|
|
On August 17 2012 05:35 Grumbels wrote:
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".
I think it's more instructive to hear people viewing the entire world and all ideology in this blindly partisan dichotomy. I choose to judge the merits on an idea on the idea itself, instead of saying "well it came from a lefitist/rightist, black/white, male/female so therefore I can use that to inform my opinion on the notion." Seems like a horribly close-minded, almost hateful, way to think about the world.
|
On August 17 2012 05:37 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:32 jdseemoreglass wrote: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:
[quote]
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"...
Whites had the existing rights to own slaves. Blacks had no existing rights. Therefore, according to your logic, repealing those rights, that abolishing slavery is "anti-white." And just as you extrapolate that people who oppose abortion are anti-women and therefore sexist, I can conclude that people who oppose slavery are anti-white and therefore racist.
In other words, your reasoning is simply atrocious in this regard.
|
Canada11367 Posts
Woah, this has gone down the abortion road.
One thing Kwark, how do you justifiy calling the fetus "inanimate." Isn't it biologically 'living' however you want to define that especially as it growing and responds to stimuli?
|
On August 17 2012 05:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:35 Grumbels wrote:
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". I think it's more instructive to hear people viewing the entire world and all ideology in this blindly partisan dichotomy. I choose to judge the merits on an idea on the idea itself, instead of saying "well it came from a lefitist/rightist, black/white, male/female so therefore I can use that to inform my opinion on the notion." Seems like a horribly close-minded, almost hateful, way to think about the world.
Hardly. With almost every political topic, asking yourself: "is the mainstream and especially the conservative faction in favor of this? if yes, then I should distrust the idea" is one of the very best ways of looking at politics, because you will almost always be proven right a few years later because usually such ideas are toxic and have hidden malicious agendas behind them. (since conservative politicians are evil) Distrusting the ideas of evil people dedicated to misery is hardly hateful. Similarly, distrusting the whole melodrama about potential life, from people that don't care one whit about actual life, is again a good guideline for thinking about abortion.
Obviously you do need to actually think about issues, but a lot of these problems are too complex to have the right answer be obvious, so you have to discriminate about what sources you read and what policies and assumptions you distrust, unless you have politics as hobby and have the time to investigate everything for yourself.
|
On August 17 2012 05:44 Falling wrote:
Woah, this has gone down the abortion road.
One thing Kwark, how do you justifiy calling the fetus "inanimate." Isn't it biologically 'living' however you want to define that especially as it growing and responds to stimuli?
at what point in time you define the fetus as human is an entirely diffrent discussion and totally unrelated to a total ban of abortion... I mean, i'm very pro abortion, but i wouldn't let someone abort when they are far into pregnacy (except for medical reasons).
But something like "the pill after" would be illegal when all that is needed is a semen touching the egg.... At this point there is for sure no Human in there.
|
On August 17 2012 05:47 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:44 Falling wrote:
Woah, this has gone down the abortion road.
One thing Kwark, how do you justifiy calling the fetus "inanimate." Isn't it biologically 'living' however you want to define that especially as it growing and responds to stimuli? at what point in time you define the fetus as human is an entirely diffrent discussion and totally unrelated to a total ban of abortion... I mean, i'm very pro abortion, but i wouldn't let someone abort when they are far into pregnacy (except for medical reasons). But something like "the pill after" would be illegal when all that is needed is a semen touching the egg.... At this point there is for sure no Human in there.
You say that the definition of human is unrelated, and then proceed to justify your views on abortion by defining what a human is.
|
On August 17 2012 05:35 Grumbels wrote:
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".
There's several things wrong with this post.
1. "Pro-life" is just a mannerism to create support for anti-abortion. Democrats are not anti-life, they just don't view the fetus as being alive. Likewise Republicans are not anti-choice, they just believe that the fetus has a higher right then the women's right to choice.
2. You're points are completely offbase. Republicans are not against helping the impovershed , they just believe the way Democrats are going about it is the incorrect way. There's also a widely differing opinion on what exactly "help" is. I'm also not sure what you're point regarding regulations are. You say Republicans are anti-life because they let coal companies produce CO2 emiissions? I say you're anti-life for supporting regulations that are going to put people out of work and into the poverty you speak of so much. (I don't actually oppose enviourmental regulations, I'm just pointing out why this is a bad arguement.)
3. I don't think anyone here is pro-war so that's kind of a dumb point. Besides, Neo-conservatives view on war is that if we don't take pre-emptive action, we ourselves could be attacked. Indeed one could argue that neo-cons are actually more pro-life, willing to sacrifice the few for the many. (Not that I agree, again, just pointing out that there are differing opinions.)
Also, please please stop using the phrase "free healthcare". There is no such thing as free healthcare and there never has been.
edit: Your entire assertion is basically an ad-hominem. Who cares if Republicans are pro-life pro-death or pro-meth? Debate the arguement, not the individual.
|
Last time i checked we were arguing if abortion at all should be allowed or not. As long as this is the case, the definition of "human" IS unrelated.
The timepoint when it becomes "human enough" to have a right to live is a diffrent (imho much more important) discussion. I mainly brought that up to not totally sound like a (near) baby slaughterer  . But this point in time has to be defined by doctors/scientists... For sure not by some politicians, religious leaders, "the majority of the people" or me.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
The debate on abortion is primarily a moral one, and it's one that may last for a very, very long time. This may sound inane but, since it is moral debate, doesn't that in itself constitute a woman's right to decide for herself in alliance with her own morals instead of having others impose their conflicting beliefs on her?
I don't believe there are any pro-choicers who think abortion is a good thing. We rather have that potential life flourish. But it's not our decision to make. It really is not our decision.
|
On August 17 2012 05:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:37 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 05:32 jdseemoreglass wrote: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:
[quote]
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"... Whites had the existing rights to own slaves. Blacks had no existing rights. Therefore, according to your logic, repealing those rights, that abolishing slavery is "anti-white." And just as you extrapolate that people who oppose abortion are anti-women and therefore sexist, I can conclude that people who oppose slavery are anti-white and therefore racist. In other words, your reasoning is simply atrocious in this regard.
No, you are misrepresenting my argument through your example and arguing against that misrepresentation rather than against my actual argument. That's also called resorting to a straw man.
Let me point out why your characterization of my argument fails. Imagine someone is pushing for a law that would target only blacks and prevent them from voting. Could this idea be labeled anti-blacks to you? Yes, right?
Now imagine someone is pushing for a law that would prevent, let's say, the selling of nuclear weapons without background checks. Since every human can potentially be such a seller, could that idea be labeled anti-humans? Quite obviously not, or at least the label would be meaningless.
These two examples show that's it's not because you are denouncing a removing of rights targeting a certain category of people in one instance as being "anti-that category" that every single government-sanctioned law rendering something illegal can "legitimately" be called "anti-the people that could do the said thing". Trying to disqualify my argument by using an example like the one you did is therefore invalid.
For the record, I personally do not hold the belief that someone who is pro-life is necessarily anti-women. Some would certainly hold the same belief if both men and women could have children, or if only men could. I do consider, however, that a sexist mentality does underpin the beliefs of many who oppose abortions, and even more so in the case of opposition to contraception coverage.
|
On August 17 2012 05:47 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:44 Falling wrote:
Woah, this has gone down the abortion road.
One thing Kwark, how do you justifiy calling the fetus "inanimate." Isn't it biologically 'living' however you want to define that especially as it growing and responds to stimuli? at what point in time you define the fetus as human is an entirely diffrent discussion and totally unrelated to a total ban of abortion... I mean, i'm very pro abortion, but i wouldn't let someone abort when they are far into pregnacy (except for medical reasons). But something like "the pill after" would be illegal when all that is needed is a semen touching the egg.... At this point there is for sure no Human in there.
It turns out that the morning after pill almost certainly prevents conception altogether rather than preventing the implantation of a zygote...but facts are fairly tangential to abortion debates in most cases.
|
On August 17 2012 05:54 1Eris1 wrote:
3. I don't think anyone here is pro-war so that's kind of a dumb point. Besides, Neo-conservatives view on war is that if we don't take pre-emptive action, we ourselves could be attacked. Indeed one could argue that neo-cons are actually more pro-life, willing to sacrifice the few for the many. (Not that I agree, again, just pointing out that there are differing opinions.
Technically, one of the main elements of the neoconservatist ideology regarding foreign policy is the willingness to use force (and therefore the readiness to engage in warfare) to install democracy abroad.
|
On August 17 2012 05:20 Housemd wrote:
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?
Are you serious? Dude, google that shit. There are a million health complications women have to endure as a direct result of pregnancy, and a lot of them have serious quality of life implications.
Muscle damage during delivery cause long-term incontinence, particularly at older ages? Varicose veins? Long term hemorrhoids? Weight gain, which often time can be difficult to lose, leading to associated health problems? Permanent scarring?
Osteo-fucking-porosis from the baby leeching calcium from the mother's body?
These are the normal ones that every mother can reasonably EXPECT to suffer from (at least a few of these).
And that's not even including the "relatively" rare, but still very serious, health complications that can occur like seizures, bleeding, post-partum depression, etc.
It fucking pisses me off when people ignore that shit. People ignore that shit, but its stupid to. Baby's are really, really hard on women's bodies.
|
On August 17 2012 05:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:37 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 05:32 jdseemoreglass wrote: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:
[quote]
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"... Whites had the existing rights to own slaves. Blacks had no existing rights. Therefore, according to your logic, repealing those rights, that abolishing slavery is "anti-white." And just as you extrapolate that people who oppose abortion are anti-women and therefore sexist, I can conclude that people who oppose slavery are anti-white and therefore racist. In other words, your reasoning is simply atrocious in this regard.
I feel like correcting you on the historical records. Free Blacks did have rights, although those rights varied by state and were not necessarily the same rights as whites. There were (very rare) cases that free blacks owned other Blacks as slaves.
|
In the discussion, I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the elephant in the room. One of the biggest underlying reasons why social conservatives fiercely oppose abortion is because they want to discourage pre-marital sex.
|
On August 17 2012 06:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:54 1Eris1 wrote:
3. I don't think anyone here is pro-war so that's kind of a dumb point. Besides, Neo-conservatives view on war is that if we don't take pre-emptive action, we ourselves could be attacked. Indeed one could argue that neo-cons are actually more pro-life, willing to sacrifice the few for the many. (Not that I agree, again, just pointing out that there are differing opinions. Technically, one of the main elements of the neoconservatist ideology regarding foreign policy is the willingness to use force (and therefore the readiness to engage in warfare) to install democracy abroad.
Certainly, although I always thought the idea was that democratic countries would be more likely to be our allies and thus, friendly. I am not a neo-con expert by any means though. The main point was, no one here, be they for or against abortion is arguing for us to go to war, so it's kind of pointless to bring it up.
|
|
|
|
|
On August 17 2012 06:17 coverpunch wrote:
In the discussion, I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the elephant in the room. One of the biggest underlying reasons why social conservatives fiercely oppose abortion is because they want to discourage pre-marital sex.
Very few social conservatives think like that. They oppose abortion and they oppose premarital sex. They do not oppose abortion because of premarital sex.
|
On August 17 2012 06:26 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: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? So if you keep going right at him, there is a 100% chance that you live, and a 0% chance that he lives. But if you turn away, there is a 95% chance that you live, and a 100% chance that he lives. I don't think there's any question as to which one is more 'moral' in an absolute sense. The highest survival rate between the two of you is the clear winner. It's only when you factor in selfishness and self-preservation that this changes... Is selfishness moral? Probably not. Is self-preservation moral? Very much so... as long as it doesn't intrude upon others'. Would I blame you for not swerving away? A little. I wouldn't forget but I could forgive. Do I think you should be legally punished? No. Should you feel at least a little bad about not swerving away? Fuck yeah. --- But this is an analogy, and to treat it as one: What about the third entity who put the other car on a collision course with you? Did you agree to a decent possibility that they might? You did not try to prevent it? If so, you better have swerved. You both should pay for it. Was it forced upon you? If so, I won't really think much worse of you if you stay on track (I would definitely think very poorly on whoever forced it upon you), but if you swerved I'd think of you as noble. Of course, it doesn't just stop there... you have to turn around and follow the other car for 18 years. If you swerved, you are partially responsible for paying for this (especially if you want me to keep thinking of you as noble ^^), but it's still at least half the responsibility of the person who forced it upon you (only about half if not forced). What if the other person is nowhere to be found? If you cannot get someone else to fill the second half of the responsibility... is it okay to get rid of the whole responsibility altogether? I personally think that the life of a human being begins when a sperm successfully penetrates an egg. If you 'get rid of the responsibility' after this point, you are essentially destroying a human life as far as I'm concerned. Manslaughter, at the least. But the fault doesn't lay solely on you, not even halfway if you were not a willing participant. If you were not a willing participant, you're not even an accomplice IMO. --- Ugh. My parents are devout Mormon (probably voting for Romney, surprisingly not blindly), and perhaps some of their views on this have rubbed off on me. I'm certainly not entirely pro-life, but I don't think I'm utterly pro-choice either. Please tell me I am in a range of normalcy?
It is fine and normal to not like abortion. I think, as a recovering Catholic, I fall into a similar part of the range as you. In my personal life, I want nothing to do with abortion, and use contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Were an unplanned pregnancy to occur, I would do my utmost to avoid that outcome. However, I recognize that there are situations where abortion is a necessary and desirable outcome, and as such I support the right to choose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
