party find the need to debate it. I mean, I guess we agree: Abortions for rape victims shouldn't be an issue. But it is an issue, due to right-wing religious fundamentalism. But instead of blaming them for taking a strict and unpopular position -- you blame the Democrats for making it an issue, even though their position in this particular case is the one that is currently reflected in our laws, which the vast majority of people agree with. The Republicans, not the pro-choice Democrats, are the ones who've felt the need to differentiate abortion for cases of rape, from standard abortions. If you're pro-choice, that differentiation doesn't even exist. And yet, it's the Democrats fault for "focusing" on it? They don't focus on it. I hear Republicans all the time talk about "I'm pro-life except in cases of rape and incest". It is a pro-life position to make rape a separate issue, which is weird, because if the fetus is a human being then it should always be given full-protection, even if the mother is raped. Nonetheless, rape-conceived fetuses aren't as human as regular fetuses to most Republicans.Blame the Democrats not for their position in a debate, but for simply engaging in a debate over an issue in which they represent the status-quo. Brilliant logic. Mind-blowing. The intellectual cowardice from Republicans on this issue has apparently taken a new level.
Also,
On August 17 2012 01:08 JeanLuc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:50 Velr wrote:
Someone kills a pile of cells. No human live is harmed. There is no moral dilemma. "Possible future human live" is harmed, but i doubt anyone would want to go there and seriously construct some werid argument out of this (nvm, i'm sure someone allready went there...).. That pile of cells is a living creature that will one day become a human. Seeing everything in black and white is a major problem in this debate. With your strangely callous description of the fetus you're just as bad as the pro-lifers who think abortion shouldn't be allowed under any circumstance, even when the mother's life is greatly endangered. Fetus =/= person doesn't mean Fetus =/= any rights whatsoever.
Might* one day become a human. "Usually will", "probably will", and "should" are all acceptable/defensible, "will" is not. The distinction is important for the case (which you mentioned) where the pregnancy endangers the mother's life.
Note that I haven't been saying that there is no moral dilemma.
Also Also,
On August 17 2012 01:01 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +
Ann Romney declares -- once again -- that she and her husband won’t be releasing any tax returns prior to 2010. “We have been very transparent to what's legally required of us,” she said. “There's going to be no more tax releases given." Mrs. Romney said if they release any more information, "it will only give them more ammunition."
Oh really? :D
Did anybody jump on the "Leave Mittney alone!" joke yet in this thread...?
EDIT: It's a little surprising to see the conflation of being pro-choice with being pro-abortion here. Being against banning something doesn't mean encouraging it, dang. I didn't realize that was even a question anymore.
|
On August 17 2012 01:22 Budmandude wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:37 Vega62a wrote:On August 17 2012 00:27 Budmandude wrote:On August 16 2012 23:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 16 2012 23:17 RCMDVA wrote:Reasons for abortions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[44] The source of this information, however, takes findings into account from 27 nations including the United States, so these findings might not be typical for most American women. 25.9% Want to postpone childbearing 21.3% Cannot afford a baby 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job 7.9% Want no (more) children 3.3% Risk to fetal health 2.8% Risk to maternal health 2.1% Other So. Less than 10% are health/rape/incest related. On August 16 2012 23:27 RCMDVA wrote:
The relevence is that the chart proves the statment "abortion is predominantly used as retro-active birth control " is true.
Notice that this list makes no effort to determine whether the pregnancy was the result of failed birth control or no birth control. "Retroactive birth control" implies that the woman did not use a form of birth control during intercourse. This table shows no such thing. Nit picking semantics much? It's being used for cntrolling whether the prospective mother wants a child or not without respect to health in 90% of cases. What do you think condoms/pills are for? On August 17 2012 00:21 DoubleReed wrote:On August 16 2012 23:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 16 2012 23:17 RCMDVA wrote:Reasons for abortions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[44] The source of this information, however, takes findings into account from 27 nations including the United States, so these findings might not be typical for most American women. 25.9% Want to postpone childbearing 21.3% Cannot afford a baby 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job 7.9% Want no (more) children 3.3% Risk to fetal health 2.8% Risk to maternal health 2.1% Other So. Less than 10% are health/rape/incest related. On August 16 2012 23:27 RCMDVA wrote:
The relevence is that the chart proves the statment "abortion is predominantly used as retro-active birth control " is true.
Notice that this list makes no effort to determine whether the pregnancy was the result of failed birth control or no birth control. "Retroactive birth control" implies that the woman did not use a form of birth control during intercourse. This table shows no such thing. It also doesn't have a rape category (which people would lie about and put themselves in another category). And yet he includes rape/incest in his conclusion. Yeah, if only it had a category that included every reason not specifically listed . This isn't semantics. The phrase "retroactive birth control" is inflammatory and intended to paint the recipients of abortions as irresponsible. It's extremely important to understand that many abortions result from the failure of birth control. So you saying "that's what condoms are for" is also massively condescending, as well as a bit snarky with just a hint of deliberate ignorance. There's the whole part where using things correctly comes into account. Condoms have approximately a 2% failure rate, spermicide has an approximate 8% failure rate, and birth control pills are at about .3% (all when used properly). That's a .00048% chance of failure if you use those correctly. Using the US cenus number of 1.2 million abortions in 2007 and even assuming half of those (a majority) are from failed properly used birth control that's 1.25 billion vaginal sexual interactions over 62 million women between 15 and 44. Unfortunately I don't know the numbers for vaginal sexual activity in that range or the percentage of those women that would be willing to have an abortion, you can fill that in if you want: assuming 100% for both (I'd guess it's closer to 10-20% combined when you take age and willingness factors into account) that's >20 interactions per year for every female between 15 and 44, that's massive (for 44 year olds of course )! I can not believe that majority of people getting abortions are from failures of properly used birth control. In a case as serious as sex where a child's life could be on the line not bothering to properly use protection is morally reprehensible. I don't have much pity for people who decide to have sex without taking the proper precautions, it is for the purpose of making new humans after all. The fact is the majority of abortions in the US are due to irresponsibility in the proper use of birth control. If you're not willing to properly use birth control or find out how to properly use it to prevent a conception, but are willing to use an abortion after a conception--is that not retroactive birth control? (Standard disclaimer saying this post has nothing to do with rape, incest, or health endangerment) EDIT: I refuse to get into a discussion on the morality of abortion as it will always turn into pro-life people calling pro-choice people baby killers and pro-choice people saying pro-life people hate women. I'm only pointing out that it's not "massively condescending, as well as a bit snarky with just a hint of deliberate ignorance" to call someone who was irresponsible, irresponsible.
You're taking statistics and using them to justify making an accusation towards a group of people whom you have never even met. You are calling somebody irresponsible without even knowing the details of what they did. You are passing a judgment on somebody who has never told you their story. The most you know is that they had sex, probably vaginal, and got pregnant.
Using birth control properly 100% of the time is easier to talk about than it is to do, and it only takes one slip-up. Everyone has had at least one scare in their life. I consider myself extremely responsible with regards to birth control (borderline paranoid) and I have had several. In addition, our sexual health education in this country is laughably poor. So to put it another way, I was well-educated about the matter and I have had several scares. Imagine having never had a sex-ed class in your life where they told you anything but "abstinence is the only 100% effective method."
This matter is more complicated than birth control failure rates. This is a human problem, and we have to address it as one. Calling somebody whom you have never met irresponsible is condescending, and it is presumptuous, and defending it is snarky and deliberately ignorant.
|
On August 16 2012 18:52 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 12:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 12:11 Whitewing wrote:On August 16 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Ryan is anti-abortion. Got it.
No need to exaggerate beyond that.
Edit: no federal funding does not mean that Planned Parenthood goes away. Where am I exaggerating? I am saying that if a woman is faced with death, its from incest, or its from rape, she still should not have an abortion. All of that is cited. I don't think there is any need to exaggerate. As for planned parenthood, I think its safe to say that eliminating the funding for planned parenthood would at the very least severely cripple it and what it does. Planned parenthood is a good thing in the eyes of everyone except the far right. The junk posted from Ultra Violet is basically trying to paint him as anti-women. That's an exaggeration. As for Planned Parenthood I think its safe to say that federal funding could be redirected to other healthcare centers. Planned Parenthood isn't, by any remotely rational line of thinking, a necessary institution. So you're saying that being against an abortion in the case of it saving the pregnant woman's life...Is not anti-women? Can you elaborate on how that's not ridiculous? I'm not going to have an abortion debate with you. In Ryan's opinion the unborn child has just as much a right to life as the mother. So, if Ryan is anti-women then Obama anti-infant. You have an opinion about abortion. Ryan has a different opinion. There's nothing to debate or discuss beyond "my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong" so lets not. Um, if they both have an equal right to life, that makes either decision completely equal in value and result, so neither decision is worse than the other, and there wouldn't be a value reason to abort or not to abort. Thus, there'd be no reason to ban it. Being anti-abortion in the case of a woman's life being at risk is valuing the life of the child OVER the life of a woman, not equally. Ryan values a fetus over the potential mother, he does not value them equally. "At risk" isn't a 100% certainty of death. There's also a difference between actively ending a life and failing to save a life. Nothing is ever 100% certain. So, what's your point? He's point was that you're statement that "Ryan's opinion [is that] the unborn child has just as much a right to life as the mother" is a misrepresentation of Ryan's view. Ryan's view is actually that the unborn child's right to life is greater than the mother's. In the end, the abortion debate is one about opinions and views or who's rights matter more.
Pretty sure abortion has a 100% certainty that the little fella inside the mother will die.
So if option A has a 100% certainty of a death and option B has a less than 100% certainty of a death then you should choose option B since it is less likely to result in death.
So there's nothing logically inconsistent with saying that the two lives in question are equal and so abortion should be illegal.
|
Budmandude, you do know that not all women can safely use birth control pills right? It has to be discussed with your doctor because it can have serious health issues with some women. And as you note, that is the most effective form of birth control. Not to mention how expensive birth control is, although Obamacare helps with that.
MinusPlus, please do not derail this into an objective/subjective morality thread. Make another thread or something if you want to talk about that.
|
On August 17 2012 02:18 DoubleReed wrote:
Budmandude, you do know that not all women can safely use birth control pills right? It has to be discussed with your doctor because it can have serious health issues with some women. And as you note, that is the most effective form of birth control. Not to mention how expensive birth control is, although Obamacare helps with that.
MinusPlus, please do not derail this into an objective/subjective morality thread. Make another thread or something if you want to talk about that.
Depends what you are getting. Some forms of the pill cost ~$9 / mo.
|
On August 17 2012 02:03 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 01:22 Budmandude wrote:On August 17 2012 00:37 Vega62a wrote:On August 17 2012 00:27 Budmandude wrote:On August 16 2012 23:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 16 2012 23:17 RCMDVA wrote:Reasons for abortions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[44] The source of this information, however, takes findings into account from 27 nations including the United States, so these findings might not be typical for most American women. 25.9% Want to postpone childbearing 21.3% Cannot afford a baby 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job 7.9% Want no (more) children 3.3% Risk to fetal health 2.8% Risk to maternal health 2.1% Other So. Less than 10% are health/rape/incest related. On August 16 2012 23:27 RCMDVA wrote:
The relevence is that the chart proves the statment "abortion is predominantly used as retro-active birth control " is true.
Notice that this list makes no effort to determine whether the pregnancy was the result of failed birth control or no birth control. "Retroactive birth control" implies that the woman did not use a form of birth control during intercourse. This table shows no such thing. Nit picking semantics much? It's being used for cntrolling whether the prospective mother wants a child or not without respect to health in 90% of cases. What do you think condoms/pills are for? On August 17 2012 00:21 DoubleReed wrote:On August 16 2012 23:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 16 2012 23:17 RCMDVA wrote:Reasons for abortions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[44] The source of this information, however, takes findings into account from 27 nations including the United States, so these findings might not be typical for most American women. 25.9% Want to postpone childbearing 21.3% Cannot afford a baby 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job 7.9% Want no (more) children 3.3% Risk to fetal health 2.8% Risk to maternal health 2.1% Other So. Less than 10% are health/rape/incest related. On August 16 2012 23:27 RCMDVA wrote:
The relevence is that the chart proves the statment "abortion is predominantly used as retro-active birth control " is true.
Notice that this list makes no effort to determine whether the pregnancy was the result of failed birth control or no birth control. "Retroactive birth control" implies that the woman did not use a form of birth control during intercourse. This table shows no such thing. It also doesn't have a rape category (which people would lie about and put themselves in another category). And yet he includes rape/incest in his conclusion. Yeah, if only it had a category that included every reason not specifically listed . This isn't semantics. The phrase "retroactive birth control" is inflammatory and intended to paint the recipients of abortions as irresponsible. It's extremely important to understand that many abortions result from the failure of birth control. So you saying "that's what condoms are for" is also massively condescending, as well as a bit snarky with just a hint of deliberate ignorance. There's the whole part where using things correctly comes into account. Condoms have approximately a 2% failure rate, spermicide has an approximate 8% failure rate, and birth control pills are at about .3% (all when used properly). That's a .00048% chance of failure if you use those correctly. Using the US cenus number of 1.2 million abortions in 2007 and even assuming half of those (a majority) are from failed properly used birth control that's 1.25 billion vaginal sexual interactions over 62 million women between 15 and 44. Unfortunately I don't know the numbers for vaginal sexual activity in that range or the percentage of those women that would be willing to have an abortion, you can fill that in if you want: assuming 100% for both (I'd guess it's closer to 10-20% combined when you take age and willingness factors into account) that's >20 interactions per year for every female between 15 and 44, that's massive (for 44 year olds of course )! I can not believe that majority of people getting abortions are from failures of properly used birth control. In a case as serious as sex where a child's life could be on the line not bothering to properly use protection is morally reprehensible. I don't have much pity for people who decide to have sex without taking the proper precautions, it is for the purpose of making new humans after all. The fact is the majority of abortions in the US are due to irresponsibility in the proper use of birth control. If you're not willing to properly use birth control or find out how to properly use it to prevent a conception, but are willing to use an abortion after a conception--is that not retroactive birth control? (Standard disclaimer saying this post has nothing to do with rape, incest, or health endangerment) EDIT: I refuse to get into a discussion on the morality of abortion as it will always turn into pro-life people calling pro-choice people baby killers and pro-choice people saying pro-life people hate women. I'm only pointing out that it's not "massively condescending, as well as a bit snarky with just a hint of deliberate ignorance" to call someone who was irresponsible, irresponsible. You're taking statistics and using them to justify making an accusation towards a group of people whom you have never even met. You are calling somebody irresponsible without even knowing the details of what they did. You are passing a judgment on somebody who has never told you their story. The most you know is that they had sex, probably vaginal, and got pregnant. I'm not even sure how to approach this. What the hell is the point of social statistics, the census, political polling, literally anything dealing with people on a large scale? I also addressed the idea you're getting at in my second to last paragraph. "If you're not willing to properly use birth control or find out how to properly use it to prevent a conception, but are willing to use an abortion after a conception--is that not retroactive birth control?" Conceptions from issues other than a failure of birth control (outside of that less than 10% category) are the result of irresponsibility in some matter. Everyone is irresponsible in some way, this just happens to be a much more serious matter to be irresponsible in.
Using birth control properly 100% of the time is easier to talk about than it is to do, and it only takes one slip-up. Everyone has had at least one scare in their life. I consider myself extremely responsible with regards to birth control (borderline paranoid) and I have had several. In addition, our sexual health education in this country is laughably poor. So to put it another way, I was well-educated about the matter and I have had several scares. Imagine having never had a sex-ed class in your life where they told you anything but "abstinence is the only 100% effective method."
Doing something is ALWAYS harder than saying to do it, no exceptions. The fact that you've had scares is 100% irrelevant because a scare is not a conception. There's a reason there's several levels of protection, it massivly reduces the number of scares that turn out to be real. Fact is if someone's not willing to put in the effort to practice safe sex then they're irresponsible and maybe should remember that it is a fact that abstinence is a 100% effective method to prevent pregnancy and stick to oral sex or something (well, aside from really strange freak incidents that are so negligible it is 100%).
This matter is more complicated than birth control failure rates. This is a human problem, and we have to address it as one. Calling somebody whom you have never met irresponsible is condescending, and it is presumptuous, and defending it is snarky and deliberately ignorant. I said you were nit picking and you VICIOUSLY attacked me without knowing where I was coming from, my life story, etc. Calling someone you've never met condescending, presumptuous, snarky and deliberately ignorant is condescending, and it is presumptuous, and defending it is snarky and deliberately ignorant.
You can have the last word if you want, this is enough of a derail; I won't be responding.
|
In other news, the scuttlebutt is that Obama is about to dump Biden and take Hillary as his VP instead. I think it goes without saying that this would be a good move pretty much any way you cut it. Biden is an idiot, and I don't think that anyone would rather have him than Hillary running the country if something happened to Obama.
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 17 2012 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 18:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 16 2012 12:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 12:11 Whitewing wrote:On August 16 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Ryan is anti-abortion. Got it.
No need to exaggerate beyond that.
Edit: no federal funding does not mean that Planned Parenthood goes away. Where am I exaggerating? I am saying that if a woman is faced with death, its from incest, or its from rape, she still should not have an abortion. All of that is cited. I don't think there is any need to exaggerate. As for planned parenthood, I think its safe to say that eliminating the funding for planned parenthood would at the very least severely cripple it and what it does. Planned parenthood is a good thing in the eyes of everyone except the far right. The junk posted from Ultra Violet is basically trying to paint him as anti-women. That's an exaggeration. As for Planned Parenthood I think its safe to say that federal funding could be redirected to other healthcare centers. Planned Parenthood isn't, by any remotely rational line of thinking, a necessary institution. So you're saying that being against an abortion in the case of it saving the pregnant woman's life...Is not anti-women? Can you elaborate on how that's not ridiculous? I'm not going to have an abortion debate with you. In Ryan's opinion the unborn child has just as much a right to life as the mother. So, if Ryan is anti-women then Obama anti-infant. You have an opinion about abortion. Ryan has a different opinion. There's nothing to debate or discuss beyond "my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong" so lets not. Um, if they both have an equal right to life, that makes either decision completely equal in value and result, so neither decision is worse than the other, and there wouldn't be a value reason to abort or not to abort. Thus, there'd be no reason to ban it. Being anti-abortion in the case of a woman's life being at risk is valuing the life of the child OVER the life of a woman, not equally. Ryan values a fetus over the potential mother, he does not value them equally. "At risk" isn't a 100% certainty of death. There's also a difference between actively ending a life and failing to save a life. Nothing is ever 100% certain. So, what's your point? He's point was that you're statement that "Ryan's opinion [is that] the unborn child has just as much a right to life as the mother" is a misrepresentation of Ryan's view. Ryan's view is actually that the unborn child's right to life is greater than the mother's. In the end, the abortion debate is one about opinions and views or who's rights matter more. Pretty sure abortion has a 100% certainty that the little fella inside the mother will die. So if option A has a 100% certainty of a death and option B has a less than 100% certainty of a death then you should choose option B since it is less likely to result in death. So there's nothing logically inconsistent with saying that the two lives in question are equal and so abortion should be illegal.
What you've just done is said both are alive and therefore both are equal and therefore death for both is equally bad. Your conclusion was in no way justified by the argument you made. You are using the premise that value is a binary unit based upon whether something is alive or not and therefore a bundle of inanimate parasitic cells which are technically alive for as long as they are fed by another gets a value of 1 whereas a living independent working, thinking human also gets a value of 1. You have not made any argument for that system of valuation, you have simply slipped it in beneath your conclusion and hoped that nobody would notice.
|
On August 17 2012 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
In other news, the scuttlebutt is that Obama is about to dump Biden and take Hillary as his VP instead. I think it goes without saying that this would be a good move pretty much any way you cut it. Biden is an idiot, and I don't think that anyone would rather have him than Hillary running the country if something happened to Obama.
hmmm, i would love this if it were to happen. where are you hearing whisperings?
my family was a hillary supporter in 2008, and i really didn't understand Biden's selection for VP at the time. he is pretty dumb
|
On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 18:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 16 2012 12:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 12:11 Whitewing wrote:On August 16 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Ryan is anti-abortion. Got it.
No need to exaggerate beyond that.
Edit: no federal funding does not mean that Planned Parenthood goes away. Where am I exaggerating? I am saying that if a woman is faced with death, its from incest, or its from rape, she still should not have an abortion. All of that is cited. I don't think there is any need to exaggerate. As for planned parenthood, I think its safe to say that eliminating the funding for planned parenthood would at the very least severely cripple it and what it does. Planned parenthood is a good thing in the eyes of everyone except the far right. The junk posted from Ultra Violet is basically trying to paint him as anti-women. That's an exaggeration. As for Planned Parenthood I think its safe to say that federal funding could be redirected to other healthcare centers. Planned Parenthood isn't, by any remotely rational line of thinking, a necessary institution. So you're saying that being against an abortion in the case of it saving the pregnant woman's life...Is not anti-women? Can you elaborate on how that's not ridiculous? I'm not going to have an abortion debate with you. In Ryan's opinion the unborn child has just as much a right to life as the mother. So, if Ryan is anti-women then Obama anti-infant. You have an opinion about abortion. Ryan has a different opinion. There's nothing to debate or discuss beyond "my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong" so lets not. Um, if they both have an equal right to life, that makes either decision completely equal in value and result, so neither decision is worse than the other, and there wouldn't be a value reason to abort or not to abort. Thus, there'd be no reason to ban it. Being anti-abortion in the case of a woman's life being at risk is valuing the life of the child OVER the life of a woman, not equally. Ryan values a fetus over the potential mother, he does not value them equally. "At risk" isn't a 100% certainty of death. There's also a difference between actively ending a life and failing to save a life. Nothing is ever 100% certain. So, what's your point? He's point was that you're statement that "Ryan's opinion [is that] the unborn child has just as much a right to life as the mother" is a misrepresentation of Ryan's view. Ryan's view is actually that the unborn child's right to life is greater than the mother's. In the end, the abortion debate is one about opinions and views or who's rights matter more. Pretty sure abortion has a 100% certainty that the little fella inside the mother will die. So if option A has a 100% certainty of a death and option B has a less than 100% certainty of a death then you should choose option B since it is less likely to result in death. So there's nothing logically inconsistent with saying that the two lives in question are equal and so abortion should be illegal. What you've just done is said both are alive and therefore both are equal and therefore death for both is equally bad. Your conclusion was in no way justified by the argument you made. You are using the premise that value is a binary unit based upon whether something is alive or not and therefore a bundle of inanimate parasitic cells which are technically alive for as long as they are fed by another gets a value of 1 whereas a living independent working, thinking human also gets a value of 1. You have not made any argument for that system of valuation, you have simply slipped it in beneath your conclusion and hoped that nobody would notice.
No, I'm responding to the idea that making abortion illegal is anti-women.
My argument is that IF you consider both lives equal (which I assume Mr. Ryan does) then it is perfectly logical to be 100% anti-abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
