|
When ever i need my daily dose of bullshit i´m coming to tl and threads like this and get what i was looking for. You people are aweseome.
|
On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy.
Everyone has their points and their are reasonable since it is a very diffuclt case. But it doesnt help calling others stupid, anti-women, evil or bad human beings for having a different opinon than oneself.
It is simply not helping the discussion and is for sure not an easy one.
Srsly wtf?
|
On June 29 2013 01:20 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy. Everyone has their points and their are reasonable since it is a very diffuclt case. But it doesnt help calling others stupid, anti-women, evil or bad human beings for having a different opinon than oneself. It is simply not helping the discussion and is for sure not an easy one. Srsly wtf?
He and I had a misunderstanding in beliefs--we've settled it.
|
On June 29 2013 00:55 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 00:41 xM(Z wrote:On June 28 2013 16:53 killy666 wrote:
I'm gonna sound extremely liberal about this, but i believe that abortion doesn't need justification besides the mother will to not have a baby. but you see, i want that bastard to live so he would pay my pension. almost everyone in a society is doing some kind of sacrifice for the greater good, why women should be exempted? wat? almost eveyone is dong some kind of sacrifice for the greater good. except for over half of them? so your anti abortion arguement is the tax revenue created by unwanted children?
all over the western world there is a shortage of pension paying people so the retirement age goes up and up because of that.
blame women for killing our future prospects?, of course.
capitalism is not wrong.
|
On June 29 2013 01:31 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 00:55 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 00:41 xM(Z wrote:On June 28 2013 16:53 killy666 wrote:
I'm gonna sound extremely liberal about this, but i believe that abortion doesn't need justification besides the mother will to not have a baby. but you see, i want that bastard to live so he would pay my pension. almost everyone in a society is doing some kind of sacrifice for the greater good, why women should be exempted? wat? almost eveyone is dong some kind of sacrifice for the greater good. except for over half of them? so your anti abortion arguement is the tax revenue created by unwanted children? all over the western world there is a shortage of pension paying people so the retirement age goes up and up because of that. blame women for killing our future prospects?, of course. capitalism is not wrong.
You don't actually think abortion is what is killing you're country's economic stability do you?
|
On June 29 2013 01:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 01:31 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 00:55 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 00:41 xM(Z wrote:On June 28 2013 16:53 killy666 wrote:
I'm gonna sound extremely liberal about this, but i believe that abortion doesn't need justification besides the mother will to not have a baby. but you see, i want that bastard to live so he would pay my pension. almost everyone in a society is doing some kind of sacrifice for the greater good, why women should be exempted? wat? almost eveyone is dong some kind of sacrifice for the greater good. except for over half of them? so your anti abortion arguement is the tax revenue created by unwanted children? all over the western world there is a shortage of pension paying people so the retirement age goes up and up because of that. blame women for killing our future prospects?, of course. capitalism is not wrong. You don't actually think abortion is what is killing you're country's economic stability do you?
well nope but that doesn't make it a non-issue
|
On June 29 2013 01:31 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 00:55 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 00:41 xM(Z wrote:On June 28 2013 16:53 killy666 wrote:
I'm gonna sound extremely liberal about this, but i believe that abortion doesn't need justification besides the mother will to not have a baby. but you see, i want that bastard to live so he would pay my pension. almost everyone in a society is doing some kind of sacrifice for the greater good, why women should be exempted? wat? almost eveyone is dong some kind of sacrifice for the greater good. except for over half of them? so your anti abortion arguement is the tax revenue created by unwanted children? all over the western world there is a shortage of pension paying people so the retirement age goes up and up because of that. blame women for killing our future prospects?, of course. capitalism is not wrong.
damn son you sexist.
firstly - you cannot blame half the population of the planet for killing future prospects when women exist on both sides of the arguement and such a small percentage of them have had abortions.
secondly - its at least just as likely that the father was for abortion in at least half the cases, despite their insignificance in the desision its not like all men are like: damn women kililng my babies! the common arguement is for the oposite like damn she stole my sperm and now i have to give her money for the rest of my life!
I don't actually know how to argue the economic point you made cause its the stupidest thing i've heard so far today.
|
On June 29 2013 01:47 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 01:31 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 00:55 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 00:41 xM(Z wrote:On June 28 2013 16:53 killy666 wrote:
I'm gonna sound extremely liberal about this, but i believe that abortion doesn't need justification besides the mother will to not have a baby. but you see, i want that bastard to live so he would pay my pension. almost everyone in a society is doing some kind of sacrifice for the greater good, why women should be exempted? wat? almost eveyone is dong some kind of sacrifice for the greater good. except for over half of them? so your anti abortion arguement is the tax revenue created by unwanted children? all over the western world there is a shortage of pension paying people so the retirement age goes up and up because of that. blame women for killing our future prospects?, of course. capitalism is not wrong. damn son you sexist. firstly - you cannot blame half the population of the planet for killing future prospects when women exist on both sides of the arguement and such a small percentage of them have had abortions. secondly - its at least just as likely that the father was for abortion in at least half the cases, despite their insignificance in the desision its not like all men are like: damn women kililng my babies! the common arguement is for the oposite like damn she stole my sperm and now i have to give her money for the rest of my life! I don't actually know how to argue the economic point you made cause its the stupidest thing i've heard so far today.
you should've read the first quote better. i went with it, with: women being the sole deciders in abortion cases.
|
Abortion doesn't need rape or incest to justify it.
I thought this was the year 2013.
|
^ 'muricans
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 29 2013 01:51 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 01:47 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 01:31 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 00:55 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 00:41 xM(Z wrote:On June 28 2013 16:53 killy666 wrote:
I'm gonna sound extremely liberal about this, but i believe that abortion doesn't need justification besides the mother will to not have a baby. but you see, i want that bastard to live so he would pay my pension. almost everyone in a society is doing some kind of sacrifice for the greater good, why women should be exempted? wat? almost eveyone is dong some kind of sacrifice for the greater good. except for over half of them? so your anti abortion arguement is the tax revenue created by unwanted children? all over the western world there is a shortage of pension paying people so the retirement age goes up and up because of that. blame women for killing our future prospects?, of course. capitalism is not wrong. damn son you sexist. firstly - you cannot blame half the population of the planet for killing future prospects when women exist on both sides of the arguement and such a small percentage of them have had abortions. secondly - its at least just as likely that the father was for abortion in at least half the cases, despite their insignificance in the desision its not like all men are like: damn women kililng my babies! the common arguement is for the oposite like damn she stole my sperm and now i have to give her money for the rest of my life! I don't actually know how to argue the economic point you made cause its the stupidest thing i've heard so far today. you should've read the first quote better. i went with it, with: women being the sole deciders in abortion cases.
i still miss the link between that and women killing our future prospects for pension paying people.
|
On June 29 2013 01:20 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy. Everyone has their points and their are reasonable since it is a very diffuclt case. But it doesnt help calling others stupid, anti-women, evil or bad human beings for having a different opinon than oneself. It is simply not helping the discussion and is for sure not an easy one. Srsly wtf?
Speaking directly and honestly is a good way to have a discussion. Considering how deadly and authoritarian the Pro-Life position actually is, you may want to reconsider being so "reasonable."
If someone had a differing opinion that Jews should be rounded up, you would not "be reasonable." No one would. My guess is that you haven't read about all the frightening situations that various anti-abortion laws actually cause real people. People have died. People have been thrown in jail. People have hurt themselves in gruesome ways.
Either way, I wasn't addressing anyone here directly unless they call themselves Pro-Life. Thieving Magpie seemed to just be a misunderstanding.
|
On June 29 2013 02:32 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 01:20 Sokrates wrote:On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy. Everyone has their points and their are reasonable since it is a very diffuclt case. But it doesnt help calling others stupid, anti-women, evil or bad human beings for having a different opinon than oneself. It is simply not helping the discussion and is for sure not an easy one. Srsly wtf? Speaking directly and honestly is a good way to have a discussion. Considering how deadly and authoritarian the Pro-Life position actually is, you may want to reconsider being so "reasonable." If someone had a differing opinion that Jews should be rounded up, you would not "be reasonable." No one would. My guess is that you haven't read about all the frightening situations that various anti-abortion laws actually cause real people. People have died. People have been thrown in jail. People have hurt themselves in gruesome ways. Either way, I wasn't addressing anyone here directly unless they call themselves Pro-Life. Thieving Magpie seemed to just be a misunderstanding.
Horrible comparison.
If nobody is "allowed" to have different opinion about this topic why have a discussion in the first place? For an awesome circlejerk?
|
On June 29 2013 02:23 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 01:51 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 01:47 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 01:31 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 00:55 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 00:41 xM(Z wrote:On June 28 2013 16:53 killy666 wrote:
I'm gonna sound extremely liberal about this, but i believe that abortion doesn't need justification besides the mother will to not have a baby. but you see, i want that bastard to live so he would pay my pension. almost everyone in a society is doing some kind of sacrifice for the greater good, why women should be exempted? wat? almost eveyone is dong some kind of sacrifice for the greater good. except for over half of them? so your anti abortion arguement is the tax revenue created by unwanted children? all over the western world there is a shortage of pension paying people so the retirement age goes up and up because of that. blame women for killing our future prospects?, of course. capitalism is not wrong. damn son you sexist. firstly - you cannot blame half the population of the planet for killing future prospects when women exist on both sides of the arguement and such a small percentage of them have had abortions. secondly - its at least just as likely that the father was for abortion in at least half the cases, despite their insignificance in the desision its not like all men are like: damn women kililng my babies! the common arguement is for the oposite like damn she stole my sperm and now i have to give her money for the rest of my life! I don't actually know how to argue the economic point you made cause its the stupidest thing i've heard so far today. you should've read the first quote better. i went with it, with: women being the sole deciders in abortion cases. i still miss the link between that and women killing our future prospects for pension paying people.
Results
U.S. Totals
Among the 49 reporting areas that provided data for 2008, a total of 825,564 abortions were reported. Of these abortions, 808,528 (97.9% of the total) were from the 45 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1999--2008.*** These same 45 areas reported 3,451,951 births for 2008, had an abortion rate of 16.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years, and had an abortion ratio of 234 abortions per 1,000 live births.
that is roughly 25% of the would be employees, of the future workforce, that won't get the chance to work because women choose to.
(also, don't forget the context, again: women decide who lives and who dies.)
|
On June 29 2013 02:37 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 02:23 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 01:51 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 01:47 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 01:31 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 00:55 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 00:41 xM(Z wrote:On June 28 2013 16:53 killy666 wrote:
I'm gonna sound extremely liberal about this, but i believe that abortion doesn't need justification besides the mother will to not have a baby. but you see, i want that bastard to live so he would pay my pension. almost everyone in a society is doing some kind of sacrifice for the greater good, why women should be exempted? wat? almost eveyone is dong some kind of sacrifice for the greater good. except for over half of them? so your anti abortion arguement is the tax revenue created by unwanted children? all over the western world there is a shortage of pension paying people so the retirement age goes up and up because of that. blame women for killing our future prospects?, of course. capitalism is not wrong. damn son you sexist. firstly - you cannot blame half the population of the planet for killing future prospects when women exist on both sides of the arguement and such a small percentage of them have had abortions. secondly - its at least just as likely that the father was for abortion in at least half the cases, despite their insignificance in the desision its not like all men are like: damn women kililng my babies! the common arguement is for the oposite like damn she stole my sperm and now i have to give her money for the rest of my life! I don't actually know how to argue the economic point you made cause its the stupidest thing i've heard so far today. you should've read the first quote better. i went with it, with: women being the sole deciders in abortion cases. i still miss the link between that and women killing our future prospects for pension paying people. Results U.S. Totals Among the 49 reporting areas that provided data for 2008, a total of 825,564 abortions were reported. Of these abortions, 808,528 (97.9% of the total) were from the 45 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1999--2008.*** These same 45 areas reported 3,451,951 births for 2008, had an abortion rate of 16.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years, and had an abortion ratio of 234 abortions per 1,000 live births. that is roughly 25% of the would be employees, of the future workforce, that won't get the chance to work because women choose to. (also, don't forget the context, again: women decide who lives and who dies.)
My god... you are blaming women for the economy... 
|
On June 29 2013 02:35 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 02:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 01:20 Sokrates wrote:On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy. Everyone has their points and their are reasonable since it is a very diffuclt case. But it doesnt help calling others stupid, anti-women, evil or bad human beings for having a different opinon than oneself. It is simply not helping the discussion and is for sure not an easy one. Srsly wtf? Speaking directly and honestly is a good way to have a discussion. Considering how deadly and authoritarian the Pro-Life position actually is, you may want to reconsider being so "reasonable." If someone had a differing opinion that Jews should be rounded up, you would not "be reasonable." No one would. My guess is that you haven't read about all the frightening situations that various anti-abortion laws actually cause real people. People have died. People have been thrown in jail. People have hurt themselves in gruesome ways. Either way, I wasn't addressing anyone here directly unless they call themselves Pro-Life. Thieving Magpie seemed to just be a misunderstanding. Horrible comparison. If nobody is "allowed" to have different opinion about this topic why have a discussion in the first place? For an awesome circlejerk?
Well okay, sorry about the Godwin.
People are allowed to have such positions. But I am giving my position, which is strongly on the side of reproductive rights and against authoritarianism. I don't see the issue with saying the position as forcefully as I see it.
What, do you just not like insults? Because I was pretty insulting with the biodeterminism discussion too. I don't know why you think it doesn't contribute to the discussion. I'm charging Pro-Lifers with misogyny, psychopathy, and authoritarianism. Seems pretty relevant to me.
|
On June 29 2013 02:44 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 02:35 Sokrates wrote:On June 29 2013 02:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 01:20 Sokrates wrote:On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy. Everyone has their points and their are reasonable since it is a very diffuclt case. But it doesnt help calling others stupid, anti-women, evil or bad human beings for having a different opinon than oneself. It is simply not helping the discussion and is for sure not an easy one. Srsly wtf? Speaking directly and honestly is a good way to have a discussion. Considering how deadly and authoritarian the Pro-Life position actually is, you may want to reconsider being so "reasonable." If someone had a differing opinion that Jews should be rounded up, you would not "be reasonable." No one would. My guess is that you haven't read about all the frightening situations that various anti-abortion laws actually cause real people. People have died. People have been thrown in jail. People have hurt themselves in gruesome ways. Either way, I wasn't addressing anyone here directly unless they call themselves Pro-Life. Thieving Magpie seemed to just be a misunderstanding. Horrible comparison. If nobody is "allowed" to have different opinion about this topic why have a discussion in the first place? For an awesome circlejerk? Well okay, sorry about the Godwin. People are allowed to have such positions. But I am giving my position, which is strongly on the side of reproductive rights and against authoritarianism. I don't see the issue with saying the position as forcefully as I see it. What, do you just not like insults? Because I was pretty insulting with the biodeterminism discussion too. I don't know why you think it doesn't contribute to the discussion. I'm charging Pro-Lifers with misogyny, psychopathy, and authoritarianism. Seems pretty relevant to me.
Although I disagree that they're psychopathic authoritarians--their inconsistency and lack of desire to follow through with their philosophy puts their intent into suspect; in other words, I have yet to find a good argument that doesn't end with them being simply misogynists.
|
On June 29 2013 02:44 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 02:35 Sokrates wrote:On June 29 2013 02:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 01:20 Sokrates wrote:On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy. Everyone has their points and their are reasonable since it is a very diffuclt case. But it doesnt help calling others stupid, anti-women, evil or bad human beings for having a different opinon than oneself. It is simply not helping the discussion and is for sure not an easy one. Srsly wtf? Speaking directly and honestly is a good way to have a discussion. Considering how deadly and authoritarian the Pro-Life position actually is, you may want to reconsider being so "reasonable." If someone had a differing opinion that Jews should be rounded up, you would not "be reasonable." No one would. My guess is that you haven't read about all the frightening situations that various anti-abortion laws actually cause real people. People have died. People have been thrown in jail. People have hurt themselves in gruesome ways. Either way, I wasn't addressing anyone here directly unless they call themselves Pro-Life. Thieving Magpie seemed to just be a misunderstanding. Horrible comparison. If nobody is "allowed" to have different opinion about this topic why have a discussion in the first place? For an awesome circlejerk? Well okay, sorry about the Godwin. People are allowed to have such positions. But I am giving my position, which is strongly on the side of reproductive rights and against authoritarianism. I don't see the issue with saying the position as forcefully as I see it. What, do you just not like insults? Because I was pretty insulting with the biodeterminism discussion too. I don't know why you think it doesn't contribute to the discussion. I'm charging Pro-Lifers with misogyny, psychopathy, and authoritarianism. Seems pretty relevant to me.
So because I oppose abortion in most situations, I'm not only misogynist, but also psychopathic and authoritarian?
I don't detest this sort of argumentation simply because it's insulting (although insulting one's opponent's is usually indicative of intellectual dishonesty) but because it's provably false and because it doesn't incite anyone to take your position seriously anymore than pro-lifers contending that contraceptives are literally the worst evil of the modern world incite anyone to take their position seriously.
It's simply not the case that opposing abortion makes one a psychopath, and nor is it the case that opposing abortion makes one a misogynist. I mean, if that's your position, then that's cool, I guess, but it doesn't contribute to the discussion because the legality/morality of abortion depends on abstract logical arguments and legal precedents, not on whether somebody thinks it's psychopathic (which, by the way, is a term frequently misused by pro-lifers to describe pro-choicers).
Even if abortion actually is moral, it doesn't follow that people who are against it are misogynists or authoritarian or psychopathic so long as their reasons for opposing it are based on honest logical argument rather than a flawed ontology which demonizes sex and/or women.
I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say "Pro-Lifers" but I really hope you mean the populist American right-wing religious group and not everyone who opposes abortion on some level.
Misogyny = hatred of women
Psychopathy = a DSM diagnosis
Authoritarian = favouring absolute obedience unilaterally as opposed to freedom
Opposition to abortion don't imply any of these things.
|
On June 29 2013 02:44 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 02:35 Sokrates wrote:On June 29 2013 02:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 01:20 Sokrates wrote:On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy. Everyone has their points and their are reasonable since it is a very diffuclt case. But it doesnt help calling others stupid, anti-women, evil or bad human beings for having a different opinon than oneself. It is simply not helping the discussion and is for sure not an easy one. Srsly wtf? Speaking directly and honestly is a good way to have a discussion. Considering how deadly and authoritarian the Pro-Life position actually is, you may want to reconsider being so "reasonable." If someone had a differing opinion that Jews should be rounded up, you would not "be reasonable." No one would. My guess is that you haven't read about all the frightening situations that various anti-abortion laws actually cause real people. People have died. People have been thrown in jail. People have hurt themselves in gruesome ways. Either way, I wasn't addressing anyone here directly unless they call themselves Pro-Life. Thieving Magpie seemed to just be a misunderstanding. Horrible comparison. If nobody is "allowed" to have different opinion about this topic why have a discussion in the first place? For an awesome circlejerk? Well okay, sorry about the Godwin. People are allowed to have such positions. But I am giving my position, which is strongly on the side of reproductive rights and against authoritarianism. I don't see the issue with saying the position as forcefully as I see it. What, do you just not like insults? Because I was pretty insulting with the biodeterminism discussion too. I don't know why you think it doesn't contribute to the discussion. I'm charging Pro-Lifers with misogyny, psychopathy, and authoritarianism. Seems pretty relevant to me.
Sure i love flaming but i dont think TL is the place for it since their banfinger is pretty loose. In other forums i flame much more. But in general you have to mix it up with arguments, it is a fine line between a good flame + good arguments and no arguments and just flaming.
Well in general you shouldnt assume everyone that is pro life is a misogyny, psychopathy, and authoritarianism person (you forgot religious noob).
I think this "side" has a lot of people that are that way but other people have good arguments that dont fall into that categorys. So it is a bad generalization.
It is also not helping your point if you call others that dont agree with you a bad person.
|
On June 29 2013 02:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 02:37 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 02:23 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 01:51 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 01:47 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 01:31 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 00:55 ComaDose wrote:On June 29 2013 00:41 xM(Z wrote:On June 28 2013 16:53 killy666 wrote:
I'm gonna sound extremely liberal about this, but i believe that abortion doesn't need justification besides the mother will to not have a baby. but you see, i want that bastard to live so he would pay my pension. almost everyone in a society is doing some kind of sacrifice for the greater good, why women should be exempted? wat? almost eveyone is dong some kind of sacrifice for the greater good. except for over half of them? so your anti abortion arguement is the tax revenue created by unwanted children? all over the western world there is a shortage of pension paying people so the retirement age goes up and up because of that. blame women for killing our future prospects?, of course. capitalism is not wrong. damn son you sexist. firstly - you cannot blame half the population of the planet for killing future prospects when women exist on both sides of the arguement and such a small percentage of them have had abortions. secondly - its at least just as likely that the father was for abortion in at least half the cases, despite their insignificance in the desision its not like all men are like: damn women kililng my babies! the common arguement is for the oposite like damn she stole my sperm and now i have to give her money for the rest of my life! I don't actually know how to argue the economic point you made cause its the stupidest thing i've heard so far today. you should've read the first quote better. i went with it, with: women being the sole deciders in abortion cases. i still miss the link between that and women killing our future prospects for pension paying people. Results U.S. Totals Among the 49 reporting areas that provided data for 2008, a total of 825,564 abortions were reported. Of these abortions, 808,528 (97.9% of the total) were from the 45 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1999--2008.*** These same 45 areas reported 3,451,951 births for 2008, had an abortion rate of 16.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years, and had an abortion ratio of 234 abortions per 1,000 live births. that is roughly 25% of the would be employees, of the future workforce, that won't get the chance to work because women choose to. (also, don't forget the context, again: women decide who lives and who dies.) My god... you are blaming women for the economy...
come on dude, either get the whole premise or don't post.
but yea in that context i would've.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
