- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Two questions for pro-choice posters
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:00 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:00 am to AggieHank86
quote:
ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner for the “Feelz Post of the Day
Do you disagree that it's a tiny human or that the procedure calls to chop the tiny human into pieces?
0
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:01 am to BurningHeart
quote:And here’s your problem.
The problem with abortion arguments, and most political arguments in general, is that people try to make it a black or white issue.
It is a binary answer.
Are you killing a human being in an abortion?
The answer is yes or no. If you say it is no, then you simply cannot face reality for it is a scientific indisputable fact that it is a human being there is no possibility of discussion around the legality of killing a human being whose only crime is existence.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:01 am to Darth_Vader
The relevant term regarding abortion isn’t life. It’s viability, the ability to live outside the womb.
Of course fetuses are alive. Even sperm and eggs are living cells. They can’t live on their own outside the body, however.
By your use of the word life, you’re killing 200 million half-people every time you masturbate.
Of course fetuses are alive. Even sperm and eggs are living cells. They can’t live on their own outside the body, however.
By your use of the word life, you’re killing 200 million half-people every time you masturbate.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:03 am to Darth_Vader
These threads are sooo fricking boring.
I'll just repost my OP from the thread I linked on Page 2:
I'll just repost my OP from the thread I linked on Page 2:
quote:
Over the years, I have witnessed the volume of the abortion debate reach almost unthinkable levels, yet both sides seem to be shouting past one another instead of having anything resembling a conversation. Those carrying the pro-choice banner are baffled that anyone believes they can dictate what a woman does with her body, while those carrying the pro-life banner are baffled that anyone believes it should be legal to murder an innocent child.
The problem is that both sides are correct, which tells me that we're having the wrong debate.
Instead of fighting over whether a woman has the right to control her body (she does) or whether life begins at conception (it does), I believe a more useful debate revolves around when someone gains (should gain?) legal personhood and to what degree.
While the question sounds esoteric, the reality is that we deal with it every day. If we define a full "person" as someone with all legal rights and protections, then it is clear that there are many human beings who are not full persons. Prisoners have had their personhood restricted due to past behavior. The civilly committed/infirm are restricted due to concerns about future behavior. In times past, African slaves were sub-persons just because we said so.
But notwithstanding those examples, I find the subject of children most interesting when it comes to personhood. Some of the most interesting debates I've seen within the libertarian community are whether physical contact with your child violates the Non Aggression Principle, and if not, why not. The problem is easy to illustrate but more complicated to solve.
Let's say that I'm about to walk into a bar and someone (just a patron, not affiliated with the bar or law enforcement) standing outside walks up to me and tells me not to go in. I look at them like they are insane and go to walk in anyway. They grab me by the arm and yank me back outside. This person has not only violated the NAP, but they have committed a crime (battery). That's because they violated my rights as a full person.
Now let's look at children in detail. Same scenario as before, but now I see my 30 year old son walking into a bar, and I grab him by the arm because I believe I know what's best for him. Same scenario, but my son is now 16 and I don't want him to break the law.
Now instead of a bar, I grab my six year old's arm before they can walk out into a busy street because I fear for their safety. Now I grab my three year old by the arm and pop him on the leg because he took a second cookie when I told him he could only have one. The child wasn't in any danger, but I made physical contact simply because he disobeyed me. When he does it again, instead of popping him on the leg, I struck him in the face with my fist, knocking him unconscious.
Now, I intentionally didn't label any of these situations as good, bad, proper, or improper, because my opinion doesn't really matter. What I was trying to convey was that we as a society, for right or wrong, don't consider minors to be full persons. They don't have full bodily integrity, they can't enter contracts, they can't even reject their parents and move away without a full blown court proceeding that... conveys personhood.
So what does this all have to do with abortion?
In the same way that reasonable people can disagree on the rights of a child of a given age: does the child have the right against being subjected to corporal punishment; do they have the right to enter a contract and marry; I think reasonable people can disagree on the rights of a human in varying stages of development, from conception to when the human brain is fully formed around the age of 25.
In the historical record, we see examples of cultures that not only allowed a parent to kill their children for their behavior, they encouraged it. The modern state has outlawed that. The modern state has decreed that, once a child is born, the parents are required to feed and shelter it, but that wasn't always so. Anyone with a background in the classics is aware of the concept of exposure: an unwanted child wasn't killed outright, but brought out into the wilderness and allowed to die. The sooner we come to terms with the fact that we, fairly arbitrarily, decided that it was legal for a parent to allow an 18 year old to starve (with seven years of brain development left to go), but not a 17 year old, and legal to allow a zygote to starve (by flushing it out of the body), but not someone mere hours after birth, the sooner we can discuss why we have made these distinctions and which we should make going forward.
Now, I appreciate that this doesn't simplify the debate; in fact, I believe it complicates it. It's just as easy to argue by extension that because we aren't allowed to let a newborn die that we shouldn't be allowed to let a zygote die as it is to argue by extension that because we are allowed to let a zygote die we should be allowed to let a newborn die as well. But, at least we would be having a debate vastly more constructive than the one we're having now.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:04 am to oogabooga68
quote:Dryer lint.quote:Truly one of the dumbest attempts at being smart I've ever seen in my life.
Do you shed tears every time you pull a weed from your yard?
The point is that abortion rights opponents cannot claim that “life“ is the issue and then Kill and/or consume living organisms, Of whatever species.
Just admit that “life“ is not the issue, and move on. Your side actually does have reasonably sensible, logical arguments to make. This is not one of them.
This post was edited on 11/30/18 at 9:09 am
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:15 am to AggieHank86
quote:
“Life” is not the issue. “Human life” may be the issue, for some, but that is not the point that the OP made
I'm not following your argument. The idea of "human life" is the point of OP's question. You're being naive. "Human life" is the fulcrum upon which the abortion argument pivots. Pro-choicers must discount the existence of life or the potentiality for life in order to make the argument for choice a palatable one. And if bacteria on mars is considered life then why not an actual, developing human. Pro-choicers do not say that, yes, that's a life, but the mother's choice is superior. They discount that a life exists so that an abortion is not equated to murder. And if we're being honest, there are no clinical abortions of zygotes or blastocysts. That's far too early in a pregnancy. Most abortions are performed on fetuses with functional nervous and circulatory systems.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:21 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Darth_Vader
My favorite is have you ever heard a woman who experiences a miscarriage say, "We lost our fetus"?
Don't believe I've ever heard that one.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:31 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I dislike both of the terms… pro-choice and pro-life. Both are simplistic, made-for-bumpersticker sophistry, designed to sway the views of simpletons. My general view is that any person whose viewpoint on a complex issue could be condensed to a bumper sticker is simply too stupid to sit at the adult table.
I disagree. It actually is simplistic. What's complicated about viewpoints on abortion?
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:32 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Darth_Vader
Awesome. Start a thread with the most ridiculous premise, and run away when you're called out for being an idiot.
Yes, an organism on another planet is life.
An unborn fetus has organic cells. So does a wart.
If you're so fricking pro-life, exactly how much of your life have you devoted to saving all these murdered human beings? An hour a year posting on a football message board?
frick off with your feaux outrage.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:34 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Dryer lint.
Agreed, anyone who makes the comparison between a blade of grass and a fetal human to make ANY kind of point is unbearably stupid.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:34 am to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
You and about a dozen other lib posters on here make me sad that downvotes don't count for anything on this site.
Seriously, every hundred you notch should autoban you for at least 24H.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:37 am to oogabooga68
quote:Are they both “life?” Simple question. Yes or no.
anyone who makes the comparison between a blade of grass and a fetal human to make ANY kind of point is unbearably stupid.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:39 am to VoxDawg
quote:
You and about a dozen other lib posters on here make me sad that downvotes don't count for anything on this site. Seriously, every hundred you notch should autoban you for at least 24H.
Right, because this board needs to be even more of an echo chamber than it already is
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:44 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Are they both “life?
Like the true Lib you are, you are doubling down on stupid....good job!
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:46 am to oogabooga68
quote:
The abortion debate will never be an honest one because regardless of ones' opinion, abortion is the ending of LIFE.
Now, I'm a Pro-Life Conservative, but if I were suddenly king of the world, I would not make all abortions illegal.
I would however most certainly make late-term abortions illegal.
/\ sums up my stance as well /\
quote:
As is the case with every human on the planet, I'm hypocritical about some things.
Everyone is hypocritical in the strictness sense. Most human emotions and actions are based on multitudes of complicity that cannot be quantified into separate jars. They are all ad hoc. one decision does not necessarily restrict a following decision.
Certain principles guide us and we should not be hypocritical about those when the only differentiation is a political divide.
DEMOCRATs are necessarily hypocritical in the grand sense. Conservatives are hypocritical in trivial instances.
This post was edited on 11/30/18 at 9:48 am
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:54 am to Darth_Vader
You're making a mistake in thinking that logic or reason inform the political stands that leftists take.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:54 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Are they both “life?” Simple question. Yes or no.
You're fighting that old straw man. Yes, they are both "life". How does that affect the argument? The argument is on the pro-choice definition or threshold for what constitutes life. He's not saying that all life is sacred.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:57 am to oogabooga68
quote:Refusing to acknowledge an objective, scientific fact does NOT help your argument.quote:Like the true Lib you are, you are doubling down on stupid....good job!
Are (a human fetus and a blade of grass) both “life?” Simple question. Yes or no.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 10:07 am to AggieHank86
It doesn’t intentionally misrepresent anything. It simply words the point in a manner that you are uncomfortable with. I other words, it’s politically incorrect.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 10:08 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Refusing to acknowledge an objective, scientific fact does NOT help your argument.
The answer to your question is YES! Now, here's a few questions for you that will undoubtedly progress this debate.
1) Do pro-choicers consider a fetus, with functioning nervous and circulatory systems, "human" life?
2) If not, then what would that life be equated too?
3) If so, then what is the difference between ending that "human" life or any other?
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News