• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 10:42
CEST 16:42
KST 23:42
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week5[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles6[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China10Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL70
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread TL Team Map Contest #4: Winners Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster Server Blocker RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone BW General Discussion Script to open stream directly using middle click ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0 Last Minute Live-Report Thread Resource!
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5 Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Accidental Video Game Porn Archive Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 609 users

Rape and Incest - justification for Abortion? - Page 42

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 40 41 42 43 44 58 Next
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-29 04:39:54
June 29 2013 04:31 GMT
#821
DoubleReed
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage


That makes zero sense, a miscarriage would I hope be regarded as an act of God or the universe or whatever, where no human being is at fault.

DoubleReed
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.


How many tens of millions of lives have been ended since 1973.

Also, really?

same guyEdit: 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.


smh

thievingmagpie
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.


i hope that i would never seriously think and say that there is not a good argument for abortion other than inhuman callousness and other bad things comparably bad to being a misogynist.

this may be the first time on the internet that not having a black-and-white view of an issue was a grounds for criticism

also i think we can all agree that if we pro-lifers followed through on our philosophy, you and doublereed and the rest would be having a fit and there would be no condemnation too strong for us

can't believe the incredible contradiction between doublereed accusing people of authoritarianism while his behavior the last 5 pages has been nothing but authoritarian
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
cLAN.Anax
Profile Blog Joined July 2012
United States2847 Posts
June 29 2013 04:55 GMT
#822
On June 29 2013 13:22 kwizach wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2013 12:16 cLAN.Anax wrote:
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.

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.


Is life supposed to be subject to the individual definitions of it? Is there no national definition for who is alive and who counts as a citizen with inalienable rights? When it comes to the legality of the issue, a consistent definition is imperative. Because this "freedom" to abortions that you, he, and others ardently espouse could plausibly be killing millions of unborn humans, necessarily infringing on their rights, this matter demands stronger consideration than dismissing as "differences in opinion."
┬─┬___(ツ)_/¯ 彡┻━┻ I am the 4%. "I cant believe i saw ANAL backwards before i saw the word LAN." - Capped
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-29 05:04:21
June 29 2013 04:59 GMT
#823
That makes zero sense, a miscarriage would I hope be regarded as an act of God or the universe or whatever, where no human being is at fault.


What are you talking about? If abortion is illegal, then you have to scrutinize miscarriages to be consistent. Is this really that hard to understand? Rather than treating miscarriages compassionately, you must be suspicious that they carried out a crime.

You can't criminalize abortions without miscarriage trials. It makes no sense.

How many tens of millions of lives have been ended since 1973.

Also, really?


How many millions of ovulations have been fertilized eggs?

Really really.

this may be the first time on the internet that not having a black-and-white view of an issue was a grounds for criticism


I brought up several counterexamples to this. Creationism vs Evolution. Scientific Racism vs Darwinism. I can come up with plenty more if you'd like. Segregation. Nazism. Gay rights.

There's plenty of issues that you will be criticized harshly for taking a so-called 'moderate' position on.

also i think we can all agree that if we pro-lifers followed through on our philosophy, you and doublereed and the rest would be having a fit and there would be no condemnation too strong for us


Yes, that's probably true. That doesn't say anything positive about your philosophy. It makes me think that even you recognize that it is seriously flawed and should not be followed through on.

can't believe the incredible contradiction between doublereed accusing people of authoritarianism while his behavior the last 5 pages has been nothing but authoritarian


??? Calling people names is not authoritarian. And the position of "it should be the choice of women and their doctors and they shouldn't have politicians getting in their way" is about as far from authoritarian as you can get.

By all means, if I have misrepresented your position, go ahead and describe what your position is.
cLAN.Anax
Profile Blog Joined July 2012
United States2847 Posts
June 29 2013 05:03 GMT
#824
On June 29 2013 13:59 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
That makes zero sense, a miscarriage would I hope be regarded as an act of God or the universe or whatever, where no human being is at fault.


What are you talking about? If abortion is illegal, then you have to scrutinize miscarriages to be consistent. Is this really that hard to understand? Rather than treating miscarriages compassionately, you must be suspicious that they carried out a crime.

You can't criminalize abortions without miscarriage trials. It makes no sense.


Wouldn't they be innocent until proven guilty? At least in the States?
┬─┬___(ツ)_/¯ 彡┻━┻ I am the 4%. "I cant believe i saw ANAL backwards before i saw the word LAN." - Capped
Sokrates
Profile Joined May 2012
738 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-29 05:14:06
June 29 2013 05:06 GMT
#825
On June 29 2013 13:59 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
That makes zero sense, a miscarriage would I hope be regarded as an act of God or the universe or whatever, where no human being is at fault.


What are you talking about? If abortion is illegal, then you have to scrutinize miscarriages to be consistent. Is this really that hard to understand? Rather than treating miscarriages compassionately, you must be suspicious that they carried out a crime.

You can't criminalize abortions without miscarriage trials. It makes no sense.

Show nested quote +
How many tens of millions of lives have been ended since 1973.

Also, really?


Really really.

Show nested quote +
this may be the first time on the internet that not having a black-and-white view of an issue was a grounds for criticism


I brought up several counterexamples to this. Creationism vs Evolution. Scientific Racism vs Darwinism. I can come up with plenty more if you'd like. Segregation. Nazism. Gay rights.

There's plenty of issues that you will be criticized harshly for taking a so-called 'moderate' position on.

Show nested quote +
also i think we can all agree that if we pro-lifers followed through on our philosophy, you and doublereed and the rest would be having a fit and there would be no condemnation too strong for us


Yes, that's probably true. That doesn't say anything positive about your philosophy. It makes me think that even you recognize that it is seriously flawed and should not be followed through on.

Show nested quote +
can't believe the incredible contradiction between doublereed accusing people of authoritarianism while his behavior the last 5 pages has been nothing but authoritarian


??? Calling people names is not authoritarian.

By all means, if I have misrepresented your position, go ahead and describe what your position is.


So then you should say every person that dies a normal death means that somebody has to investigate this and put up a trial. Because punishing murder etc. means that if people die there has to be a trial.

Furthermore: You bring up this creationism vs evolution examples, something anybody can bring up in any discussion to prove the point for themselves?

How do you know that you are not on the creationism side of things? Let us say somebody against your position uses this argument against you, how do you react? Bringing up this examples doesnt make any sense since everybody is able to claim to be on the right side and the other one is wrong. And even then it is totally unrelated, using this kind of arguments means that in no discussion ever there is a middle ground since you always are able to say "this discussion is about creationism vs evolution". It just doesnt make sense.

Let's we discuss about legalisation of weed, then naturally there are just two positions: the total ban of weed or the total liberty of consuming weed. Because it is about creationism vs evolution, man.

And since you like insults a lot, i have a very good idea what a person like you would do 500 years ago...
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-29 05:33:50
June 29 2013 05:21 GMT
#826
So then you should say every person that dies a normal death means that somebody has to investigate this and put up a trial. Because punishing murder etc. means that if people die there has to be a trial.


What? Please think about this argument for a second, and think about when police investigate a murder.

If you want abortion to be illegal, you obviously have to scrutinize miscarriages in some way to ensure that people aren't having abortions. This isn't a weird position. It's the only possible way it can work. Otherwise, abortion isn't illegal, because I can just say it was a miscarriage.

Edit: Pro-Life positions often don't consider about how the laws would actually work in practice, which is why these things like rape/incest exceptions came up. When you actually try to make such laws, it becomes pretty obvious that it's basically impossible to create Pro-Life laws that actually work and don't seriously threaten women's liberty or health.

Furthermore: You bring up this creationism vs evolution examples, something anybody can bring up in any discussion to prove the point for themselves?

How do you know that you are not on the creationism side of things? Let us say somebody against your position uses this argument against you, how do you react? Bringing up this examples doesnt make any sense since everybody is able to claim to be on the right side and the other one is wrong. And even then it is totally unrelated, using this kind of arguments means that in no discussion ever there is a middle ground since you always are able to say "this discussion is about creationism vs evolution". It just doesnt make sense.

Let's we discuss about legalisation of weed, then naturally there are just two positions: the total ban of weed or the total liberty of consuming weed. Because it is about creationism vs evolution, man.


The weed example is simply a matter of pragmatism. So explain to me how my position is not completely pragmatic. People get freedom, they get reproductive rights, politicians aren't intervening in medical affairs, doctors are granted more options for treating their patients, women get to take the risks to their own body that they choose. What the hell is your problem?

My main point with the creationism thing was that there are plenty of issues where moderate positions are completely unacceptable. This isn't that unusual at all.

And since you like insults a lot, i have a very good idea what a person like you would do 500 years ago...


Smoke weed?
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
June 29 2013 05:28 GMT
#827
On June 29 2013 13:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Show nested quote +
thievingmagpie
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.


i hope that i would never seriously think and say that there is not a good argument for abortion other than inhuman callousness and other bad things comparably bad to being a misogynist.

this may be the first time on the internet that not having a black-and-white view of an issue was a grounds for criticism

also i think we can all agree that if we pro-lifers followed through on our philosophy, you and doublereed and the rest would be having a fit and there would be no condemnation too strong for us

can't believe the incredible contradiction between doublereed accusing people of authoritarianism while his behavior the last 5 pages has been nothing but authoritarian


Being that I see the issue of abortion as purely a woman's right's issue--to say a woman has no say on her body in any way seems misogynistic to me.

I do agree that abortion is murder, and I do personally dislike it when that path is chosen. But I do not feel I have a say on another person's body. Call me callous if you will, until you find a way to protect a potential child without infringing on person's liberty, I just can't abide by it.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
TrollPolice
Profile Joined May 2013
44 Posts
June 29 2013 05:31 GMT
#828
On June 29 2013 01:58 mafaba wrote:
^ 'muricans

User was temp banned for this post.


a post with a lack of a text worth reading. mod had a nerd moment. us murricans are kinda dumb
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5281 Posts
June 29 2013 05:32 GMT
#829
men, just let doublereed go. he would learn the right way, the hard way. just hope, for his sake, it won't be to late.
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
Sokrates
Profile Joined May 2012
738 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-29 05:45:51
June 29 2013 05:40 GMT
#830
On June 29 2013 14:21 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
So then you should say every person that dies a normal death means that somebody has to investigate this and put up a trial. Because punishing murder etc. means that if people die there has to be a trial.


What? Please think about this argument for a second, and think about when police investigate a murder.

If you want abortion to be illegal, you obviously have to scrutinize miscarriages in some way to ensure that people aren't having abortions. This isn't a weird position. It's the only possible way it can work. Otherwise, abortion isn't illegal, because I can just say it was a miscarriage.

Show nested quote +
Furthermore: You bring up this creationism vs evolution examples, something anybody can bring up in any discussion to prove the point for themselves?

How do you know that you are not on the creationism side of things? Let us say somebody against your position uses this argument against you, how do you react? Bringing up this examples doesnt make any sense since everybody is able to claim to be on the right side and the other one is wrong. And even then it is totally unrelated, using this kind of arguments means that in no discussion ever there is a middle ground since you always are able to say "this discussion is about creationism vs evolution". It just doesnt make sense.

Let's we discuss about legalisation of weed, then naturally there are just two positions: the total ban of weed or the total liberty of consuming weed. Because it is about creationism vs evolution, man.


The weed example is simply a matter of pragmatism. So explain to me how my position is not completely pragmatic. People get freedom, they get reproductive rights, politicians aren't intervening in medical affairs, doctors are granted more options for treating their patients, women get to take the risks to their own body that they choose. What the hell is your problem?

My main point with the creationism thing was that there are plenty of issues where moderate positions are completely unacceptable. This isn't that unusual at all.

Show nested quote +
And since you like insults a lot, i have a very good idea what a person like you would do 500 years ago...


Smoke weed?


1.So if someone dies you have to ensure that nobody did kill them right? So you have to scrutinize death of a person.
2.The weed example was to show that you can argue a lot of different positions: You can argue that weed should be illegal, you can argue that weed should be legal and you can argue that weed should be legal under certrain conditions (being the middle ground here).
3.Ofc course there are debates where no middle ground exists that doesnt mean that this discussion is one. Got that?
In the creationism vs evolution debate you are either wrong or right. Either one of the "theories" is wrong by disproving it or right. It could also be that both positions are wrong since evolution is called theory of evolution. But that is highly unlikley.

Then again in the abortion discussion there are many factos, for example if you allow abortion to what point is it allowed and if there are cetain cases where you are still allowed to have an abortion after a certain date (like for rape etc.). So right now you can have an abortion up until week 24 without giving any reasons (if i m not mistaken) so there you can argue if you want to allow abortion without giving any reason for a later date (like week 28) or if you say that abortion without anyreasons should be under 24 weeks. You can also argue under what circumstances abortion is allowed after a certain date. etc. Or one can say abortion should be legal up until any point till birth without giving any reasons.

So there is no clear wrong or right. You just try to force it into a wrong or right thing. It just doesnt make sense.

MiraMax
Profile Joined July 2009
Germany532 Posts
June 29 2013 05:57 GMT
#831
On June 29 2013 14:40 Sokrates wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2013 14:21 DoubleReed wrote:
So then you should say every person that dies a normal death means that somebody has to investigate this and put up a trial. Because punishing murder etc. means that if people die there has to be a trial.


What? Please think about this argument for a second, and think about when police investigate a murder.

If you want abortion to be illegal, you obviously have to scrutinize miscarriages in some way to ensure that people aren't having abortions. This isn't a weird position. It's the only possible way it can work. Otherwise, abortion isn't illegal, because I can just say it was a miscarriage.

Furthermore: You bring up this creationism vs evolution examples, something anybody can bring up in any discussion to prove the point for themselves?

How do you know that you are not on the creationism side of things? Let us say somebody against your position uses this argument against you, how do you react? Bringing up this examples doesnt make any sense since everybody is able to claim to be on the right side and the other one is wrong. And even then it is totally unrelated, using this kind of arguments means that in no discussion ever there is a middle ground since you always are able to say "this discussion is about creationism vs evolution". It just doesnt make sense.

Let's we discuss about legalisation of weed, then naturally there are just two positions: the total ban of weed or the total liberty of consuming weed. Because it is about creationism vs evolution, man.


The weed example is simply a matter of pragmatism. So explain to me how my position is not completely pragmatic. People get freedom, they get reproductive rights, politicians aren't intervening in medical affairs, doctors are granted more options for treating their patients, women get to take the risks to their own body that they choose. What the hell is your problem?

My main point with the creationism thing was that there are plenty of issues where moderate positions are completely unacceptable. This isn't that unusual at all.

And since you like insults a lot, i have a very good idea what a person like you would do 500 years ago...


Smoke weed?


1.So if someone dies you have to ensure that nobody did kill them right? So you have to scrutinize death of a person.



Hmmm...it seems this comes as a surprise to you but "deaths" are routinely scrutinized in our day and age. Depending on the circumstances either a doctor, coroner or policeman has to fill in a bunch of papers to certify the time and potential/plausible cause of death and should anything be suspicious there will be further investigations. DoubleReed has a point in saying that if miscarriages were to be seen as "accidental" deaths of (unborn) persons then here should be similar measures for detecting, registering and controlling miscarriages, don't you think?
Valon
Profile Joined June 2011
United States329 Posts
June 29 2013 05:59 GMT
#832
Abortion is never justified. It is not the Childs fault and should not be killed ever.
Sokrates
Profile Joined May 2012
738 Posts
June 29 2013 06:01 GMT
#833
On June 29 2013 14:57 MiraMax wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2013 14:40 Sokrates wrote:
On June 29 2013 14:21 DoubleReed wrote:
So then you should say every person that dies a normal death means that somebody has to investigate this and put up a trial. Because punishing murder etc. means that if people die there has to be a trial.


What? Please think about this argument for a second, and think about when police investigate a murder.

If you want abortion to be illegal, you obviously have to scrutinize miscarriages in some way to ensure that people aren't having abortions. This isn't a weird position. It's the only possible way it can work. Otherwise, abortion isn't illegal, because I can just say it was a miscarriage.

Furthermore: You bring up this creationism vs evolution examples, something anybody can bring up in any discussion to prove the point for themselves?

How do you know that you are not on the creationism side of things? Let us say somebody against your position uses this argument against you, how do you react? Bringing up this examples doesnt make any sense since everybody is able to claim to be on the right side and the other one is wrong. And even then it is totally unrelated, using this kind of arguments means that in no discussion ever there is a middle ground since you always are able to say "this discussion is about creationism vs evolution". It just doesnt make sense.

Let's we discuss about legalisation of weed, then naturally there are just two positions: the total ban of weed or the total liberty of consuming weed. Because it is about creationism vs evolution, man.


The weed example is simply a matter of pragmatism. So explain to me how my position is not completely pragmatic. People get freedom, they get reproductive rights, politicians aren't intervening in medical affairs, doctors are granted more options for treating their patients, women get to take the risks to their own body that they choose. What the hell is your problem?

My main point with the creationism thing was that there are plenty of issues where moderate positions are completely unacceptable. This isn't that unusual at all.

And since you like insults a lot, i have a very good idea what a person like you would do 500 years ago...


Smoke weed?


1.So if someone dies you have to ensure that nobody did kill them right? So you have to scrutinize death of a person.



Hmmm...it seems this comes as a surprise to you but "deaths" are routinely scrutinized in our day and age. Depending on the circumstances either a doctor, coroner or policeman has to fill in a bunch of papers to certify the time and potential/plausible cause of death and should anything be suspicious there will be further investigations. DoubleReed has a point in saying that if miscarriages were to be seen as "accidental" deaths of (unborn) persons then here should be similar measures for detecting, registering and controlling miscarriages, don't you think?


So? Whats your point?
Chocobo
Profile Joined November 2006
United States1108 Posts
June 29 2013 06:11 GMT
#834
On June 29 2013 14:59 Valon wrote:
Abortion is never justified. It is not the Childs fault and should not be killed ever.


Why do I think that you would feel differently, if you were raped and then forced to bear the unwanted child of your rapist for 9 months, undergoing drastic changes to your body, and being forced to pay for the medical costs of it all.

9 months of further damage to you beyond the rape. 9 months of being unable to get over your attack and try to put it in the past. Have you ever even considered what that would be like? In my experience, few pro-life advocates have.
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5281 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-29 07:27:33
June 29 2013 07:00 GMT
#835
On June 29 2013 15:11 Chocobo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2013 14:59 Valon wrote:
Abortion is never justified. It is not the Childs fault and should not be killed ever.


Why do I think that you would feel differently, if you were raped and then forced to bear the unwanted child of your rapist for 9 months, undergoing drastic changes to your body, and being forced to pay for the medical costs of it all.

9 months of further damage to you beyond the rape. 9 months of being unable to get over your attack and try to put it in the past. Have you ever even considered what that would be like? In my experience, few pro-life advocates have.

that can be pragmatically countered: 9 months in a lifetime is not much(~1.2%). women spend 9 years of their lives watching useless TV anyway; not to mention those other years of doing useless activities.
or, futuristically: if that kid would turn out to be a second stephen hawking, wouldn't all be worth it then?.

edit: collateral damage has been a part of human existence for longer then we can remember. it's not only accepted/acknowledged as a good thing but also the desired outcome when the result of an action is uncertain.
why, when allegedly bad shit happens (only) to women, all accepted norms of society should be bent or broken?.
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
gruff
Profile Joined September 2010
Sweden2276 Posts
June 29 2013 07:40 GMT
#836
On June 29 2013 16:00 xM(Z wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2013 15:11 Chocobo wrote:
On June 29 2013 14:59 Valon wrote:
Abortion is never justified. It is not the Childs fault and should not be killed ever.


Why do I think that you would feel differently, if you were raped and then forced to bear the unwanted child of your rapist for 9 months, undergoing drastic changes to your body, and being forced to pay for the medical costs of it all.

9 months of further damage to you beyond the rape. 9 months of being unable to get over your attack and try to put it in the past. Have you ever even considered what that would be like? In my experience, few pro-life advocates have.

that can be pragmatically countered: 9 months in a lifetime is not much(~1.2%). women spend 9 years of their lives watching useless TV anyway; not to mention those other years of doing useless activities.
or, futuristically: if that kid would turn out to be a second stephen hawking, wouldn't all be worth it then?.

edit: collateral damage has been a part of human existence for longer then we can remember. it's not only accepted/acknowledged as a good thing but also the desired outcome when the result of an action is uncertain.
why, when allegedly bad shit happens (only) to women, all accepted norms of society should be bent or broken?.

So because women MIGHT live to when they are 70 it's not a big deal? That's some weird logic right there. And since you seem to be fond of statistics, do you want me to list the chance of a kid ending up being the next Stephen Hawking? And collateral damage have nothing to do with it and is NOT accepted as a good thing in many circumstances. Also I don't understand why you think this is something that's tied to them being women. You don't think abortions would be legal if it were men that were forced to carry the baby for 9 months?
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5281 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-29 08:02:21
June 29 2013 08:01 GMT
#837
On June 29 2013 16:40 gruff wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2013 16:00 xM(Z wrote:
On June 29 2013 15:11 Chocobo wrote:
On June 29 2013 14:59 Valon wrote:
Abortion is never justified. It is not the Childs fault and should not be killed ever.


Why do I think that you would feel differently, if you were raped and then forced to bear the unwanted child of your rapist for 9 months, undergoing drastic changes to your body, and being forced to pay for the medical costs of it all.

9 months of further damage to you beyond the rape. 9 months of being unable to get over your attack and try to put it in the past. Have you ever even considered what that would be like? In my experience, few pro-life advocates have.

that can be pragmatically countered: 9 months in a lifetime is not much(~1.2%). women spend 9 years of their lives watching useless TV anyway; not to mention those other years of doing useless activities.
or, futuristically: if that kid would turn out to be a second stephen hawking, wouldn't all be worth it then?.

edit: collateral damage has been a part of human existence for longer then we can remember. it's not only accepted/acknowledged as a good thing but also the desired outcome when the result of an action is uncertain.
why, when allegedly bad shit happens (only) to women, all accepted norms of society should be bent or broken?.

So because women MIGHT live to when they are 70 it's not a big deal? That's some weird logic right there. And since you seem to be fond of statistics, do you want me to list the chance of a kid ending up being the next Stephen Hawking? And collateral damage have nothing to do with it and is NOT accepted as a good thing in many circumstances. Also I don't understand why you think this is something that's tied to them being women. You don't think abortions would be legal if it were men that were forced to carry the baby for 9 months?

women already have a life expectancy higher then men, topping it up at 81 yrs old (in US) and it's not about the chances of one would be s.hawking child, it's about the chance of billions (by now) of them that didn't had the possibility.
being frowned upon in media outlets doesn't make collateral damage wrong when it's accepted by the majority of people, tacitly.
if men were to carry babies, it would mean that women went extinct. if there were no women, then we wouldn't be having this conversation anyway.
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
Orangered
Profile Joined June 2013
289 Posts
June 29 2013 08:06 GMT
#838
On June 29 2013 14:31 TrollPolice wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2013 01:58 mafaba wrote:
^ 'muricans

User was temp banned for this post.


a post with a lack of a text worth reading. mod had a nerd moment. us murricans are kinda dumb

your name and "us murricans" makes me think something is up with this user...
Reason
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
United Kingdom2770 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-29 09:25:48
June 29 2013 09:12 GMT
#839
On June 29 2013 15:01 Sokrates wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2013 14:57 MiraMax wrote:
On June 29 2013 14:40 Sokrates wrote:
On June 29 2013 14:21 DoubleReed wrote:
So then you should say every person that dies a normal death means that somebody has to investigate this and put up a trial. Because punishing murder etc. means that if people die there has to be a trial.


What? Please think about this argument for a second, and think about when police investigate a murder.

If you want abortion to be illegal, you obviously have to scrutinize miscarriages in some way to ensure that people aren't having abortions. This isn't a weird position. It's the only possible way it can work. Otherwise, abortion isn't illegal, because I can just say it was a miscarriage.

Furthermore: You bring up this creationism vs evolution examples, something anybody can bring up in any discussion to prove the point for themselves?

How do you know that you are not on the creationism side of things? Let us say somebody against your position uses this argument against you, how do you react? Bringing up this examples doesnt make any sense since everybody is able to claim to be on the right side and the other one is wrong. And even then it is totally unrelated, using this kind of arguments means that in no discussion ever there is a middle ground since you always are able to say "this discussion is about creationism vs evolution". It just doesnt make sense.

Let's we discuss about legalisation of weed, then naturally there are just two positions: the total ban of weed or the total liberty of consuming weed. Because it is about creationism vs evolution, man.


The weed example is simply a matter of pragmatism. So explain to me how my position is not completely pragmatic. People get freedom, they get reproductive rights, politicians aren't intervening in medical affairs, doctors are granted more options for treating their patients, women get to take the risks to their own body that they choose. What the hell is your problem?

My main point with the creationism thing was that there are plenty of issues where moderate positions are completely unacceptable. This isn't that unusual at all.

And since you like insults a lot, i have a very good idea what a person like you would do 500 years ago...


Smoke weed?


1.So if someone dies you have to ensure that nobody did kill them right? So you have to scrutinize death of a person.



Hmmm...it seems this comes as a surprise to you but "deaths" are routinely scrutinized in our day and age. Depending on the circumstances either a doctor, coroner or policeman has to fill in a bunch of papers to certify the time and potential/plausible cause of death and should anything be suspicious there will be further investigations. DoubleReed has a point in saying that if miscarriages were to be seen as "accidental" deaths of (unborn) persons then here should be similar measures for detecting, registering and controlling miscarriages, don't you think?


So? Whats your point?

The point is you kept saying "so, what you're saying is that every death then has to be investigated in case it's a murder" as if that would be something ridiculous when in actual fact that's exactly what happens.

On June 29 2013 17:01 xM(Z wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2013 16:40 gruff wrote:
On June 29 2013 16:00 xM(Z wrote:
On June 29 2013 15:11 Chocobo wrote:
On June 29 2013 14:59 Valon wrote:
Abortion is never justified. It is not the Childs fault and should not be killed ever.


Why do I think that you would feel differently, if you were raped and then forced to bear the unwanted child of your rapist for 9 months, undergoing drastic changes to your body, and being forced to pay for the medical costs of it all.

9 months of further damage to you beyond the rape. 9 months of being unable to get over your attack and try to put it in the past. Have you ever even considered what that would be like? In my experience, few pro-life advocates have.

that can be pragmatically countered: 9 months in a lifetime is not much(~1.2%). women spend 9 years of their lives watching useless TV anyway; not to mention those other years of doing useless activities.
or, futuristically: if that kid would turn out to be a second stephen hawking, wouldn't all be worth it then?.

edit: collateral damage has been a part of human existence for longer then we can remember. it's not only accepted/acknowledged as a good thing but also the desired outcome when the result of an action is uncertain.
why, when allegedly bad shit happens (only) to women, all accepted norms of society should be bent or broken?.

So because women MIGHT live to when they are 70 it's not a big deal? That's some weird logic right there. And since you seem to be fond of statistics, do you want me to list the chance of a kid ending up being the next Stephen Hawking? And collateral damage have nothing to do with it and is NOT accepted as a good thing in many circumstances. Also I don't understand why you think this is something that's tied to them being women. You don't think abortions would be legal if it were men that were forced to carry the baby for 9 months?

women already have a life expectancy higher then men, topping it up at 81 yrs old (in US) and it's not about the chances of one would be s.hawking child, it's about the chance of billions (by now) of them that didn't had the possibility.
being frowned upon in media outlets doesn't make collateral damage wrong when it's accepted by the majority of people, tacitly.
if men were to carry babies, it would mean that women went extinct. if there were no women, then we wouldn't be having this conversation anyway.

If humans lived for 1000 years it would have absolutely no bearing on this issue, stop talking about life expectancy as if it's somehow relevant or even a consideration.

Your attempt to justify abortion because of all the people that didn't get a chance at life is exactly the same argument against masturbation because all of those sperms could have been people too.

None of what you're saying is relevant or stands up to scrutiny, at this stage I wonder if you're really voicing your own opinions or just trying to disagree with people for the sake of it.

Pro-choice vs pro-life:

Pro-life is a black and white position, which probably contributes to it's failure in the real world.

The reason there aren't two sides to this argument is because the other "side", pro-choice, is a continuum. Lot's of "pro-choice" people have differing views about when abortion is or is not acceptable, which is where most of the debate rests, and quite rightly so.

The real discussion to be had isn't really pro-choice vs pro-life, it's pro-choice vs many different interpretations of pro-choice.

Pro-life is opposite to the most radical and opposite interpretation of pro-choice could be, but I don't think any rational person would hold that position e.g. fine with abortions 1 day before due date. Personally I think pro-life is equally absurd as being uncompromisingly pro-choice, neither positions are practical for world in which we live.
Speak properly, and in as few words as you can, but always plainly; for the end of speech is not ostentation, but to be understood.
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5281 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-29 09:26:44
June 29 2013 09:25 GMT
#840
a spermatozoid in an incubator does not make a human.
i wasn't talking about life expectancy, #gruff did; equating those 9 month with time/years lost. i was just pointing out how women are doing better then men and can afford to toss around couple years.

i'm not voicing opinions, i'm voicing valid logical arguments. i'm just making the gray, grey-er.
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
Prev 1 40 41 42 43 44 58 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
FEL
12:00
Cracov 2025: Qualifier #3
IndyStarCraft 483
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
IndyStarCraft 483
Hui .189
StarCraft: Brood War
BeSt 1923
Jaedong 1119
Mini 999
EffOrt 960
Light 545
Stork 463
ToSsGirL 430
Larva 345
firebathero 299
PianO 212
[ Show more ]
GuemChi 175
Snow 152
Last 116
Movie 101
soO 96
Shinee 61
Mind 56
JulyZerg 50
sas.Sziky 47
Dewaltoss 44
sorry 43
sSak 38
Barracks 36
zelot 27
Terrorterran 20
yabsab 14
HiyA 11
Noble 11
Rock 9
Dota 2
Gorgc8108
qojqva2259
XcaliburYe250
LuMiX2
Counter-Strike
chrisJcsgo314
edward85
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor495
Other Games
tarik_tv24831
gofns9669
FrodaN5863
B2W.Neo1835
singsing1806
DeMusliM515
crisheroes465
shahzam446
Lowko374
Fuzer 343
oskar293
KnowMe247
ArmadaUGS62
Trikslyr32
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick39767
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 3049
lovetv 7
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• HeavenSC 46
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki12
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Nemesis5109
Upcoming Events
FEL
1h 18m
Gerald vs PAPI
Spirit vs ArT
CSO Cup
1h 18m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3h 18m
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
DaveTesta Events
3h 18m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
19h 18m
RSL Revival
19h 18m
Classic vs Clem
FEL
1d
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 3h
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Wardi Open
1d 20h
Replay Cast
2 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV European League
3 days
PiGosaur Monday
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
The PondCast
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Epic.LAN
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
6 days
Epic.LAN
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
HSC XXVII
NC Random Cup

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.