|
On June 29 2013 01:53 SpiffD wrote:
Abortion doesn't need rape or incest to justify it.
I thought this was the year 2013.
The pro-life movement is actually rather modern. It developed (ironically) along side scientific development.
Basically, the fact that it is the year 2013 makes one all the more likely to be anti-abortion, due to things like better sonograms, more knowledge on the developmental processes of the fetus, etc.
|
On June 29 2013 05:30 xM(Z wrote:
pregnancy is temporary too yet those who aid suicidal persons in anyway, go to jail for murder.
They do not go to jail for murder.
|
accessory to murder is still murder ...
|
On June 29 2013 05:34 xM(Z wrote:
accessory to murder is still murder ...
Accessory to murder is not murder, hence why its called that and not murder. Also it is not accessory to murder these people are convicted for.
|
|
|
On June 29 2013 05:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 01:53 SpiffD wrote:
Abortion doesn't need rape or incest to justify it.
I thought this was the year 2013. The pro-life movement is actually rather modern. It developed (ironically) along side scientific development. Basically, the fact that it is the year 2013 makes one all the more likely to be anti-abortion, due to things like better sonograms, more knowledge on the developmental processes of the fetus, etc.
No, no and no. The only reason pro-life is "rather modern" is because abortion hasn't been around for very long. What a silly argument.
Sonograms, knowledge etc. doesn't make it more likely to be anti-abortion, since it's not about whether the child is healthy or not in 90%+ of the cases. It's about the mother not wanting the child to be born. It's her body, it's her choice.
I have a daughter with a girl I was with once. She chose to keep the kid, whereas my position at the time was that we were both to young, and since not together it would be better that she had a child with somone she loved, and wanted to share her life with. I told her all this, yet told her that IF she chose to have the kid, I'd be there 100%. It would be my kid, afterall.
She chose to HAVE the kid, and I love the kid. I love her dearly.
Put me in the same position again, knowing what I know now, and I would still want the child aborted. It is about not wanting the child to be raised split between two parents, and I don't forfeit my opportunity to have a child at a later point. The fetus isn't sentient, and isn't fully aware of it's surroundings. There are a multitude of reasons why people do not want the child they just so happened to be impregnated with, and it's noone elses choice but the mother's (who's body it is). The father can state his case, but until men can carry babies, it's the mother's body, and the mother's choice. Noone else has any right to a say in the matter.
Aslong as the fetus/child is dependent on the mother, the mother chooses. If the child can live outside the mother, cut it out, get it over with, it's a person.
|
What? Where?
Edit: Actually never mind, I don't care.
|
On June 29 2013 03:43 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 03:38 DoubleReed wrote:
Shiori, do you think government should enforce your position through the law? If yes, then feel free to include yourself in the people I am attacking.
I find that position directly harmful to women's health, a gross invasion of privacy by the government, and a terrible precedent for women's rights. How else do you enforce something if not by law? Society couldnt work if there arent any rules that everybody has to follow. It is not as if you decide what you eat for dinner. And then again to your 2nd point: It is not just about womens right, because the coin has to sides: The womens right (right of the own body, pricacy) and the right of the unborn child (whatever you define as a human being here). So you have to take both sides into account that makes it really difficult + some other factors (when can the fetus be considered a human being etc.).
I forgot to reply to this. You can think abortion is wrong while still thinking it shouldn't be enforced through the law. Here's Joe Biden from the vice presidential debate:
My religion defines who I am, and I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who -- who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to -- with regard to abortion, I accept my church's position on abortion as a -- what we call a (inaudible) doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the -- the congressman. I -- I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that -- women they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor.
Remember what this actually is. It is politicians telling women and doctors that it is out of their hands.
|
Well said by Biden. More should hear this. +1
|
Cheers Biden. Don't impose your stuff onto others.
|
On June 29 2013 05:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 01:53 SpiffD wrote:
Abortion doesn't need rape or incest to justify it.
I thought this was the year 2013. The pro-life movement is actually rather modern. It developed (ironically) along side scientific development. Basically, the fact that it is the year 2013 makes one all the more likely to be anti-abortion, due to things like better sonograms, more knowledge on the developmental processes of the fetus, etc.
The ironies of life
|
Aren't our crime laws entirely imposing our beliefs about acceptable behavior onto others? In the abortion context murder is obviously the closest parallel and often drawn on by both sides. If there are a subset of people that do not believe that people who have been born have a right to life should we impose our belief that they do by imprisoning those who take lives? I think Biden's statement needs the qualification that in areas that are highly contested we ought not make this imposition. The threshold of universality a moral principle needs to impose our beliefs onto others in the law seems quite arbitrary to me.
|
On June 29 2013 05:46 Jamial wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 05:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 29 2013 01:53 SpiffD wrote:
Abortion doesn't need rape or incest to justify it.
I thought this was the year 2013. The pro-life movement is actually rather modern. It developed (ironically) along side scientific development. Basically, the fact that it is the year 2013 makes one all the more likely to be anti-abortion, due to things like better sonograms, more knowledge on the developmental processes of the fetus, etc. No, no and no. The only reason pro-life is "rather modern" is because abortion hasn't been around for very long. What a silly argument. Sonograms, knowledge etc. doesn't make it more likely to be anti-abortion, since it's not about whether the child is healthy or not in 90%+ of the cases. It's about the mother not wanting the child to be born. It's her body, it's her choice. I have a daughter with a girl I was with once. She chose to keep the kid, whereas my position at the time was that we were both to young, and since not together it would be better that she had a child with somone she loved, and wanted to share her life with. I told her all this, yet told her that IF she chose to have the kid, I'd be there 100%. It would be my kid, afterall. She chose to HAVE the kid, and I love the kid. I love her dearly. Put me in the same position again, knowing what I know now, and I would still want the child aborted. It is about not wanting the child to be raised split between two parents, and I don't forfeit my opportunity to have a child at a later point. The fetus isn't sentient, and isn't fully aware of it's surroundings. There are a multitude of reasons why people do not want the child they just so happened to be impregnated with, and it's noone elses choice but the mother's (who's body it is). The father can state his case, but until men can carry babies, it's the mother's body, and the mother's choice. Noone else has any right to a say in the matter. Aslong as the fetus/child is dependent on the mother, the mother chooses. If the child can live outside the mother, cut it out, get it over with, it's a person.
Ehhhh you might want to do some reading up on the history of abortion. Women have been terminating pregnancies intentionally for a VERY long time. Generally in the past people didn't really consider a child to be a person until the "quickening" (first detectable movements) which is usually around 16-20 weeks. Any form of terminating pregnancy prior to that point wasn't exactly controversial.
|
On June 29 2013 04:07 DoubleReed wrote:
See, Shiori, I find that to be an inconsistent position. Cowardly, even, as it sounds like you just won't stand up for what you believe.
But maybe it's just that you realize that the Pro-Life position is unpopular and want to justify not truly supporting it. Shrug.
I typed out a long reply to this, but it was too cutting. Suffice to say that I resent being called a coward for realism and have noted your proclivity to attack the character of your opponents rather than their positions.
Better a coward than an ideologue, I suppose.
No. There actually are two sides. This is Scientific Racism vs Darwinism. This is Creationism vs Evolution. This is Just-World vs Real-World. This is Kittens vs Puppies.
Well, I suppose we can't call you a coward. Obviously an ideologue though. Comparing this to creationism vs evolution is amusing.
Being opposed to abortion is like rejecting evolution in favour of creationism. You heard it here first.
It is abundantly clear that you're more interested in discrediting "right-wingers" by appending random adjectives to any belief that right-wingers tend to hold than actually engaging with the issues themselves. The fact that a lot of pro-lifers are religious zealots with piss-poor argumentation doesn't invalidate opposition to abortion anymore than the radfems who are pro-choice invalidate their side.
|
On June 29 2013 10:50 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 04:07 DoubleReed wrote:
See, Shiori, I find that to be an inconsistent position. Cowardly, even, as it sounds like you just won't stand up for what you believe.
But maybe it's just that you realize that the Pro-Life position is unpopular and want to justify not truly supporting it. Shrug.
I typed out a long reply to this, but it was too cutting. Suffice to say that I resent being called a coward for realism and have noted your proclivity to attack the character of your opponents rather than their positions. Better a coward than an ideologue, I suppose. Show nested quote +
No. There actually are two sides. This is Scientific Racism vs Darwinism. This is Creationism vs Evolution. This is Just-World vs Real-World. This is Kittens vs Puppies.
Well, I suppose we can't call you a coward. Obviously an ideologue though. Comparing this to creationism vs evolution is amusing. Being opposed to abortion is like rejecting evolution in favour of creationism. You heard it here first.
Ideologue? Eh. Yes, I tend to be pretty ideological in favor of human rights. I do get pretty pissed off when people want me to compromise on that portion of things. I guess I can't really argue against that one. Caught me.
I find I'm generally on the pragmatism side of things in most arguments. But in this case I see them very much as the same. I don't really see how you could describe my position as not pragmatic, even if you do describe it as ideological.
Yea, that comparison is surprisingly good. How much do you think creationism correlates with pro-life? I'm surprised you took the creationist one, and not the scientific racism one. Still holding your punches :D
Edit:
It is abundantly clear that you're more interested in discrediting "right-wingers" by appending random adjectives to any belief that right-wingers tend to hold than actually engaging with the issues themselves. The fact that a lot of pro-lifers are religious zealots with piss-poor argumentation doesn't invalidate opposition to abortion anymore than the radfems who are pro-choice invalidate their side.
What? You're the one whining about my language rather than discussing the actual substance of the argument. That's just confusing. Pro-life laws kill people needlessly. You want me to give you examples? You want examples of women being thrown in jail for miscarrying? You want examples of women being forced to risk their lives by politicians? Cause I can get examples.
You want to read stories about Pro-Lifers who get abortions, to see the rampant hypocrisy in the pro-life side? Because I can provide you lots of infomation here.
|
EDIT
I think that's enough, though. I'd rather not continue this discussion. I feel I've been more than patient with the sideways insults and condescension. If there is some substance lurking behind your words, I'd rather not waste my eyes sifting through the nonsense to get to it.
|
EDIT: Aww... not only did Shiori edit out his post, he also got banned (by request, apparently). Damn. Well, this was my response to his previous post:
Show nested quote +I, too, tend to be pretty ideological in favour of human rights. We just happen to disagree about which position represents the proper understanding of said rights. Or do you believe that I'm some sort of reincarnated slavemaster who secretly desires to see all women in "indentured servitutude"? It wouldn't surprise me, at this point. I mean, I'm already a psychopath and a misogynist, apparently. Oh, and a coward. Yea, it's a bad day for you. Show nested quote +Ideological positions are by definition not concerned with pragmatism. If your position is pragmatic in some fashion, it is incidental. It is evident from your posts in this thread that you are making ideological claims (most of which are absurd; see next paragraph). How could you tell the difference between me ideological about my pragmatism and me being ideological and incidentally being pragmatic? Bah. Show nested quote +No, actually, the comparison isn't surprisingly good, because the comparison you made wasn't "hey! look at all these people who believe in creationism and are pro-life xD" it was "man, being opposed to abortion vs supporting abortion rights is like creationism vs evolution." Yea, specifically in the instance of there being a right side and a wrong side. One side being full of crap and the other being honest. That's all I was really getting at. I just got carried away. Show nested quote +Where have I claimed that Pro-life laws haven't killed people needlessly? Those would be examples of bad pro-life laws. Nowhere have I endorsed a position that punishing women for miscarriages is a good idea. Nowhere have I required that women continue with a pregnancy judged to be seriously threatening to their life.
I don't particularly care about pro-lifers that have abortions. People are people. Some of them are good and some of them are bad, and all of them are hypocrites in some way or another.
You're just strawmanning at this point. Well this is because I don't know your actual position. It sounds to me like you're "Pro-life but don't want any laws that are pro-life because it might make people mad." And I don't mean to misrepresent you there, but that's definitely what it sounded like. But still, that implies that if it didn't make people mad, you would be fine making dangerous laws like this. If that's wrong, then by all means, correct me. What exactly would you like to see? What kind of good pro-life law makes sense to you?
|
To those praising Biden's quote, y'all might want to reconsider what he said.
My religion defines who I am, and I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who -- who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to -- with regard to abortion, I accept my church's position on abortion as a -- what we call a (inaudible) doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the -- the congressman. I -- I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that -- women they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor.
One of the inalienable rights inherent in all human beings is life. We can all agree that the defense of that liberty is a nation's most imperative purpose. Thus, isn't it necessary to define when that life begins, what's to be determined as human life? To me, Biden's basically saying, "I have a strong opinion on this, but I'll let the mob democracy decide for me win over that choice."
Consider it from another topic: what if Biden had said he sees men and women as equals under the law, but would not impose that belief upon the rest of the nation? My point is that somebody who holds a worldview similar to Biden's on an issue that deals with a subject as serious as human life itself should have the conviction to step forward and voice those concerns, instead of cater to those he disagrees with as if their argument is still wholly valid legally. The Vice President appears the most cowardly one then, if you ask me.
Edit: On June 29 2013 10:25 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Aren't our crime laws entirely imposing our beliefs about acceptable behavior onto others? In the abortion context murder is obviously the closest parallel and often drawn on by both sides. If there are a subset of people that do not believe that people who have been born have a right to life should we impose our belief that they do by imprisoning those who take lives? I think Biden's statement needs the qualification that in areas that are highly contested we ought not make this imposition. The threshold of universality a moral principle needs to impose our beliefs onto others in the law seems quite arbitrary to me.
In a way, yes. But legally, no. Laws were originally intended to be negative forces to prevent injustices from occurring, or to punish infringements on rights as they happened. In the case of laws against crime, they do precisely that: punish for unlawful behavior. But as long as the behavior is not unlawful, one can do literally whatever the heck they want. Negative law assumes total liberty of the citizen, but cuts back on unlawful acts by enumerating them. Positive law enumerates the rights people have, as if they are not rights inherently until the government bestows them upon its citizens. Think of it this way: "negative" laws look like "you can do anything you want, except x, y, and z, because they infringe upon certain rights;" whereas "positive laws appear more along the lines of "you are granted permission by the law to do a, b, and c."
In other words, they don't force people to do acceptable behavior, so much as they force people to not do unacceptable behavior.
|
On June 29 2013 11:05 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 10:50 Shiori wrote:On June 29 2013 04:07 DoubleReed wrote:
See, Shiori, I find that to be an inconsistent position. Cowardly, even, as it sounds like you just won't stand up for what you believe.
But maybe it's just that you realize that the Pro-Life position is unpopular and want to justify not truly supporting it. Shrug.
I typed out a long reply to this, but it was too cutting. Suffice to say that I resent being called a coward for realism and have noted your proclivity to attack the character of your opponents rather than their positions. Better a coward than an ideologue, I suppose.
No. There actually are two sides. This is Scientific Racism vs Darwinism. This is Creationism vs Evolution. This is Just-World vs Real-World. This is Kittens vs Puppies.
Well, I suppose we can't call you a coward. Obviously an ideologue though. Comparing this to creationism vs evolution is amusing. Being opposed to abortion is like rejecting evolution in favour of creationism. You heard it here first. Ideologue? Eh. Yes, I tend to be pretty ideological in favor of human rights. I do get pretty pissed off when people want me to compromise on that portion of things. I guess I can't really argue against that one. Caught me. I find I'm generally on the pragmatism side of things in most arguments. But in this case I see them very much as the same. I don't really see how you could describe my position as not pragmatic, even if you do describe it as ideological. Yea, that comparison is surprisingly good. How much do you think creationism correlates with pro-life? I'm surprised you took the creationist one, and not the scientific racism one. Still holding your punches :D Edit: Show nested quote +It is abundantly clear that you're more interested in discrediting "right-wingers" by appending random adjectives to any belief that right-wingers tend to hold than actually engaging with the issues themselves. The fact that a lot of pro-lifers are religious zealots with piss-poor argumentation doesn't invalidate opposition to abortion anymore than the radfems who are pro-choice invalidate their side. What? You're the one whining about my language rather than discussing the actual substance of the argument. That's just confusing. Pro-life laws kill people needlessly. You want me to give you examples? You want examples of women being thrown in jail for miscarrying? You want examples of women being forced to risk their lives by politicians? Cause I can get examples. You want to read stories about Pro-Lifers who get abortions, to see the rampant hypocrisy in the pro-life side? Because I can provide you lots of infomation here.
1. You just seem to ignore that there are two sides of human rights. Not just one therefore you cannot be in favor of human rights if you ignore one side. That is not pragmatic but ideologic since you just ignore one side.
2. Miscarrying is not a crime, if they got thrown into jail then it would be because of poor judgementof the court.
3. Hypocrisy of people that are for the other side doesnt make arguments invalid (neither their arguments nor the different argument one can have for certain point or taking a different aspect other than your own into account). It is just them being hypocrits.
Your point of view is just too simple and onedimensional therefore your conclusions are simple aswell. Basically you have to solve a complex problem, but you just take away different aspects of the problem and then you say "Well look i solved the problem! why dont you do it my way?"
|
On June 29 2013 12:16 cLAN.Anax wrote:To those praising Biden's quote, y'all might want to reconsider what he said. Show nested quote +My religion defines who I am, and I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who -- who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to -- with regard to abortion, I accept my church's position on abortion as a -- what we call a (inaudible) doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the -- the congressman. I -- I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that -- women they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor. One of the inalienable rights inherent in all human beings is life. We can all agree that the defense of that liberty is a nation's most imperative purpose. Thus, isn't it necessary to define when that life begins, what's to be determined as human life? To me, Biden's basically saying, "I have a strong opinion on this, but I'll let the mob democracy decide for me win over that choice." Consider it from another topic: what if Biden had said he sees men and women as equals under the law, but would not impose that belief upon the rest of the nation? My point is that somebody who holds a worldview similar to Biden's on an issue that deals with a subject as serious as human life itself should have the conviction to step forward and voice those concerns, instead of cater to those he disagrees with as if their argument is still wholly valid legally. The Vice President appears the most cowardly one then, if you ask me.
I think you might want to reconsider what he said. He identified his personal belief with regards to abortion as a belief concerning his life, not as a belief concerning how society should be structured. He can therefore very well argue that others should have the choice to believe and do as they want without contradicting himself in any way. He's also still free not to ever get an abortion (by that I mean his wife, obviously), since the position he defends is precisely that of choice - "the mob" isn't telling him how to live his life, it is giving him the very choice he needs to exert his personal belief. Men and women being equal under the law, meanwhile, is a belief whose application can only be structural and not individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
