|
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 17 2012 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:43 KwarK wrote: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:
[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. 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?
Well, since you brought it up, please, go on. Tell me all about how the sacrifices you make for the unborn rival those that conservative America wishes to legally require women to make.
|
On August 17 2012 03:53 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
It's hard to avoid "emotion" when discussing something intangible like the value of life. There's a reason why we don't use strict utilitarian concerns when making policy.
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 17 2012 04:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:53 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It's hard to avoid "emotion" when discussing something intangible like the value of life. There's a reason why we don't use strict utilitarian concerns when making policy.
Is there any reason for involving emotional judgements about intangibles with policy at all? Especially when the result is an imposition upon personal freedom.
|
On August 17 2012 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:43 KwarK wrote: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:
[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. 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.
I can't speak for him but I believe he is saying that the potential for life is an arbitrary determiner. Your sperm and women's eggs have the potential for life. By using contraception you deny this potential (see the catholic church's position). In fact some take it so far as to say it is every person's obligation to take every step possible to procreate as much as possible.
What is convenient is that pro-life advocates, among a diversity of opinion, have chosen the easiest solution for men. What pro-choicers are looking for is a rationale behind decisions that are not based on feelings, beliefs or tradition. The first question to ask yourself is what makes a person a person (and thus deserving of rights)? Then you take your answer and see if the definition can be broadly applied without any pitfalls (of which there are many for the conception argument). Once you are satisfied you then decide when in a development that stage is reached and thus abortion cannot happen.
Even with this there will be a diversity of opinion but I can't imagine the distribution would skew too far from current standards.
|
On August 17 2012 04:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 03:43 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Well, since you brought it up, please, go on. Tell me all about how the sacrifices you make for the unborn rival those that conservative America wishes to legally require women to make.
You are going down a ridiculous line of thought. Just because one group of people suffers more from a given (or proposed) law has NEVER meant that only that group can have an opinion about it.
|
On August 17 2012 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:43 KwarK wrote: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:
[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. 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.
So would it not make sense to leave it out of politics altogether and let women make their own medical decisions?
You are forcing your decision on them. Minority, majority, whatever. It doesn't matter. Under this logic, we should let people make their own decisions.
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 17 2012 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 04:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 03:43 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Well, since you brought it up, please, go on. Tell me all about how the sacrifices you make for the unborn rival those that conservative America wishes to legally require women to make. You are going down a ridiculous line of thought. Just because one group of people suffers more from a given (or proposed) law has NEVER meant that only that group can have an opinion about it.
Does this evasion mean you no longer wish to argue that the line being drawn at conception doesn't in any way place a greater obligation on one gender than the other?
If I may recap to remind you how we got here so you might properly phrase your response rather than a weak attempt to dismiss the entire line.
I said that uneven obligations were placed on women.
You then claimed that men have obligations too (this didn't actually refute my argument that the obligations were uneven but you implied that it somehow would).
I then asked you to clarify what the male obligations that made abortion law not place an uneven burden on women were.
Am I correct in understanding that you no longer wish to argue that the male obligations to an unborn rival those that pro-lifers wish women to be legally obliged to do? If so, what is the relevance of "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?" in the face of my argument regarding uneven responsibility? If you no longer wish to argue the obligations are equal then please elaborate on why you decided to mention that men have some obligation in an isolated statement without any broader point. Which point were you trying to make?
|
On August 17 2012 04:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 04:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 03:53 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It's hard to avoid "emotion" when discussing something intangible like the value of life. There's a reason why we don't use strict utilitarian concerns when making policy. Is there any reason for involving emotional judgements about intangibles with policy at all? Especially when the result is an imposition upon personal freedom.
Sure, perhaps most of all in the context of foreign policy. What is going to stop the powerful nations from outright enslaving the weaker nations such as during colonialism? What is to compel the powerful nations from intervening to stop atrocities in other countries?
|
I paid more % tax than Romney last year. What a crock of shit.
|
It is nature which places a greater obligation on the mother than the father, first of all, but that's not too important either way.
xDaunt is right in the sense that "emotion" does have a lot to do with policy and law. Most of our laws are based on some loose conception of morality, which in turn is based almost entirely on the evolved empathetic emotions. Most of the arguments against things like murder, violence, eventually boil down to some kind of emotional appeal, empathetic appeal. The reason abortion is such a contentious issue is because the degree of felt empathy for an unborn fetus differs from person to person. Just like some people love to eat beef every day and some people feel too much guilt to have a little cow in their diet.
|
On August 17 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 03:43 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Well, since you brought it up, please, go on. Tell me all about how the sacrifices you make for the unborn rival those that conservative America wishes to legally require women to make. You are going down a ridiculous line of thought. Just because one group of people suffers more from a given (or proposed) law has NEVER meant that only that group can have an opinion about it. Does this evasion mean you no longer wish to argue that the line being drawn at conception doesn't in any way place a greater obligation on one gender than the other? If I may recap to remind you how we got here so you might properly phrase your response rather than a weak attempt to dismiss the entire line. I said that uneven obligations were placed on women. You then claimed that men have obligations too (this didn't actually refute my argument that the obligations were uneven but you implied that it somehow would). I then asked you to clarify what the male obligations that made abortion law not place an uneven burden on women were. Am I correct in understanding that you no longer wish to argue that the male obligations to an unborn rival those that pro-lifers wish women to be legally obliged to do? If so, what is the relevance of "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?" in the face of my argument regarding uneven responsibility? If you no longer wish to argue the obligations are equal then please elaborate on why you decided to mention that men have some obligation in an isolated statement without any broader point. Which point were you trying to make?
You said "right where the male obligation ends" implying that male obligation, well, ended. You did NOT state that obligations were unequal. You are now misrepresenting your original argument.
It is off-topic anyways. You were trying to explain why being pro-life is anit-women. Just because it impacts women more doesn't make it anti-women any more than advocating military action is anti-men. It is a completely wrong headed line of argument.
|
On August 17 2012 04:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:53 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It's hard to avoid "emotion" when discussing something intangible like the value of life. There's a reason why we don't use strict utilitarian concerns when making policy.
I was pointing out that your response to his arguments were an appeal to emotion. There's a difference between presenting arguments in the context of a discussion that touches on questions of morality and resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion.
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 17 2012 04:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 04:12 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 04:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 03:53 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It's hard to avoid "emotion" when discussing something intangible like the value of life. There's a reason why we don't use strict utilitarian concerns when making policy. Is there any reason for involving emotional judgements about intangibles with policy at all? Especially when the result is an imposition upon personal freedom. Sure, perhaps most of all in the context of foreign policy. What is going to stop the powerful nations from outright enslaving the weaker nations such as during colonialism? What is to compel the powerful nations from intervening to stop atrocities in other countries?
There you make a fair point but those are examples in which the freedom of some people is being imposed upon by the freedom of others and the "morally correct" judgement in both cases is the preservation of liberty. Abortion is a domestic issue in which women want freedom over their own bodies rather than obligation to an intangible sense of value which they do not share. It does not involve anyone else, there is no imposition.
|
On August 17 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 03:43 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Well, since you brought it up, please, go on. Tell me all about how the sacrifices you make for the unborn rival those that conservative America wishes to legally require women to make. You are going down a ridiculous line of thought. Just because one group of people suffers more from a given (or proposed) law has NEVER meant that only that group can have an opinion about it. Does this evasion mean you no longer wish to argue that the line being drawn at conception doesn't in any way place a greater obligation on one gender than the other? If I may recap to remind you how we got here so you might properly phrase your response rather than a weak attempt to dismiss the entire line. I said that uneven obligations were placed on women. You then claimed that men have obligations too (this didn't actually refute my argument that the obligations were uneven but you implied that it somehow would). I then asked you to clarify what the male obligations that made abortion law not place an uneven burden on women were. Am I correct in understanding that you no longer wish to argue that the male obligations to an unborn rival those that pro-lifers wish women to be legally obliged to do? If so, what is the relevance of "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?" in the face of my argument regarding uneven responsibility? If you no longer wish to argue the obligations are equal then please elaborate on why you decided to mention that men have some obligation in an isolated statement without any broader point. Which point were you trying to make? You said "right where the male obligation ends" implying that male obligation, well, ended. You did NOT state that obligations were unequal. You are now misrepresenting your original argument. It is off-topic anyways. You were trying to explain why being pro-life is anit-women. Just because it impacts women more doesn't make it anti-women any more than advocating military action is anti-men. It is a completely wrong headed line of argument.
Whose Supreme Court-sanctioned rights are pro-life people trying to impact? Women's.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
This debate is sickening. I'm a pro-choice advocate but I recognize the potential of life the very moment the egg is fertilized. However, "irresponsibility" is not a credible reason for someone to carry to full term another human being who lives inside them for nine months and drastically alters their life in every way imaginable. Just because I get into a car and know the risks does NOT mean I concede to being slammed into by another vehicle nor is it my fault. Just because a girl walks alone at night in the park does NOT mean she agrees to getting raped nor is it her fault.
You talk about risk this risk that and throw the word around like a rag doll. It is easy for us, those who are privileged enough to not have to give birth and live (I would think) at least relatively comfortable lives, to accuse a woman's choice when another life is at stake. But it is absolutely ridiculous that because of a single mistake or accident you find it reasonable to condemn her to possibly one of the most life-altering punishments in existence. It is this mentality of forcing people to shoulder for their entire lives a common mistake that leads to a society where the unfortunate are tossed to the curb, their children abandoned, and where an endless cycle of poverty, crime and hate run rampant.
I'm not even going to address the extreme circumstances of rape, incest, life endangerment, etc. First we must realize that being aware of risk is not a sufficient enough reason to deny a woman her choice in the matter... and yes, it is HER choice, because it is HER situation, and because she knows herself better than any politician getting up behind a podium who says otherwise.
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 17 2012 04:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:
It is nature which places a greater obligation on the mother than the father, first of all, but that's not too important either way.
xDaunt is right in the sense that "emotion" does have a lot to do with policy and law. Most of our laws are based on some loose conception of morality, which in turn is based almost entirely on the evolved empathetic emotions. Most of the arguments against things like murder, violence, eventually boil down to some kind of emotional appeal, empathetic appeal. The reason abortion is such a contentious issue is because the degree of felt empathy for an unborn fetus differs from person to person. Just like some people love to eat beef every day and some people feel too much guilt to have a little cow in their diet.
I thought murder was wrong because an individual does not have the right to kill another. That my rights ended where the rights of others started. My ethical system is pretty entrenched in personal liberty in that regard, murder doesn't get more wrong the more squeamish people get.
|
On August 17 2012 04:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 03:43 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
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? Well, since you brought it up, please, go on. Tell me all about how the sacrifices you make for the unborn rival those that conservative America wishes to legally require women to make. You are going down a ridiculous line of thought. Just because one group of people suffers more from a given (or proposed) law has NEVER meant that only that group can have an opinion about it. Does this evasion mean you no longer wish to argue that the line being drawn at conception doesn't in any way place a greater obligation on one gender than the other? If I may recap to remind you how we got here so you might properly phrase your response rather than a weak attempt to dismiss the entire line. I said that uneven obligations were placed on women. You then claimed that men have obligations too (this didn't actually refute my argument that the obligations were uneven but you implied that it somehow would). I then asked you to clarify what the male obligations that made abortion law not place an uneven burden on women were. Am I correct in understanding that you no longer wish to argue that the male obligations to an unborn rival those that pro-lifers wish women to be legally obliged to do? If so, what is the relevance of "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?" in the face of my argument regarding uneven responsibility? If you no longer wish to argue the obligations are equal then please elaborate on why you decided to mention that men have some obligation in an isolated statement without any broader point. Which point were you trying to make? You said "right where the male obligation ends" implying that male obligation, well, ended. You did NOT state that obligations were unequal. You are now misrepresenting your original argument. It is off-topic anyways. You were trying to explain why being pro-life is anit-women. Just because it impacts women more doesn't make it anti-women any more than advocating military action is anti-men. It is a completely wrong headed line of argument. Whose Supreme Court-sanctioned rights are pro-life people trying to impact? Women's.
Men have a constitutional right to an opinion that you are trying to squelch. So you are anti-men. You sexist bastard.
|
On August 17 2012 04:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 04:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:
It is nature which places a greater obligation on the mother than the father, first of all, but that's not too important either way.
xDaunt is right in the sense that "emotion" does have a lot to do with policy and law. Most of our laws are based on some loose conception of morality, which in turn is based almost entirely on the evolved empathetic emotions. Most of the arguments against things like murder, violence, eventually boil down to some kind of emotional appeal, empathetic appeal. The reason abortion is such a contentious issue is because the degree of felt empathy for an unborn fetus differs from person to person. Just like some people love to eat beef every day and some people feel too much guilt to have a little cow in their diet. I thought murder was wrong because an individual does not have the right to kill another. That my rights ended where the rights of others started. My ethical system is pretty entrenched in personal liberty in that regard, murder doesn't get more wrong the more squeamish people get.
You are making arbitrary statements... "Does not have the right" is completely arbitrary. You could have some complex philosophical system to try and justify it, but those systems eventually end up appealing to evolved empathetic emotions. In fact, you cannot have ANY system that places value, that calls one thing "good" and another "bad" without ultimately relying on subjective emotions and inclinations.
Obviously killing DOES get less wrong the less squeamish people get... It isn't illegal to kill a mosquito, because people don't care. It is legal to put down a dog in some cases and illegal to harm a dog in others... it all comes down to squeamishness, abortion is a perfect example of that.
|
On August 17 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 04:32 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 03:43 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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? Well, since you brought it up, please, go on. Tell me all about how the sacrifices you make for the unborn rival those that conservative America wishes to legally require women to make. You are going down a ridiculous line of thought. Just because one group of people suffers more from a given (or proposed) law has NEVER meant that only that group can have an opinion about it. Does this evasion mean you no longer wish to argue that the line being drawn at conception doesn't in any way place a greater obligation on one gender than the other? If I may recap to remind you how we got here so you might properly phrase your response rather than a weak attempt to dismiss the entire line. I said that uneven obligations were placed on women. You then claimed that men have obligations too (this didn't actually refute my argument that the obligations were uneven but you implied that it somehow would). I then asked you to clarify what the male obligations that made abortion law not place an uneven burden on women were. Am I correct in understanding that you no longer wish to argue that the male obligations to an unborn rival those that pro-lifers wish women to be legally obliged to do? If so, what is the relevance of "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?" in the face of my argument regarding uneven responsibility? If you no longer wish to argue the obligations are equal then please elaborate on why you decided to mention that men have some obligation in an isolated statement without any broader point. Which point were you trying to make? You said "right where the male obligation ends" implying that male obligation, well, ended. You did NOT state that obligations were unequal. You are now misrepresenting your original argument. It is off-topic anyways. You were trying to explain why being pro-life is anit-women. Just because it impacts women more doesn't make it anti-women any more than advocating military action is anti-men. It is a completely wrong headed line of argument. Whose Supreme Court-sanctioned rights are pro-life people trying to impact? Women's. Men have a constitutional right to an opinion that you are trying to squelch. So you are anti-men. You sexist bastard.
An opinion does not mean you get the legal right to tell someone what they can do with their body...
|
United States41971 Posts
On August 17 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:04 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 03:43 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Well, since you brought it up, please, go on. Tell me all about how the sacrifices you make for the unborn rival those that conservative America wishes to legally require women to make. You are going down a ridiculous line of thought. Just because one group of people suffers more from a given (or proposed) law has NEVER meant that only that group can have an opinion about it. Does this evasion mean you no longer wish to argue that the line being drawn at conception doesn't in any way place a greater obligation on one gender than the other? If I may recap to remind you how we got here so you might properly phrase your response rather than a weak attempt to dismiss the entire line. I said that uneven obligations were placed on women. You then claimed that men have obligations too (this didn't actually refute my argument that the obligations were uneven but you implied that it somehow would). I then asked you to clarify what the male obligations that made abortion law not place an uneven burden on women were. Am I correct in understanding that you no longer wish to argue that the male obligations to an unborn rival those that pro-lifers wish women to be legally obliged to do? If so, what is the relevance of "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?" in the face of my argument regarding uneven responsibility? If you no longer wish to argue the obligations are equal then please elaborate on why you decided to mention that men have some obligation in an isolated statement without any broader point. Which point were you trying to make? You said "right where the male obligation ends" implying that male obligation, well, ended. You did NOT state that obligations were unequal. You are now misrepresenting your original argument. It is off-topic anyways. You were trying to explain why being pro-life is anit-women. Just because it impacts women more doesn't make it anti-women any more than advocating military action is anti-men. It is a completely wrong headed line of argument.
If a matriarchal society were to come up with a ball service which required all people of both genders who had a number of testicles greater than zero to do unpaid public service and then some woman on the internet turned around and said "look, both men and women are both equally impacted by the ball service, it applies to both, the >0 part isn't completely arbitrary and we didn't come up with it for sexist reasons and I don't understand why people keep calling it sexist" how would you feel?
It is a policy built around an idea that came out of a dark age bastion of patriarchal oppression (life begins at conception) which requires all people with a number of foetus >0 (but it's not sexist!) to place their own personal freedom below that of a cluster of cells.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
