|
|
On August 17 2012 02:32 Budmandude wrote: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.
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%).
The point of statistics is absolutely not to pass judgment on a group of people, and the reason it is problematic to attempt to do so is that much of the pro-choice/pro-life debate has been centered around judgment of the women who choose to obtain an abortion. The phrase "if you're not willing to properly use birth control" is what I took issue with - being willing to use birth control properly and being successful in doing so 100% of the time are two very different things.
You're basically saying that if somebody makes a mistake, one time, and gets pregnant, then they got what they had coming because they are clearly irresponsible people. I don't think you understand how stupidly easy it is to make that one mistake.
I'm sorry if I came off as offensive, but you have to understand how condescending you yourself sound. You're passing judgment on people you've never met. All I'm saying is that what you said was condescending - that is not passing judgment on you as a person. That's not even close to vicious.
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 17 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
You're again trying to slide flawed assumptions into your argument without justifying them. This time the assumption is that it's not anti-woman to consider the lives of women to be equal in value to bundles of parasitic inanimate and unthinking cells. Say a guy was treating black people like shit and I said it was because he was racist and you said it wasn't racist as long as he's doing it because he thinks that all black people are lazy, violent and stupid. While he may have a reason which justifies it beyond arbitrary racism that reason is itself racist. Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point.
|
On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're again trying to slide flawed assumptions into your argument without justifying them. This time the assumption is that it's not anti-woman to consider the lives of women to be equal in value to bundles of parasitic inanimate and unthinking cells. Say a guy was treating black people like shit and I said it was because he was racist and you said it wasn't racist as long as he's doing it because he thinks that all black people are lazy, violent and stupid. While he may have a reason which justifies it beyond arbitrary racism that reason is itself racist. Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point.
I think I found where the disconnect is.
|
On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:
Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point.
The problem with this is where do you draw the line to define when this parasitic tumor has rights that they can exercise (or have others exercise it on their behalf)?
To put it tongue in cheek, when and why does a parasitic tumor get the power to decide she doesn't want a parasitic tumor?
|
On August 17 2012 03:12 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:
Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point. The problem with this is where do you draw the line to define when this parasitic tumor has rights that they can exercise (or have others exercise it on their behalf)? To put it tongue in cheek, when and why does a parasitic tumor get the power to decide she doesn't want a parasitic tumor?
Why in the world would you use his crass, dehumanizing terminology when you're making an argument that it should have rights?
|
On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're again trying to slide flawed assumptions into your argument without justifying them. This time the assumption is that it's not anti-woman to consider the lives of women to be equal in value to bundles of parasitic inanimate and unthinking cells. Say a guy was treating black people like shit and I said it was because he was racist and you said it wasn't racist as long as he's doing it because he thinks that all black people are lazy, violent and stupid. While he may have a reason which justifies it beyond arbitrary racism that reason is itself racist. Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point.
It's not a 'flawed assumption' it's an opinion. Whether or not an unborn child is a life with equal value is absolutely not a *fact* in any way shape or form.
And really your example sucks. 'It is racist to consider blacks inferior therefore it is OK to consider unborn children inferior.'
|
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.
I don't think he'll switch. It would make him look way too weak. Clinton is better, IMO, but I am not sure the ends justify the means.
|
On August 17 2012 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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. I don't think he'll switch. It would make him look way too weak. Clinton is better, IMO, but I am not sure the ends justify the means.
I agree with you. However, I do think that adding Clinton to the ticket would help energize a fairly dormant base. I tend to think that Hillary probably doesn't want the job, but who knows.
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 17 2012 03:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're again trying to slide flawed assumptions into your argument without justifying them. This time the assumption is that it's not anti-woman to consider the lives of women to be equal in value to bundles of parasitic inanimate and unthinking cells. Say a guy was treating black people like shit and I said it was because he was racist and you said it wasn't racist as long as he's doing it because he thinks that all black people are lazy, violent and stupid. While he may have a reason which justifies it beyond arbitrary racism that reason is itself racist. Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point. I think I found where the disconnect is.
The real disconnect is that the abortion debate consists primarily of old men telling women where their priorities should be without any experience in the subject. When someone draws a line that prevents themselves from ever having to martyr themselves but demands others make sacrifices that should be challenged. Currently the line argued by pro-life men regarding potential life is that the moment the sperm gets inside the woman then absolute value is achieved and that women should be compelled to put that potential life ahead of what they want. If a bunch of women turned around and said that the moment sperm was expelled (in any way) then potential life was on the cards (because that genetic material could under the right conditions form part of a human) then men should be legally obliged to make huge personal sacrifices then that'd be just as fair. And before you condemn that idea as absurd, it's in the Bible, spilling your seed is a sin, it's just men make the rules and men draw the lines and we like jacking off too much to hold to that line.
Any system based around one privileged group forcing another group to make sacrifices to avoid hurting the sensibilities of the privileged who will never be obliged to make that sacrifice is fucked up.
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 17 2012 03:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're again trying to slide flawed assumptions into your argument without justifying them. This time the assumption is that it's not anti-woman to consider the lives of women to be equal in value to bundles of parasitic inanimate and unthinking cells. Say a guy was treating black people like shit and I said it was because he was racist and you said it wasn't racist as long as he's doing it because he thinks that all black people are lazy, violent and stupid. While he may have a reason which justifies it beyond arbitrary racism that reason is itself racist. Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point. It's not a 'flawed assumption' it's an opinion. Whether or not an unborn child is a life with equal value is absolutely not a *fact* in any way shape or form. And really your example sucks. 'It is racist to consider blacks inferior therefore it is OK to consider unborn children inferior.'
You completely missed the point. I said it was sexist. You said it wasn't sexist, it was rational based upon the following sexist assumptions. I said that the assumptions were sexist and therefore the conclusion was sexist and explained it using a parallel with racism. Please read what I wrote again. Nowhere did I say that because blacks aren't inferior abortion is okay, that's the kind of random conclusion I keep asking you not to make.
I'll run it by you again.
Saying "I don't think blacks are inferior for racist reasons, it's my logical conclusion that they're inferior because they're all worse because *bunch of racist cliches*" is the same as saying "I don't oppose abortion because I am sexist, it's my logical conclusion based upon my opinion that a women's wishes are less valuable than a bunch of inanimate parasitic cells".
The assumption itself is sexist so the conclusion is sexist.
|
On August 17 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're again trying to slide flawed assumptions into your argument without justifying them. This time the assumption is that it's not anti-woman to consider the lives of women to be equal in value to bundles of parasitic inanimate and unthinking cells. Say a guy was treating black people like shit and I said it was because he was racist and you said it wasn't racist as long as he's doing it because he thinks that all black people are lazy, violent and stupid. While he may have a reason which justifies it beyond arbitrary racism that reason is itself racist. Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point. I think I found where the disconnect is. The real disconnect is that the abortion debate consists primarily of old men telling women where their priorities should be without any experience in the subject. When someone draws a line that prevents themselves from ever having to martyr themselves but demands others make sacrifices that should be challenged. Currently the line argued by pro-life men regarding potential life is that the moment the sperm gets inside the woman then absolute value is achieved and that women should be compelled to put that potential life ahead of what they want. If a bunch of women turned around and said that the moment sperm was expelled (in any way) then potential life was on the cards (because that genetic material could under the right conditions form part of a human) then men should be legally obliged to make huge personal sacrifices then that'd be just as fair. And before you condemn that idea as absurd, it's in the Bible, spilling your seed is a sin, it's just men make the rules and men draw the lines and we like jacking off too much to hold to that line. Any system based around one privileged group forcing another group to make sacrifices to avoid hurting the sensibilities of the privileged who will never be obliged to make that sacrifice is fucked up.
I understand exactly what the arguments are. I was merely highlighting the use of your dehumanizing terminology that glosses over what abortion really is.
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 17 2012 03:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're again trying to slide flawed assumptions into your argument without justifying them. This time the assumption is that it's not anti-woman to consider the lives of women to be equal in value to bundles of parasitic inanimate and unthinking cells. Say a guy was treating black people like shit and I said it was because he was racist and you said it wasn't racist as long as he's doing it because he thinks that all black people are lazy, violent and stupid. While he may have a reason which justifies it beyond arbitrary racism that reason is itself racist. Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point. I think I found where the disconnect is. The real disconnect is that the abortion debate consists primarily of old men telling women where their priorities should be without any experience in the subject. When someone draws a line that prevents themselves from ever having to martyr themselves but demands others make sacrifices that should be challenged. Currently the line argued by pro-life men regarding potential life is that the moment the sperm gets inside the woman then absolute value is achieved and that women should be compelled to put that potential life ahead of what they want. If a bunch of women turned around and said that the moment sperm was expelled (in any way) then potential life was on the cards (because that genetic material could under the right conditions form part of a human) then men should be legally obliged to make huge personal sacrifices then that'd be just as fair. And before you condemn that idea as absurd, it's in the Bible, spilling your seed is a sin, it's just men make the rules and men draw the lines and we like jacking off too much to hold to that line. Any system based around one privileged group forcing another group to make sacrifices to avoid hurting the sensibilities of the privileged who will never be obliged to make that sacrifice is fucked up. I understand exactly what the arguments are. I was merely highlighting the use of your dehumanizing terminology that glosses over what abortion really is.
I've never been convinced by the idea that human genetic material is sacred. It's the value that we place on it that matters. Abortion is horrible because of the value that mothers (yes, even mothers who get abortions) place on their unborn offspring that makes it a traumatic experience. The fact that some cells don't get to be a person today doesn't concern me in the slightest. When you think of all the possible combinations of all the potential sperm and eggs it's mindboggling, there are billions of people, each with billions of different genetic combinations to offer, the idea that potential life is somehow special is baffling to me. It's the value that living, thinking people put on inanimate things that gives them value, cells are just little biological machines carrying out their instructions.
|
Hit em again, kwark! Hit em again!!
I think I'm in love. No, I can't do it, kwark's a moderator for god's sake. It would never happen. But a man can dream...
|
On August 17 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're again trying to slide flawed assumptions into your argument without justifying them. This time the assumption is that it's not anti-woman to consider the lives of women to be equal in value to bundles of parasitic inanimate and unthinking cells. Say a guy was treating black people like shit and I said it was because he was racist and you said it wasn't racist as long as he's doing it because he thinks that all black people are lazy, violent and stupid. While he may have a reason which justifies it beyond arbitrary racism that reason is itself racist. Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point. It's not a 'flawed assumption' it's an opinion. Whether or not an unborn child is a life with equal value is absolutely not a *fact* in any way shape or form. And really your example sucks. 'It is racist to consider blacks inferior therefore it is OK to consider unborn children inferior.' You completely missed the point. I said it was sexist. You said it wasn't sexist, it was rational based upon the following sexist assumptions. I said that the assumptions were sexist and therefore the conclusion was sexist and explained it using a parallel with racism. Please read what I wrote again. Nowhere did I say that because blacks aren't inferior abortion is okay, that's the kind of random conclusion I keep asking you not to make. I'll run it by you again. Saying "I don't think blacks are inferior for racist reasons, it's my logical conclusion that they're inferior because they're all worse because *bunch of racist cliches*" is the same as saying "I don't oppose abortion because I am sexist, it's my logical conclusion based upon my opinion that a women's wishes are less valuable than a bunch of inanimate parasitic cells". The assumption itself is sexist so the conclusion is sexist.
No, your logic sucks. The value of a woman's wishes is not being brought down, the value of the "inanimate parasitic cells" is being brought up to the level of both men and women. Therefore, it is not sexist.
Let me say it again. There is nothing sexist with treating an unborn child the same as both men and women.
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 17 2012 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're again trying to slide flawed assumptions into your argument without justifying them. This time the assumption is that it's not anti-woman to consider the lives of women to be equal in value to bundles of parasitic inanimate and unthinking cells. Say a guy was treating black people like shit and I said it was because he was racist and you said it wasn't racist as long as he's doing it because he thinks that all black people are lazy, violent and stupid. While he may have a reason which justifies it beyond arbitrary racism that reason is itself racist. Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point. It's not a 'flawed assumption' it's an opinion. Whether or not an unborn child is a life with equal value is absolutely not a *fact* in any way shape or form. And really your example sucks. 'It is racist to consider blacks inferior therefore it is OK to consider unborn children inferior.' You completely missed the point. I said it was sexist. You said it wasn't sexist, it was rational based upon the following sexist assumptions. I said that the assumptions were sexist and therefore the conclusion was sexist and explained it using a parallel with racism. Please read what I wrote again. Nowhere did I say that because blacks aren't inferior abortion is okay, that's the kind of random conclusion I keep asking you not to make. I'll run it by you again. Saying "I don't think blacks are inferior for racist reasons, it's my logical conclusion that they're inferior because they're all worse because *bunch of racist cliches*" is the same as saying "I don't oppose abortion because I am sexist, it's my logical conclusion based upon my opinion that a women's wishes are less valuable than a bunch of inanimate parasitic cells". The assumption itself is sexist so the conclusion is sexist. No, your logic sucks. The value of a woman's wishes is not being brought down, the value of the "inanimate parasitic cells" is being brought up to the level of both men and women. Therefore, it is not sexist. Let me say it again. There is nothing sexist with treating an unborn child the same as both men and women.
And this is where it becomes the privileged group demanding that the other group martyr themselves for a cause that they will never have to suffer for. Mighty convenient that we drew the line at conception, right where the male obligation ends. We get to orgasm all we want and they get obligations but it's not sexist at all because it's just where the line happens to be, it's not our fault that we're all equal but only women actually have to suffer for it.
You can't draw a line that says woman have to martyr themselves and men don't and then go "that's just where the line is, sorry, it's just one of those things, I'm not sexist though".
There is absolutely no biblical justification for conception being sacred, what the bible does say (Genesis 38 -10) is that sperm is sacred. The idea that it was the moment that the woman's obligation to the foetus that it became sacred comes from the same middle ages church that brought you marital rape, divorce being a sin and the rest of it. The ignorant product of an ignorant age which we try our best to move past and forget.
|
On August 17 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 18:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 16 2012 12:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
"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. You're again trying to slide flawed assumptions into your argument without justifying them. This time the assumption is that it's not anti-woman to consider the lives of women to be equal in value to bundles of parasitic inanimate and unthinking cells. Say a guy was treating black people like shit and I said it was because he was racist and you said it wasn't racist as long as he's doing it because he thinks that all black people are lazy, violent and stupid. While he may have a reason which justifies it beyond arbitrary racism that reason is itself racist. Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point. I think I found where the disconnect is. The real disconnect is that the abortion debate consists primarily of old men telling women where their priorities should be without any experience in the subject. When someone draws a line that prevents themselves from ever having to martyr themselves but demands others make sacrifices that should be challenged. Currently the line argued by pro-life men regarding potential life is that the moment the sperm gets inside the woman then absolute value is achieved and that women should be compelled to put that potential life ahead of what they want. If a bunch of women turned around and said that the moment sperm was expelled (in any way) then potential life was on the cards (because that genetic material could under the right conditions form part of a human) then men should be legally obliged to make huge personal sacrifices then that'd be just as fair. And before you condemn that idea as absurd, it's in the Bible, spilling your seed is a sin, it's just men make the rules and men draw the lines and we like jacking off too much to hold to that line. Any system based around one privileged group forcing another group to make sacrifices to avoid hurting the sensibilities of the privileged who will never be obliged to make that sacrifice is fucked up. I understand exactly what the arguments are. I was merely highlighting the use of your dehumanizing terminology that glosses over what abortion really is. I've never been convinced by the idea that human genetic material is sacred. It's the value that we place on it that matters. Abortion is horrible because of the value that mothers (yes, even mothers who get abortions) place on their unborn offspring that makes it a traumatic experience. The fact that some cells don't get to be a person today doesn't concern me in the slightest. When you think of all the possible combinations of all the potential sperm and eggs it's mindboggling, there are billions of people, each with billions of different genetic combinations to offer, the idea that potential life is somehow special is baffling to me. It's the value that living, thinking people put on inanimate things that gives them value, cells are just little biological machines carrying out their instructions.
And that's the bottom line and the "disconnect" that I referenced earlier. Many people consider a fetus to be more than a "parasitic tumor." In fact, I'm guessing that most do. Think about it this way. Do you think Obama or any other pro-choice politician would give a stump speech in support of abortion rights and publicly devalue a fetus by calling it a parasitic tumor or something similar? I think the answer is "probably not."
Just out of curiosity, are you a parent?
|
I think this line of debate deserves it's own thread. You guys have gone far off Romney v Obama.
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 17 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 18:52 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
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. You're again trying to slide flawed assumptions into your argument without justifying them. This time the assumption is that it's not anti-woman to consider the lives of women to be equal in value to bundles of parasitic inanimate and unthinking cells. Say a guy was treating black people like shit and I said it was because he was racist and you said it wasn't racist as long as he's doing it because he thinks that all black people are lazy, violent and stupid. While he may have a reason which justifies it beyond arbitrary racism that reason is itself racist. Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point. I think I found where the disconnect is. The real disconnect is that the abortion debate consists primarily of old men telling women where their priorities should be without any experience in the subject. When someone draws a line that prevents themselves from ever having to martyr themselves but demands others make sacrifices that should be challenged. Currently the line argued by pro-life men regarding potential life is that the moment the sperm gets inside the woman then absolute value is achieved and that women should be compelled to put that potential life ahead of what they want. If a bunch of women turned around and said that the moment sperm was expelled (in any way) then potential life was on the cards (because that genetic material could under the right conditions form part of a human) then men should be legally obliged to make huge personal sacrifices then that'd be just as fair. And before you condemn that idea as absurd, it's in the Bible, spilling your seed is a sin, it's just men make the rules and men draw the lines and we like jacking off too much to hold to that line. Any system based around one privileged group forcing another group to make sacrifices to avoid hurting the sensibilities of the privileged who will never be obliged to make that sacrifice is fucked up. I understand exactly what the arguments are. I was merely highlighting the use of your dehumanizing terminology that glosses over what abortion really is. I've never been convinced by the idea that human genetic material is sacred. It's the value that we place on it that matters. Abortion is horrible because of the value that mothers (yes, even mothers who get abortions) place on their unborn offspring that makes it a traumatic experience. The fact that some cells don't get to be a person today doesn't concern me in the slightest. When you think of all the possible combinations of all the potential sperm and eggs it's mindboggling, there are billions of people, each with billions of different genetic combinations to offer, the idea that potential life is somehow special is baffling to me. It's the value that living, thinking people put on inanimate things that gives them value, cells are just little biological machines carrying out their instructions. And that's the bottom line and the "disconnect" that I referenced earlier. Many people consider a fetus to be more than a "parasitic tumor." In fact, I'm guessing that most do. Think about it this way. Do you think Obama or any other pro-choice politician would give a stump speech in support of abortion rights and publicly devalue a fetus by calling it a parasitic tumor or something similar? I think the answer is "probably not." Just out of curiosity, are you a parent?
I am not, Obama wouldn't make that speech even if he agreed with me because politicians lie and Americans don't like their views to be confronted by their politicians.
Fortunately I'm not running for office and can therefore speak my mind. Regarding the parent thing, I would place tremendous value upon the potential cells that would become my child and they would have value because of that, it wouldn't be innate.
|
On August 17 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 18:52 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
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. You're again trying to slide flawed assumptions into your argument without justifying them. This time the assumption is that it's not anti-woman to consider the lives of women to be equal in value to bundles of parasitic inanimate and unthinking cells. Say a guy was treating black people like shit and I said it was because he was racist and you said it wasn't racist as long as he's doing it because he thinks that all black people are lazy, violent and stupid. While he may have a reason which justifies it beyond arbitrary racism that reason is itself racist. Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point. I think I found where the disconnect is. The real disconnect is that the abortion debate consists primarily of old men telling women where their priorities should be without any experience in the subject. When someone draws a line that prevents themselves from ever having to martyr themselves but demands others make sacrifices that should be challenged. Currently the line argued by pro-life men regarding potential life is that the moment the sperm gets inside the woman then absolute value is achieved and that women should be compelled to put that potential life ahead of what they want. If a bunch of women turned around and said that the moment sperm was expelled (in any way) then potential life was on the cards (because that genetic material could under the right conditions form part of a human) then men should be legally obliged to make huge personal sacrifices then that'd be just as fair. And before you condemn that idea as absurd, it's in the Bible, spilling your seed is a sin, it's just men make the rules and men draw the lines and we like jacking off too much to hold to that line. Any system based around one privileged group forcing another group to make sacrifices to avoid hurting the sensibilities of the privileged who will never be obliged to make that sacrifice is fucked up. I understand exactly what the arguments are. I was merely highlighting the use of your dehumanizing terminology that glosses over what abortion really is. I've never been convinced by the idea that human genetic material is sacred. It's the value that we place on it that matters. Abortion is horrible because of the value that mothers (yes, even mothers who get abortions) place on their unborn offspring that makes it a traumatic experience. The fact that some cells don't get to be a person today doesn't concern me in the slightest. When you think of all the possible combinations of all the potential sperm and eggs it's mindboggling, there are billions of people, each with billions of different genetic combinations to offer, the idea that potential life is somehow special is baffling to me. It's the value that living, thinking people put on inanimate things that gives them value, cells are just little biological machines carrying out their instructions. And that's the bottom line and the "disconnect" that I referenced earlier. Many people consider a fetus to be more than a "parasitic tumor." In fact, I'm guessing that most do. Think about it this way. Do you think Obama or any other pro-choice politician would give a stump speech in support of abortion rights and publicly devalue a fetus by calling it a parasitic tumor or something similar? I think the answer is "probably not." Just out of curiosity, are you a parent?
You're trying to answer his sound arguments with appeals to emotion over the use of a particular term that could easily be replaced and not change anything to his points.
|
On August 17 2012 03:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 03:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 02:45 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 18:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 16 2012 12:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
"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. You're again trying to slide flawed assumptions into your argument without justifying them. This time the assumption is that it's not anti-woman to consider the lives of women to be equal in value to bundles of parasitic inanimate and unthinking cells. Say a guy was treating black people like shit and I said it was because he was racist and you said it wasn't racist as long as he's doing it because he thinks that all black people are lazy, violent and stupid. While he may have a reason which justifies it beyond arbitrary racism that reason is itself racist. Saying it's not sexist to deny women the right to choose their own lives over that of a parasitic tumour growing inside them because they have equal value because you think women are worth the same as parasites misses the point. It's not a 'flawed assumption' it's an opinion. Whether or not an unborn child is a life with equal value is absolutely not a *fact* in any way shape or form. And really your example sucks. 'It is racist to consider blacks inferior therefore it is OK to consider unborn children inferior.' You completely missed the point. I said it was sexist. You said it wasn't sexist, it was rational based upon the following sexist assumptions. I said that the assumptions were sexist and therefore the conclusion was sexist and explained it using a parallel with racism. Please read what I wrote again. Nowhere did I say that because blacks aren't inferior abortion is okay, that's the kind of random conclusion I keep asking you not to make. I'll run it by you again. Saying "I don't think blacks are inferior for racist reasons, it's my logical conclusion that they're inferior because they're all worse because *bunch of racist cliches*" is the same as saying "I don't oppose abortion because I am sexist, it's my logical conclusion based upon my opinion that a women's wishes are less valuable than a bunch of inanimate parasitic cells". The assumption itself is sexist so the conclusion is sexist. No, your logic sucks. The value of a woman's wishes is not being brought down, the value of the "inanimate parasitic cells" is being brought up to the level of both men and women. Therefore, it is not sexist. Let me say it again. There is nothing sexist with treating an unborn child the same as both men and women. And this is where it becomes the privileged group demanding that the other group martyr themselves for a cause that they will never have to suffer for. Mighty convenient that we drew the line at conception, right where the male obligation ends. We get to orgasm all we want and they get obligations but it's not sexist at all because it's just where the line happens to be, it's not our fault that we're all equal but only women actually have to suffer for it. You can't draw a line that says woman have to martyr themselves and men don't and then go "that's just where the line is, sorry, it's just one of those things, I'm not sexist though".
Since when are men off the hook at conception? Are you telling me that I can knock up as many chicks as I want and walk away from all responsibility?
Moreover, women are not some oppressed minority that can't take care of themselves. They are free to express their opinion about abortion too and vote accordingly.
And lets not ignore that some issues affect men more than women and yet we should still allow women to voice their opinion on those topics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
