|
|
On August 17 2012 04:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 04:50 DoubleReed wrote:On August 17 2012 04:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:41 DoubleReed wrote:On August 17 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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... The government has that right. And people have the right to tell the government what to do. What the fuck government are you talking about? Since when does the government have that right? If anything it specifically does not have that right. In all other circumstances it is a decision between a woman and her doctor, not woman, doctor, and politician. Well you are obviously operating on the premise that the fetus is not an interested party in this matter, and some people disagree with that premise. It would be like me saying "Whether I decide to kill this unconscious victim I have is a personal choice and politicians have no right getting involved." Obviously they do, because there is another party which must be protected. The entire debate is about definition.
No it really isn't. I know that you want it to be to justify the pro-life position, but it doesn't work that way.
I'm operating under a scientific and medical premise. Women, unfortunately, are not gestation chambers. The government has no right to force them to go under massive health changes for the unborn child. That is completely unprecedented, ineffectual, and medically dangerous.
|
On August 17 2012 05:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 04:58 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:43 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Where have I tried to deny you of having an opinion? Sorry, that was KwarK's line of thought that men can't have an opinion about abortion. A better response to you would be "so what?' Just because you are advocating a policy that would impact women more than men doesn't make you anti-women. Coal miners are mostly men. Being anit-coal mine does not make you anti-men. It is an absurd line of thought. You are using straw man after straw man. KwarK is not arguing that you're not entitled to your opinion. He is describing one stance on abortion, namely the pro-life stance, as anti-women. What's the reasoning behind this? That the only people whose rights pro-lifers are trying to impact are women. If you are pro-life you have the opinion that you are impacting both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child.
Again, no-one's trying to deny you of your right to holding that opinion. Whose existing RIGHTS are you trying to impact, though?
|
On August 17 2012 05:03 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 04:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 17 2012 04:50 DoubleReed wrote:On August 17 2012 04:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:41 DoubleReed wrote:On August 17 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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... The government has that right. And people have the right to tell the government what to do. What the fuck government are you talking about? Since when does the government have that right? If anything it specifically does not have that right. In all other circumstances it is a decision between a woman and her doctor, not woman, doctor, and politician. Well you are obviously operating on the premise that the fetus is not an interested party in this matter, and some people disagree with that premise. It would be like me saying "Whether I decide to kill this unconscious victim I have is a personal choice and politicians have no right getting involved." Obviously they do, because there is another party which must be protected. The entire debate is about definition. No it really isn't. I know that you want it to be to justify the pro-life position, but it doesn't work that way. I'm operating under a scientific and medical premise. Women, unfortunately, are not gestation chambers. The government has no right to force them to go under massive health changes for the unborn child. That is completely unprecedented, ineffectual, and medically dangerous.
And you again are making the same assumption.... that killing a fetus is not medically dangerous to the fetus... You aren't getting anywhere just changing your words around.
On August 17 2012 05:05 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:58 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:43 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Where have I tried to deny you of having an opinion? Sorry, that was KwarK's line of thought that men can't have an opinion about abortion. A better response to you would be "so what?' Just because you are advocating a policy that would impact women more than men doesn't make you anti-women. Coal miners are mostly men. Being anit-coal mine does not make you anti-men. It is an absurd line of thought. You are using straw man after straw man. KwarK is not arguing that you're not entitled to your opinion. He is describing one stance on abortion, namely the pro-life stance, as anti-women. What's the reasoning behind this? That the only people whose rights pro-lifers are trying to impact are women. If you are pro-life you have the opinion that you are impacting both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Again, no-one's trying to deny you of your right to holding that opinion. Whose existing RIGHTS are you trying to impact, though?
Obviously the right's of the unborn fetus.
|
On August 17 2012 05:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
If I have the opinion that an unborn child is a fully human life than I should be allowed to argue that it should be illegal to kill it.
If you really have this opinion and your reaction to the biggest crime in all of humanity (the deliberate killing of millions of completely defenseless humans) is "well, better vote Republican", then you
(a) don't really have that opinion
(b) are full of shit
I wonder if people who argue they have this opinion would want to invade foreign countries because they kill their babies....
|
On August 17 2012 05:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:05 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 05:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:58 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:43 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:32 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. Where have I tried to deny you of having an opinion? Sorry, that was KwarK's line of thought that men can't have an opinion about abortion. A better response to you would be "so what?' Just because you are advocating a policy that would impact women more than men doesn't make you anti-women. Coal miners are mostly men. Being anit-coal mine does not make you anti-men. It is an absurd line of thought. You are using straw man after straw man. KwarK is not arguing that you're not entitled to your opinion. He is describing one stance on abortion, namely the pro-life stance, as anti-women. What's the reasoning behind this? That the only people whose rights pro-lifers are trying to impact are women. If you are pro-life you have the opinion that you are impacting both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Again, no-one's trying to deny you of your right to holding that opinion. Whose existing RIGHTS are you trying to impact, though? Obviously the right's of the unborn fetus.
No, the existing rights of women. What existing rights does the unborn fetus that can legally be aborted have?
|
United States41965 Posts
On August 17 2012 05:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 04:58 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 04:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:50 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 04:46 coverpunch wrote:On August 17 2012 04:41 DoubleReed wrote:On August 17 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:32 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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... No, but he does get to point out that this isn't solely a woman's choice about something to do with her own body. We have to balance principles because there is another life at stake. It creates a clear distinction from other choices women have, such as the right to excise a cancer or get breast implants or get fat sucked out. There are thousands of potential lives at stake with pretty much any decision you make. You could fuck a girl in the next minute and a potential human life could happen. You could fuck her at a different angle and maybe a different sperm would make it there and a different human would happen. Abortion deals with just one potential life, the decisions you make on a date impact literally millions. You are missing the point. Pro-lifers think that the unborn child IS a life and not just a potential life. Then they can go ahead and not get an abortion. If they feel that way then they can go ahead and freely choose not to get an abortion and nobody is legally obliged to do anything against their will. If I have the opinion that an unborn child is a fully human life than I should be allowed to argue that it should be illegal to kill it.
Women who get abortions are not beginner murderers who just want to get started small and work their way up to children and then adults. They want to get on with their lives without the obligation to a bundle of cells. They're not trying to kill it, they're trying to have it not growing inside them and imposing upon their lives. Killing it is a side effect of them retaining their liberty.
If a crazy doctor abducted you and against your will fused your body to some braindead coma patient so that he shared some of your major organs and removing him would absolutely kill him then I'd support your right to remove him and resume exclusive use of your own body. A foetus is a fundamentally parasitic organism.
|
What? I said more than medically dangerous. You can't make the argument that both are medically dangerous so we'll ban one of them. That's just a dumb argument.
|
So, if a fetus is created on U.S. soil, should it be a citizen? Seems like the logical leap to make, imo.
|
On August 17 2012 05:11 DoubleReed wrote:
What? I said more than medically dangerous. You can't make the argument that both are medically dangerous so we'll ban one of them. That's just a dumb argument.
It isn't a dumb argument at all. Suppose I were to say "this car is most surely going to kill that person in front of me, but I would be in greater danger myself if I were to swerve out of the way. Therefore I have no obligation to swerve my car."
|
|
|
On August 17 2012 05:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:58 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 04:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:50 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2012 04:46 coverpunch wrote:On August 17 2012 04:41 DoubleReed wrote:On August 17 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:32 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
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... No, but he does get to point out that this isn't solely a woman's choice about something to do with her own body. We have to balance principles because there is another life at stake. It creates a clear distinction from other choices women have, such as the right to excise a cancer or get breast implants or get fat sucked out. There are thousands of potential lives at stake with pretty much any decision you make. You could fuck a girl in the next minute and a potential human life could happen. You could fuck her at a different angle and maybe a different sperm would make it there and a different human would happen. Abortion deals with just one potential life, the decisions you make on a date impact literally millions. You are missing the point. Pro-lifers think that the unborn child IS a life and not just a potential life. Then they can go ahead and not get an abortion. If they feel that way then they can go ahead and freely choose not to get an abortion and nobody is legally obliged to do anything against their will. If I have the opinion that an unborn child is a fully human life than I should be allowed to argue that it should be illegal to kill it. Women who get abortions are not beginner murderers who just want to get started small and work their way up to children and then adults. They want to get on with their lives without the obligation to a bundle of cells. They're not trying to kill it, they're trying to have it not growing inside them and imposing upon their lives. Killing it is a side effect of them retaining their liberty. If a crazy doctor abducted you and against your will fused your body to some braindead coma patient so that he shared some of your major organs and removing him would absolutely kill him then I'd support your right to remove him and resume exclusive use of your own body. A foetus is a fundamentally parasitic organism.
Not saying you are wrong, but how so? A parasite must cause harm to the host while receiving a benefit. What harm is the parasite, in this case the fetus, creating?
|
On August 17 2012 05:19 Barrin wrote:
How can you be in greater danger than someone who is most surely going to die?
I mean I would be in greater danger swerving than I would be relative to driving in a straight line. Suppose we were to say a 100% chance of the person in front of me dying if I go straight, and a 5% chance of me dying if I swerve. Am I morally obligated to get out of the way or can I slam into him?
On August 17 2012 05:08 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 17 2012 05:05 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 05:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:58 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:43 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:32 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
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. Where have I tried to deny you of having an opinion? Sorry, that was KwarK's line of thought that men can't have an opinion about abortion. A better response to you would be "so what?' Just because you are advocating a policy that would impact women more than men doesn't make you anti-women. Coal miners are mostly men. Being anit-coal mine does not make you anti-men. It is an absurd line of thought. You are using straw man after straw man. KwarK is not arguing that you're not entitled to your opinion. He is describing one stance on abortion, namely the pro-life stance, as anti-women. What's the reasoning behind this? That the only people whose rights pro-lifers are trying to impact are women. If you are pro-life you have the opinion that you are impacting both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Again, no-one's trying to deny you of your right to holding that opinion. Whose existing RIGHTS are you trying to impact, though? Obviously the right's of the unborn fetus. No, the existing rights of women. What existing rights does the unborn fetus that can legally be aborted have?
What difference does it make whether they are legally existing rights or not? Slave holders had existing rights and slaves had no rights. This is a moral discussion not a legal one.
|
On August 17 2012 05:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:11 DoubleReed wrote:
What? I said more than medically dangerous. You can't make the argument that both are medically dangerous so we'll ban one of them. That's just a dumb argument. It isn't a dumb argument at all. Suppose I were to say "this car is most surely going to kill that person in front of me, but I would be in greater danger myself if I were to swerve out of the way. Therefore I have no obligation to swerve my car."
Dude that is the weirdest analogy ever. I don't even understand how that could possibly apply to law.
There is something seriously wrong when laws dictate that doctors cannot save the lives of their patients. I can't understand how any human being could support such a law. You're sick.
|
On August 17 2012 05:24 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 17 2012 05:11 DoubleReed wrote:
What? I said more than medically dangerous. You can't make the argument that both are medically dangerous so we'll ban one of them. That's just a dumb argument. It isn't a dumb argument at all. Suppose I were to say "this car is most surely going to kill that person in front of me, but I would be in greater danger myself if I were to swerve out of the way. Therefore I have no obligation to swerve my car." Dude that is the weirdest analogy ever. I don't even understand how that could possibly apply to law. There is something seriously wrong when laws dictate that doctors cannot save the lives of their patients. I can't understand how any human being could support such a law. You're sick.
Sorry, that doesn't work either. Someone pro-life would simply say "there is something seriously wrong when laws dictate that doctors can kill unborn human beings."
I never said I supported or opposed any law I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws in the arguments being made here.
|
On August 17 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:08 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 05:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 17 2012 05:05 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 05:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:58 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:43 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
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. Where have I tried to deny you of having an opinion? Sorry, that was KwarK's line of thought that men can't have an opinion about abortion. A better response to you would be "so what?' Just because you are advocating a policy that would impact women more than men doesn't make you anti-women. Coal miners are mostly men. Being anit-coal mine does not make you anti-men. It is an absurd line of thought. You are using straw man after straw man. KwarK is not arguing that you're not entitled to your opinion. He is describing one stance on abortion, namely the pro-life stance, as anti-women. What's the reasoning behind this? That the only people whose rights pro-lifers are trying to impact are women. If you are pro-life you have the opinion that you are impacting both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Again, no-one's trying to deny you of your right to holding that opinion. Whose existing RIGHTS are you trying to impact, though? Obviously the right's of the unborn fetus. No, the existing rights of women. What existing rights does the unborn fetus that can legally be aborted have? What difference does it make whether they are legally existing rights or not? Slave holders had existing rights and slaves had no rights. This is a moral discussion not a legal one.
It matters in the context or the argument that was being debated in the line of discussion in which you decide to intervene. The reason the pro-life stance is labeled anti-women is that pro-lifers are trying to restrict the rights of women (and only women). If you want, you can label them anti-women and pro-fetus, that's fine by me.
|
On August 17 2012 05:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 17 2012 05:08 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 05:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 17 2012 05:05 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 05:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:58 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:43 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Men have a constitutional right to an opinion that you are trying to squelch. So you are anti-men. You sexist bastard. Where have I tried to deny you of having an opinion? Sorry, that was KwarK's line of thought that men can't have an opinion about abortion. A better response to you would be "so what?' Just because you are advocating a policy that would impact women more than men doesn't make you anti-women. Coal miners are mostly men. Being anit-coal mine does not make you anti-men. It is an absurd line of thought. You are using straw man after straw man. KwarK is not arguing that you're not entitled to your opinion. He is describing one stance on abortion, namely the pro-life stance, as anti-women. What's the reasoning behind this? That the only people whose rights pro-lifers are trying to impact are women. If you are pro-life you have the opinion that you are impacting both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Again, no-one's trying to deny you of your right to holding that opinion. Whose existing RIGHTS are you trying to impact, though? Obviously the right's of the unborn fetus. No, the existing rights of women. What existing rights does the unborn fetus that can legally be aborted have? What difference does it make whether they are legally existing rights or not? Slave holders had existing rights and slaves had no rights. This is a moral discussion not a legal one. It matters in the context or the argument that was being debated in the line of discussion in which you decide to intervene. The reason the pro-life stance is labeled anti-women is that pro-lifers are trying to restrict the rights of women. If you want, you can label them anti-women and pro-fetus, that's fine by me.
By that logic you would be forced to call the thirteenth amendment an "anti-white" law, and therefore call those who wished to repeal slavery "anti-white" as well. Maybe in that context you will begin to see how unproductive such rhetoric and name-calling really is.
|
On August 17 2012 05:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:24 DoubleReed wrote:On August 17 2012 05:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 17 2012 05:11 DoubleReed wrote:
What? I said more than medically dangerous. You can't make the argument that both are medically dangerous so we'll ban one of them. That's just a dumb argument. It isn't a dumb argument at all. Suppose I were to say "this car is most surely going to kill that person in front of me, but I would be in greater danger myself if I were to swerve out of the way. Therefore I have no obligation to swerve my car." Dude that is the weirdest analogy ever. I don't even understand how that could possibly apply to law. There is something seriously wrong when laws dictate that doctors cannot save the lives of their patients. I can't understand how any human being could support such a law. You're sick. Sorry, that doesn't work either. Someone pro-life would simply say "there is something seriously wrong when laws dictate that doctors can kill unborn human beings." I never said I supported or opposed any law I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws in the arguments being made here.
It's an unborn human being inside of another human being. If the mother dies they both die, quite frequently.
And as I mentioned before, it is impossible for any kind of blanket law to cover the myriad of issues that can occur during a pregnancy. Many anti-abortion laws prevent abortion even during a failed pregnancy.
|
To be honest, sometimes it's instructive to look who is supporting certain ideologies and let that inform your point of view. Right wingers that are pro-war, against free healthcare, against environmental and health regulations, against doing something about poverty and poor living conditions etc. are the people masquerading as pro-life and are all of a sudden so concerned about what is only potential life. At the same time they seem to not care about the existing life of the mother-to-be.
One might start to wonder whether pro-life is the best way to describe such people (since pro-death is more accurate) and if they might have ulterior motives behind their pro-life point of view like reinforcing patriarchy and wanting to punish women for having "loose moral standards" and being "sluts".
|
On August 17 2012 05:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:28 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 17 2012 05:08 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 05:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 17 2012 05:05 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 05:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:58 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 04:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 17 2012 04:43 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Where have I tried to deny you of having an opinion? Sorry, that was KwarK's line of thought that men can't have an opinion about abortion. A better response to you would be "so what?' Just because you are advocating a policy that would impact women more than men doesn't make you anti-women. Coal miners are mostly men. Being anit-coal mine does not make you anti-men. It is an absurd line of thought. You are using straw man after straw man. KwarK is not arguing that you're not entitled to your opinion. He is describing one stance on abortion, namely the pro-life stance, as anti-women. What's the reasoning behind this? That the only people whose rights pro-lifers are trying to impact are women. If you are pro-life you have the opinion that you are impacting both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Again, no-one's trying to deny you of your right to holding that opinion. Whose existing RIGHTS are you trying to impact, though? Obviously the right's of the unborn fetus. No, the existing rights of women. What existing rights does the unborn fetus that can legally be aborted have? What difference does it make whether they are legally existing rights or not? Slave holders had existing rights and slaves had no rights. This is a moral discussion not a legal one. It matters in the context or the argument that was being debated in the line of discussion in which you decide to intervene. The reason the pro-life stance is labeled anti-women is that pro-lifers are trying to restrict the rights of women. If you want, you can label them anti-women and pro-fetus, that's fine by me. By that logic you would be forced to call the thirteenth amendment an "anti-white" law, and therefore call those who wished to repeal slavery "anti-white" as well. Maybe in that context you will begin to see how unproductive such rhetoric and name-calling really is.
Why would my logic lead to labeling the thirteenth amendment as anti-whites? If anything, it would lead to labeling it "anti-slave owners"... Are you even interested in debating without using straw men?
|
What's the old joke? "Conservatives believe life begins at conception and ends at birth". :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
