|
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
|
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."
|
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.
|
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?
|
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. 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...
|
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?
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
Abortion is never justified. It is not the Childs fault and should not be killed ever.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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?.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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...
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
