|
On June 29 2013 18:25 xM(Z wrote:
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.
Since women live longer than men, arguably they can toss around a couple years.
This is a valid logical argument, yes, if you ignore that this increased life expectancy is spread over their entire life and doesn't mean they could just spend an entire year in early life locked in a room and it wouldn't make any difference to them as a person.
Regardless, when the context is an abortion debate your "valid logical argument" turns into gibberish, though in any context it's clearly not realistic in the slightest.
Your bolded statement is a blatant lie, all gruff did was point out how blatantly wrong you are.
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.
That's a direct quote of what you wrote, don't try to backtrack on what you said.
|
On June 29 2013 18:12 Reason wrote:
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.
This is simply not true. Doing some routine paper work and maybe taking a look at the body, which is what happens in case of a vast majority of deaths, is not investigating a potential murder case... Deaths are investigated only when there's suspicion.
Same would happen in case of miscarriages. If abortion was illegal (with few exceptions), women were discouraged to take that path and men encouraged to take responsibility, and single mothers/inefficient families provided with help that enabled them to bring up their children, then women would be less inclined to get an abortion. They wouldn't get an abortion on a whim, like many women in countries where it's legal do... as if it was a trivial thing... Thus you wouldn't have to immediately assume that a miscarriage could've been a potential abortion.
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.
You're presenting a fallacious dychotomy.
I am against abortion with a few exceptions (pretty much those mentioned by Shiori). I with all certainty would not describe myself as pro-choice. I am against choice, unless [few exceptions]. There are many people like me.
As far as I'm concerned, to be labeled "pro-choice" one has to advocate that women should have the right to abort their children and sufficient justification would be their will to do so.
|
On June 16 2013 02:18 Acertos wrote:
I wonder how 60 yrs old rich biggots with wives full of silicon can decide what s good for someone's life.
No im not talking about the baby, he doesnt even know hes alive. Im talking the 25yr old single lady who wants to abort or the couple because their child has a severe desease. Abortion should be possible everywhere because accidents can happen not only for rape and incest.
And suppose it talks about incests because they are the same biggots. A brother sister couple has a child. Ups the brother dies, the sister can abort because she cant take care of the baby but no if it was a normal couple the girl shouldnt have the right to abort.
I'm having trouble understanding that you are essentially saying, "My lover died, whelp, time to grind this baby up."
You are one special person.
|
On June 29 2013 19:05 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 18:12 Reason wrote:
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. This is simply not true. Doing some routine paper work and maybe taking a look at the body, which is what happens in case of a vast majority of deaths, is not investigating a potential murder case... Deaths are investigated only when there's suspicion. Same would happen in case of miscarriages. If abortion was illegal (with few exceptions), women were discouraged to take that path and men encouraged to take responsibility, and single mothers/inefficient families provided with help that enabled them to bring up their children, then women would be less inclined to get an abortion. They wouldn't get an abortion on a whim, like many women in countries where it's legal do... as if it was a trivial thing... Thus you wouldn't have to immediately assume that a miscarriage could've been a potential abortion. Show nested quote +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. You're presenting a fallacious dychotomy. I am against abortion with a few exceptions (pretty much those mentioned by Shiori). I with all certainty would not describe myself as pro-choice. I am against choice, unless [few exceptions]. There are many people like me. As far as I'm concerned, to be labeled "pro-choice" one has to advocate that women should have the right to abort their children and sufficient justification would be their will to do so.
Actually it's completely true you're just fruitlessly arguing about the semantics.
Taking a look at the body and establishing the cause of death is exactly what I'm referring to, obviously you don't launch a full blown investigation unless you find something suspicious. The fact is, people don't let deaths slide. Every death is investigated to some extent, if it becomes immediately apparent it was just old age or the piano falling out of the window was responsible, then the investigation is closed.
Your next paragraph is ludicrous, if abortion was illegal then less people would be inclined to get an abortion... yeah no shit. The point is that every abortion would be illegal and there would still be a lot of them and loads of back alley abortions put down to miscarriage which is not safe practice at all and the law wouldn't be possible to implement unless you thoroughly investigated every miscarriage way more in depth than your average coroners report.
Your little fairy tale rationalisation of how we make abortion illegal then improve society in X number of ways and everyone will be happy and nobody will get an abortion is simply not realistic.
I'm not presenting a false dichotomy, did you even read what I wrote???
"A situation in which two alternative points of views are presented as the only options, whereas others are available."
I said that there are almost limitless points of view on this matter, that's what continuum implies there in case you don't understand what that words means, and if you don't next time try googling it first.
Easier still, when someone beings a sentence with "The reason there aren't two sides to this argument is" there's a good chance a false dichotomy is not incoming.
|
On June 29 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 18:25 xM(Z wrote:
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. Since women live longer than men, arguably they can toss around a couple years. This is a valid logical argument, yes, if you ignore that this increased life expectancy is spread over their entire life and doesn't mean they could just spend an entire year in early life locked in a room and it wouldn't make any difference to them as a person. Regardless, when the context is an abortion debate your "valid logical argument" turns into gibberish, though in any context it's clearly not realistic in the slightest. Your bolded statement is a blatant lie, all gruff did was point out how blatantly wrong you are. 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. That's a direct quote of what you wrote, don't try to backtrack on what you said.
who the hell would lock away a pregnant woman? and what does "life expectancy spread over their entire life" even mean?.
81yrs life expectancy is a statistic. it doesn't mean that every woman would live 'till 81. some women would inevitably die at an younger age. me me locking them up is irrelevant.
statistics ignore exceptions to the rule because those are irrelevant not because they don't exist.
|
On June 29 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:On June 29 2013 18:25 xM(Z wrote:
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. Since women live longer than men, arguably they can toss around a couple years. This is a valid logical argument, yes, if you ignore that this increased life expectancy is spread over their entire life and doesn't mean they could just spend an entire year in early life locked in a room and it wouldn't make any difference to them as a person. Regardless, when the context is an abortion debate your "valid logical argument" turns into gibberish, though in any context it's clearly not realistic in the slightest. Your bolded statement is a blatant lie, all gruff did was point out how blatantly wrong you are. 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. That's a direct quote of what you wrote, don't try to backtrack on what you said. who the hell would lock away a pregnant woman? and what does "life expectancy spread over their entire life" even mean?. 81yrs life expectancy is a statistic. it doesn't mean that every woman would live 'till 81. some women would inevitably die at an younger age. me me locking them up is irrelevant. statistics ignore exceptions to the rule because those are irrelevant not because they don't exist.
Who the hell would make someone go through an unwanted pregnancy using longer life span as a justification?
The point is having for e.g. one year longer life expectancy doesn't mean that at 25 you magically stop aging for 1 year. This 1 year of "extra life" is spread out over your ENTIRE life.
So like for every 80 seconds a man gets a woman gets 81. Pregnancy doesn't happen like that. It's not spread out over 80 years. It happens all at once and it's a huge deal, that's the point, nothing to do with statistics.
That was why I mentioned what I did, you need to learn to interpret data properly. Just because you live an extra year in terms of average life expectancy doesn't mean you could be locked up in a room for a year and not care, or hmm I don't know how about go through a pregnancy for 9 months and not care, nevermind the whole host of psychological and physical issues that arise due to even wanted pregnancies.
|
On June 29 2013 20:30 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 19:05 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 18:12 Reason wrote:
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. This is simply not true. Doing some routine paper work and maybe taking a look at the body, which is what happens in case of a vast majority of deaths, is not investigating a potential murder case... Deaths are investigated only when there's suspicion. Same would happen in case of miscarriages. If abortion was illegal (with few exceptions), women were discouraged to take that path and men encouraged to take responsibility, and single mothers/inefficient families provided with help that enabled them to bring up their children, then women would be less inclined to get an abortion. They wouldn't get an abortion on a whim, like many women in countries where it's legal do... as if it was a trivial thing... Thus you wouldn't have to immediately assume that a miscarriage could've been a potential abortion. 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. You're presenting a fallacious dychotomy. I am against abortion with a few exceptions (pretty much those mentioned by Shiori). I with all certainty would not describe myself as pro-choice. I am against choice, unless [few exceptions]. There are many people like me. As far as I'm concerned, to be labeled "pro-choice" one has to advocate that women should have the right to abort their children and sufficient justification would be their will to do so. Actually it's completely true you're just fruitlessly arguing about the semantics. Taking a look at the body and establishing the cause of death is exactly what I'm referring to, obviously you don't launch a full blown investigation unless you find something suspicious. The fact is, people don't let deaths slide. Every death is investigated to some extent, if it becomes immediately apparent it was just old age or the piano falling out of the window was responsible, then the investigation is closed.
Exactly, you don't launch an investigation, the same would apply to miscarriages. Saying that every death is investigated is a vast overstatement. It is assumed that the death was not a result of a murder, unless there's reason to believe otherwise. Calling some routine paper work "investigation" is disingenuous.
I truly doubt that in a society where abortion is not only illegal, but first and foremost discouraged in way that makes people, and especially women, empathize with unborn children and not dehumanize them would be something women would resort to as casually as many women do in countries where abortion on a whim is legal.
Your next paragraph is ludicrous, if abortion was illegal then less people would be inclined to get an abortion... yeah no shit.
Don't resort to misrepresenting my point if you don't have any arguments...
What I said is that if abortion was not only illegal, but people were discouraged from taking that path by learning from early age to empathize with unborn children and not dehumanize them, couples/single mothers were provided with sufficient help to raise their offspring or at least counseled to give them up for adoption, and people, especially men, were encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, then women would be less inclined to get an abortion. Certainly it wouldn't be such a trivial issue, at least.
The point is that every abortion would be illegal and there would still be a lot of them and loads of back alley abortions put down to miscarriage which is not safe practice at all and the law wouldn't be possible to implement unless you thoroughly investigated every miscarriage way more in depth than your average coroners report.
Any statistics to back that up? Keep in mind that I am not advocating simply outlawing abortion (save for a few exceptions), but rather a systemic change that would make women less inclined to kill their own children. I have a hard time believing that such changes wouldn't have a profound effect on the number of women capable of resorting to abortion. It's reasonable to expect that most miscarriages would, in fact, be natural.
Your little fairy tale rationalisation of how we make abortion illegal then improve society in X number of ways and everyone will be happy and nobody will get an abortion is simply not realistic.
Straw man.
I'm not presenting a false dichotomy, did you even read what I wrote???
"A situation in which two alternative points of views are presented as the only options, whereas others are available."
I said that there are almost limitless points of view on this matter, that's what continuum implies there in case you don't understand what that words means, and if you don't next time try googling it first.
Easier still, when someone beings a sentence with "The reason there aren't two sides to this argument is" there's a good chance a false dichotomy is not incoming.
Read carefully. I did not say you presented a false dichotomy, but rather a fallacious dichotomy, to differentiate between the two.
You mislabeled a certain large (in case of my country that's millions of people, therefore I think saying "large" is justified) group of people as "pro-choice" instead of "pro-life", which is what they consider themselves (or at least do not consider themselves "pro-choice"), as they do not support abortion on a whim. You did that in order to portray the pro-life side as unreasonable or even irrational.
In reality, there are two sides of the debate: (a) people who advocate abortion on a whim and (b) people who are against it. Then there's a spectrum (continuum) of views on both sides. On both sides there is a group of people you could argue are irrational or immoral (supporters of late term abortions or even killing of newborns in extreme cases on one side, and people trying to force women to deliver their pregnancy when their life is threatened on the other side). Then there are people who you could argue are reasonable in their views but you disagree with, even strongly - this is where there is room for debate.
|
Man, some of these threads on TL are going straight to hell. I'm convinced some people are here to spew ridiculous opinions that they themselves are unsure whether to believe. O_O
|
On June 29 2013 21:51 Puph wrote:
Man, some of these threads on TL are going straight to hell. I'm convinced some people are here to spew ridiculous opinions that they themselves are unsure whether to believe. O_O
Welcome to the Internet. I'll be your guide.
|
On June 29 2013 21:43 maybenexttime wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 29 2013 20:30 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 19:05 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 18:12 Reason wrote:
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. This is simply not true. Doing some routine paper work and maybe taking a look at the body, which is what happens in case of a vast majority of deaths, is not investigating a potential murder case... Deaths are investigated only when there's suspicion. Same would happen in case of miscarriages. If abortion was illegal (with few exceptions), women were discouraged to take that path and men encouraged to take responsibility, and single mothers/inefficient families provided with help that enabled them to bring up their children, then women would be less inclined to get an abortion. They wouldn't get an abortion on a whim, like many women in countries where it's legal do... as if it was a trivial thing... Thus you wouldn't have to immediately assume that a miscarriage could've been a potential abortion. 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. You're presenting a fallacious dychotomy. I am against abortion with a few exceptions (pretty much those mentioned by Shiori). I with all certainty would not describe myself as pro-choice. I am against choice, unless [few exceptions]. There are many people like me. As far as I'm concerned, to be labeled "pro-choice" one has to advocate that women should have the right to abort their children and sufficient justification would be their will to do so. Actually it's completely true you're just fruitlessly arguing about the semantics. Taking a look at the body and establishing the cause of death is exactly what I'm referring to, obviously you don't launch a full blown investigation unless you find something suspicious. The fact is, people don't let deaths slide. Every death is investigated to some extent, if it becomes immediately apparent it was just old age or the piano falling out of the window was responsible, then the investigation is closed. Exactly, you don't launch an investigation, the same would apply to miscarriages. Saying that every death is investigated is a vast overstatement. It is assumed that the death was not a result of a murder, unless there's reason to believe otherwise. Calling some routine paper work "investigation" is disingenuous. I truly doubt that in a society where abortion is not only illegal, but first and foremost discouraged in way that makes people, and especially women, empathize with unborn children and not dehumanize them would be something women would resort to as casually as many women do in countries where abortion on a whim is legal. Your next paragraph is ludicrous, if abortion was illegal then less people would be inclined to get an abortion... yeah no shit. Don't resort to misrepresenting my point if you don't have any arguments... What I said is that if abortion was not only illegal, but people were discouraged from taking that path by learning from early age to empathize with unborn children and not dehumanize them, couples/single mothers were provided with sufficient help to raise their offspring or at least counseled to give them up for adoption, and people, especially men, were encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, then women would be less inclined to get an abortion. Certainly it wouldn't be such a trivial issue, at least. The point is that every abortion would be illegal and there would still be a lot of them and loads of back alley abortions put down to miscarriage which is not safe practice at all and the law wouldn't be possible to implement unless you thoroughly investigated every miscarriage way more in depth than your average coroners report. Any statistics to back that up? Keep in mind that I am not advocating simply outlawing abortion (save for a few exceptions), but rather a systemic change that would make women less inclined to kill their own children. I have a hard time believing that such changes wouldn't have a profound effect on the number of women capable of resorting to abortion. It's reasonable to expect that most miscarriages would, in fact, be natural. Your little fairy tale rationalisation of how we make abortion illegal then improve society in X number of ways and everyone will be happy and nobody will get an abortion is simply not realistic. Straw man. I'm not presenting a false dichotomy, did you even read what I wrote???
"A situation in which two alternative points of views are presented as the only options, whereas others are available."
I said that there are almost limitless points of view on this matter, that's what continuum implies there in case you don't understand what that words means, and if you don't next time try googling it first.
Easier still, when someone beings a sentence with "The reason there aren't two sides to this argument is" there's a good chance a false dichotomy is not incoming. Read carefully. I did not say you presented a false dichotomy, but rather a fallacious dichotomy, to differentiate between the two. You mislabeled a certain large (in case of my country that's millions of people, therefore I think saying "large" is justified) group of people as "pro-choice" instead of "pro-life", which is what they consider themselves (or at least do not consider themselves "pro-choice"), as they do not support abortion on a whim. You did that in order to portray the pro-life side as unreasonable or even irrational. In reality, there are two sides of the debate: (a) people who advocate abortion on a whim and (b) people who are against it. Then there's a spectrum (continuum) of views on both sides. On both sides there is a group of people you could argue are irrational or immoral (supporters of late term abortions or even killing of newborns in extreme cases on one side, and people trying to force women to deliver their pregnancy when their life is threatened on the other side). Then there are people who you could argue are reasonable in their views but you disagree with, even strongly - this is where there is room for debate.
Ascertaining the cause of death constitutes investigation in my vocabulary, semantics debate over.
Don't tell me to read carefully when you wrote "fallacious dychotomy", also would you care to explain the difference between false dichotomy and fallacious dichotomy for me?
pro life
Web definitions
advocating full legal protection of embryos and fetuses (especially opposing the legalization of induced abortions).
pro choice
Web definitions
advocating a woman's right to control her own body (especially her right to an induced abortion).
Pro-life is an extreme position at one end, opposing the legalization of induced abortions.
Any other position which by definition means for whatever reason you are advocating a woman's right to an induced abortion is pro-choice to one degree or another.
Just because you prefer to think of yourself as "I'm pro-life generally but make X exceptions" instead of "I'm pro-choice but only under X circumstances" doesn't make you correct.
To equate with race for simplicity....
You don't say "I'm a non-racist who racially discriminates against only black people" because that's a contradictory statement.
You say "I'm racist but only towards black people."
So, you don't say "I'm a pro-lifer who is in favour of induced abortions in X scenarios" because again that's contradictory to the definition of the term.
You say "I'm pro-choice but only in X scenarios."
The terms are emotionally charged and people prefer to think of themselves on one side or the other, the technical reality is that either you are pro-life or you're one of the infinite variations of pro-choice.
So, sorry if this upsets you, you can just go on calling yourself pro-life if it makes you feel better because women have the right to decide and that's all that matters.
|
Maybenexttime, you're accusing him of strawmanning when you think pro-choice means "abortion on a whim"?
The whole idea of "abortion on a whim" is some serious bullshit. It's like you have this weird idea that women go to the grocery store for some food, grab a pedicure, and then swing by the abortion clinic to get a "quickie aborsh." You're living in some weird fairy tale land where women don't take their health very seriously.
Are people really still against me throwing around words like "misogynist," when these are the arguments that people use? I mean the whole argument is that women cannot be trusted with their own health decisions (yet apparently politicians can be).
|
Yeah the pro lifers in the last few pages seem to have some odd notions about how much women love having abortions.
|
On June 29 2013 22:31 DoubleReed wrote:
Maybenexttime, you're accusing him of strawmanning when you think pro-choice means "abortion on a whim"?
The whole idea of "abortion on a whim" is some serious bullshit. It's like you have this weird idea that women go to the grocery store for some food, grab a pedicure, and then swing by the abortion clinic to get a "quickie aborsh." You're living in some weird fairy tale land where women don't take their health very seriously.
Are people really still against me throwing around words like "misogynist," when these are the arguments that people use? I mean the whole argument is that women cannot be trusted with their own health decisions (yet apparently politicians can be).
When a woman is not required to provide a substantial reason to get an abortion (which is what you're advocating) then this is essentially legalizing abortion on a whim. I am not claiming all abortions are like that. But the earlier into pregnancy, the bigger the portion of women getting an abortion for trivial reasons gets. What "trivial" means depends on how serious the topic of discussion is. In this case, we're talking about killing another human being, so for a reason to be considered non-trivial, it has to be something very, very serious - like the mother's life being threatened by the pregnancy, for example.
On June 29 2013 22:34 zbedlam wrote:
Yeah the pro lifers in the last few pages seem to have some odd notions about how much women love having abortions.
Getting an abortion is a broad term. It could be fragmenting a fetus 20 weeks into pregnancy or taking a pill that causes a miscarriage... If you don't consider that abortion on a whim, then you haven't been paying attention to what feminists have been saying for the past coule of decades.
If you find that so offensive, then I will use the term "abortion on wish" or "abortion with no required reason", if you wish...
@Reason
That's like saying people who support death penalty are "pro-murder". One may disagree with death penalty (like I do), but claiming the former would be absurd. So is calling people like me "pro-choice".
|
On June 29 2013 13:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 13:22 kwizach wrote: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."
Access to abortions is already structurally in place, and state legislatures define until which point in the pregnancy. What Biden is saying is that his own belief leads him to not exercize that possibility to get an abortion, but since he recognizes it as a personal belief which should define his life and not the life of others, he considers it better to let everyone choose for themselves.
|
On June 29 2013 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:34 zbedlam wrote:
Yeah the pro lifers in the last few pages seem to have some odd notions about how much women love having abortions. Getting an abortion is a broad term. It could be fragmenting a fetus 20 weeks into pregnancy or taking a pill that causes a miscarriage... If you don't consider that abortion on a whim, then you haven't been paying attention to what feminists have been saying for the past coule of decades. If you find that so offensive, then I will use the term "abortion on wish" or "abortion with no required reason", if you wish...
No, that is precisely not "abortion on a whim". "On a whim" means there is little thought put behind the decision, when there is always considerable thought put behind the decision of having a child or not. Availability of means is not equal to absence of thought.
|
On June 29 2013 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:31 DoubleReed wrote:
Maybenexttime, you're accusing him of strawmanning when you think pro-choice means "abortion on a whim"?
The whole idea of "abortion on a whim" is some serious bullshit. It's like you have this weird idea that women go to the grocery store for some food, grab a pedicure, and then swing by the abortion clinic to get a "quickie aborsh." You're living in some weird fairy tale land where women don't take their health very seriously.
Are people really still against me throwing around words like "misogynist," when these are the arguments that people use? I mean the whole argument is that women cannot be trusted with their own health decisions (yet apparently politicians can be). When a woman is not required to provide a substantial reason to get an abortion (which is what you're advocating) then this is essentially legalizing abortion on a whim. I am not claiming all abortions are like that. But the earlier into pregnancy, the bigger the portion of women getting an abortion for trivial reasons gets. What "trivial" means depends on how serious the topic of discussion is. In this case, we're talking about killing another human being, so for a reason to be considered non-trivial, it has to be something very, very serious - like the mother's life being threatened by the pregnancy, for example.
Those reasons don't seem that trivial to them. So apparently you think women cannot be trusted with medical decisions. Exactly. I wonder who determines that a reason is a "substantial reason"??? Surely not the woman! That would be crazy! Women can't be trusted!
This seems to the be the exact reasoning of The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. I highly suggest that article.
|
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted?
|
On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Not necessarily, no. And even not at all if you consider that you're pregnant only if the fertilized egg has attached to the wall of the uterus.
Source.
|
On June 29 2013 22:48 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:34 zbedlam wrote:
Yeah the pro lifers in the last few pages seem to have some odd notions about how much women love having abortions. Getting an abortion is a broad term. It could be fragmenting a fetus 20 weeks into pregnancy or taking a pill that causes a miscarriage... If you don't consider that abortion on a whim, then you haven't been paying attention to what feminists have been saying for the past coule of decades. If you find that so offensive, then I will use the term "abortion on wish" or "abortion with no required reason", if you wish... No, that is precisely not "abortion on a whim". "On a whim" means there is little thought put behind the decision, when there is always considerable thought put behind the decision of having a child or not. Availability of means is not equal to absence of thought.
Which is a direct result of the pro-choice lobby getting its way. That might not be the reason behind advocating for legal abortion, but it makes abortions on a whim just as legal as abortions for serious reasons...
On June 29 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:31 DoubleReed wrote:
Maybenexttime, you're accusing him of strawmanning when you think pro-choice means "abortion on a whim"?
The whole idea of "abortion on a whim" is some serious bullshit. It's like you have this weird idea that women go to the grocery store for some food, grab a pedicure, and then swing by the abortion clinic to get a "quickie aborsh." You're living in some weird fairy tale land where women don't take their health very seriously.
Are people really still against me throwing around words like "misogynist," when these are the arguments that people use? I mean the whole argument is that women cannot be trusted with their own health decisions (yet apparently politicians can be). When a woman is not required to provide a substantial reason to get an abortion (which is what you're advocating) then this is essentially legalizing abortion on a whim. I am not claiming all abortions are like that. But the earlier into pregnancy, the bigger the portion of women getting an abortion for trivial reasons gets. What "trivial" means depends on how serious the topic of discussion is. In this case, we're talking about killing another human being, so for a reason to be considered non-trivial, it has to be something very, very serious - like the mother's life being threatened by the pregnancy, for example. Those reasons don't seem that trivial to them. So apparently you think women cannot be trusted with medical decisions. Exactly. I wonder who determines that a reason is a "substantial reason"??? Surely not the woman! That would be crazy! Women can't be trusted! This seems to the be the exact reasoning of The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. I highly suggest that article.
Stop making idiotic remarks, please. The decision whether to kill another human being is not a as simple as the mother making a decision regading her health...
|
@Kwizach
Hrmm fair enough, didn't know that, thanks for clarifying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
