And yet you’re convinced that anyone in this thread who disagrees with you must be an atheist. :dubious:
You remind me of the mean old biddy at my mom’s retirement home who talks shit about everyone who works there and then lectures her tablemates on how to get into heaven.
Because I don’t have anything better to do* I checked out how many of classy’s last 300 posts have been in this thread. The total came to 205, which means they have over two-third’s of their posts here.
It also means that one-third of classy’s posts have infected various other threads. If you want to see more of classy’s style check out the Kirk Cameron/Stephen Hawking thread. classy is in rare form in that one too.
*See, I added that first phrase because if and when classy chooses to grace us with their presence again, and if classy deigns to comment on my post here, I wanted to get it in before they did.
And that’s important because…? Constantly repeating the same thing without explaining why it’s important isn’t going to cut it.
You can’t break it down any more than to beg the question? Errr, no. I think you can. Well, you could if you had an actual argument.
Nope.
Incorrect. The argument would be you dragged him in, so you can’t kick him out if doing so would kill him. There’s nothing dishonest about that. Do you think I should be able to drag someone into my condo against their will, and then kick them out during, say, a rather viscious hurricane?
I’d like to know where one can live to be able to do to and with one’s body as one pleases. Such a state (and I’m not talking just a state in the U.S., but a state as in a county, country, territory, etc.) does not exist. But moving on, that doesn’t explain why it’s a bad thing. I really find your knack for refusing to justify your claims, rather treating them as self-evident, amusing.
So you think slavery is a good thing, seeing as how allowing people to own a slave is better than not allowing someone to own a slave? More freedoms versus less freedoms and all that. I’d like to know where you can live where you can have unabatated “individual freedoms”.
I said nothing about all. I just said pro-choicers. If you want to take that to mean all then, by all means, go right ahead.
^
No, I’m great at it. Get it right.
I’ve never seen any pro-lifer use the word ‘cute’ in reference to the unborn being dismembered. Have you?
Well, first of all, why is it a bad thing? Society ‘forces’ people to do things they might not want to do quite regularly without any ill effect, which brings me to my second point. I’d like to make a point I’ve made many times only to have ignored just as many times. You are misusing the word ‘force’. How can you be ‘forced’ into a naturally deriving consequence of an action? Can I be ‘forced’ into supporting a child that is mine? Can I be ‘forced’ into paying any of my bills? The answer? No, I can’t, because the assumption is that by choosing to engage in the action, I accepted the consequence of those actions. Only in abortion does this seem like a foreign concept. Go figure!
If they entail the right to act, yes.
I dunno’. But if there is a distinction, it’s most certainly not in the way you used it.
What the hell are people’s rights? Rights that some person believe they have? Because if that’s the case, then I now declare that I have the right to rob banks. Also, the 10th Amendment is about **state’s rights[/b or, more specifically, the state’s ability to govern themselves so long as they were not in conflict wit
How about decisions which don’t involve another individual? Because, you know, all of those would be more ‘personal’ than abortion.
Well, you know, there was the whole health care thing last year…
You know what? I’m perfectly fine in instituting a ban on paper with no real enforcement, since that will effectively drive down the abortion rate (people are less apt to engage in activity when it’s illegal than when it’s legal). And since you’re fine with that, then it seems we have no problem.
Yes, fearmongering. If I ask you what those specific consequences are and why they would occur, yet you cannot explain either to me, then how are you not fearmongering?
You ask what the penalties would be.
And if that’s the case, then what problem do you have with making abortion illegal since, in effect, nothing would change?
It has nothing to do with the ability to procure an abortion, but rather the fact that they’re more likely to want an abortion because “having a kid would interfere with their career/education”. Abortion attitudes and all that (though the difference education makes is slowly subsiding).
[citation needed]
Children don’t cause poverty nor do they cause one to remain in poverty.
Well, for one, it totally proves the whole idea that women aren’t using abortion as a form of birth control line that pro-choicers like to use as false. I think that’s a pretty big deal.
Even though you’re drastically overestimating what’ll happen (especially if the effective price of an abortion rises, which it would), sure. And, as you said earlier, “So…?”
Because one works against the other. Legalized abortion increases risky sexual activity and increases the number of pregnancies there otherwise would be by causing women to not use contraceptive methods they would normally in the absence of abortion easily accesible abortion.
Which would be true if, like, 99% of Catholic women weren’t already using, or had used, some form of contraceptives.
So, assuming what you wrote out as true, poor women who are already poor would remain poor. How does that increase poverty?
A big random pile of not-so-random abortion related ‘facts’ stated by politicians.
Well, one, I’m still waiting for someone to bet me that come July legal abortions will still occur in South Dakota. Amazing how quick people are to make predictions but no one wants to step up to the plate and stand by that prediction. But I digress.
I’m totally willing to bet the above won’t happen.
Anyway, on a slightly related note, I’m pretty sure South Dakota is a lot be
You came in on the tale end of a conversation between me and Cosmosdan and tried to butt in with a “Well, women are good at oppressing women” or whatever it was line.
Oh? Is that so? So you mean all those writings about women being allowed to work outside the home in the 19th century was really women looking to oppress other women? So you mean all those writings about women being allowed to own property in the 19th century was really women looking to oppress other women? So you mean all those writings about women being allowed to vote really women looking to oppress other women?
Or are we playing some kind of game where you get to decide which viewpoint constituted oppression and which one didn’t? 'Cuz, ugh, that would be dishonest if you were.
Running away? Because you’re wrong? For shame.
[QUOTE=Cat Fight]
Okay, okay, uncle, uncle! You win for the most ridiculous statement ever made regarding abortion, maybe even human nature, on the Dope.
[/quote]
Ah, yes. Because it doesn’t sound right to you, then it must be wrong. Amirite? Taken from a link I provided earlier:
Makes sense when you think about it. Ever looked at the pregnancy rates bewteen women in South Dakota and women in New York? Man, it’s amazing the stuff you can find on the internet 
That is disingenuous. There’s a difference between the legal status quo and what some anti-abortion extremists are doing to change it.
The status quo is closer to my position than either end of the debate.
I’ve said I oppose what these people are doing more than once.
Something that might help would be responding to what I say instead of categorizing me as the opposition and arguing against that. I know it’s more difficult, but I think you have the game to step up to it.
Remember His4Ever? She was a frothing-at-the-mouth maximumly Fundied-out Christian who (1) was abusive to other posters, especially those who didn’t agree 100% with her, (2) alienated other Fundamentalist posters, and (3) demanded everyone else follow her interpretation of Scripture while publicly not following it herself. I’m not sure why; however, the poster to whom you refer reminds me of her somewhat.
No. Does your mommy know how you behave in public?
And how, exactly, am I stupid? Let’s leave aside for the moment the issue of my attempt to communicate politely with you.
You left out to the in the penultimate position of that utterance.
Interesting, very interesting.
And that’s important because…? Constantly repeating the same thing without explaining why it’s important isn’t going to cut it.
[/QUOTE]
OMG, how many times are you going to ignore because *OUTSIDE *your body it doesn’t usurp your right to bodily autonomy? This has been explained so many times in this thread and you just refuse to acknowledge it. Around here, that’s affectionately referred to as willful ignorance.
Aside from the fact that said right doesn’t exist, and even where pro-choicers assume it exists, it’s not absolute and can be violated based on some moral view of the unborn (i.e., “once the fetus reaches viability, the woman loses her right to have an abortion just because” or “once the fetus becomes sentient, abortion becomes impermissible”, etc.), simply saying “inside/outside” doesn’t work. You see, nothing has been explained. It’s just same people saying again and again and again “Because it’s important!” without explaining why it’s important. The adamant refusal to even attempt to justify your point concedes all sorts of moral ground.
Just because you choose not to understand any of this doesn’t mean someone else is being “willfully ignorant”-- something pro-choicers in this thread would know about. It means you’re content to try to treat your argument as self-evident without having to justify it-- which, if you tried to, you’d quickly run into all sorts of less-than-palatable outcomes. It’s pretty simple stuff, really.
…And you never did answer my question.
Wait, what? I don’t have the right to protect my body??
The inside/outside is important because you are trying to force your morals on a woman’s body. And that’s all there is to it - simply because you have decided that a fetus is a human and should have all those same rights doesn’t mean you have the right to force anyone to maintain pregnancy past whatever magical date you decide to come up with.
Oh, and throwing out that strawman about “once the fetus reaches viability, the woman loses her right to have an abortion just because” makes you look like you are desperate. If nothing else, abortions are freaking expensive so the possibility that a woman would have a late abortion “just because” is almost nil.
You don’t understand the importance of being able to eject a fetus you don’t want and/or may be killing you and/or is going to die at birth anyway? Really?
incorrect analogy,
It’s more like you left the door open and they came in uninvited.
They don’t get to stay just because you left the door open.
I take it you’ve never had something inside your body that you wanted removed. Well, a million American women a year do and I rather doubt the importance issue is such a baffling mystery to them.
Well, if you can’t or won’t recognize that having an unwanted object in your body is undesirable, I’m not sure how to break it down further. A million American women a year find themselves in this situation, so it’s hardly some bizarre alien concept I just dreamed up.
It’s a silly argument, trying to add some absurd wrinkle to what is otherwise a pretty straightforward and commonplace situation - a trespasser/burglar/home invader is in your house. Do you have to right to have him removed or not?
Please answer “yes” or “no” to the above. As a sign of good faith, I’ll address your variation: in the scenario you describe (if I read it correctly), a kidnapper has abducted someone, then deliberately releases them into a deadly situation (i.e. forces them out of the hideout in freezing temperatures or a vicious hurricane, forces them out of a van on a crowded roadway, etc.) with what I’ll assume could be called depraved indifference to their fate. Were the kidnapper to come to trial (and I’ll cheerfully admit my ignorance on this matter), I’d assume they’d be charged with kidnapping and felony murder, with the “felony” being the kidnapping itself.
However, I don’t see why one would bother trying to apply this to a pregnant woman “kicking out” a fetus. If one must draw parallels between the two situations, arguably it’s the fetus who’s the kidnapper.
In any case, I see no contradiction between legalizing abortion and punishing kidnapping and felony murder. The “inside the body” thing is a significant enough distinction for me. If you disagree, that’s fine. Of course, then I’d ask if you seriously believe women who get abortions are as bad as people who commit kidnapping and felony murder, and if they should be punished similarly. Or perhaps abortion should be treated as kidnapping and felony murder in the fourth degree, or some similarly lower level of severity. Or perhaps some other option I invite you to describe.
I find this truth to be self-evident, and by the philosophy you embraced earlier, since you want me to be wrong, you cannot be trusted to say that I’m wrong, since your individual desire has created individual bias. You’d have to check with higher authority.
Anyway, sure, no nation of complete and total individual freedom exists (with the possible exception of some micronations that have a population of one). I don’t see what relevance that has. I figure the woman has the right to an abortion but not to, say, smoke crack in a children’s library. I fail to see why this is evidence of inconsistency, at least in any rational sense of the word.
I don’t where you’re getting this from. You can’t just make up a contradiction and attribute it to me (or you can, but I’m under no obligation to take it seriously). If anything, it strikes me a particularly childish and self-centered argument to make - “If I have freedom, why am I not free to own slaves?!” - completely indifferent to the concept that other people have freedom, too.
I don’t live in such a place, and never claimed to. What I’ve said several times is that I feel the state must justify its laws, it’s not for the people to justify their freedoms. There are a great many perfectly just laws on the Canadian books (and a few I’d question as ill-advised or obsolete) but I’ve never argued there should be no law.
Heh, childish. Let’s assume you belong to a particular ethnic or racial group called X, and I said “X believes Y”, despite your claims that you didn’t believe Y, that you knew other members of X that didn’t believe Y and Y itself was a specious, possibly offensive, claim. All I’d have to do, apparently, is say “hey, if you want to take my statement about X to include you, a member of X, that’s your choice.” I wouldn’t even have to justify my attribution of Y, since I can ignore your objection to Y - you’re just choosing to object.
Well, I’ll express my concern in writing to my member of parliament when the issue starts getting more serious attention, but thanks for keeping me up to date with your report from four weeks ago. Harper’s on record as saying the issue will not be reopened during his administration, but, heck… he’s a politician.
I would like some extra detail on this cutting of abortion funding in foreign aid packages. If the report is accurate, I’m rather disappointed. It’s the kind of scummy move I’d expect from an American politician.
Heh, dream on. Unless that statement was meant to be self-deprecating irony, in which case I remain unimpressed.
It would not shock me in the least, truth be told, and I don’t feel like culling pro-life websites for an example. I googled “pro-life cute unborn” and got 782,000 hits and that’s about as far as I’m willing to pursue it.
Thing is, I recognize that a minority of extreme pro-lifers exist, and that among the pro-life population are differences of opinion and ranges of stridency. If you catch me saying “pro-lifers believe Y…” I invite you to call me on it, at which point I’d gladly add the necessary qualifiers because I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to assume that any but the most generic statements could possibly apply to all pro-lifers.
I assume, for example, that pro-lifers don’t like abortion. Anything more specific than that, though…
Well, the “ill effect” of an unwanted pregnancy and eventually child isn’t something I’m comfortable just dismissing, as though I was shouting at a woman “So you got an unwanted pregnancy, huh? Stop whining! Walk it off!”
I don’t know of a lot of cases where a citizen is completely trapped by the state with no legal remedy possible… I guess going to prison counts, but even then there are appeals, paroles, clemency applications, pardon applications… I suppose all these could be denied, though.
Fine. What’s actually happens under an abortion ban is the state denies a medically safe remedy to a perceived problem of considerable personal impact for limited benefit and seeks to criminalize something that should be a matter of personal choice.
Saying “force” is just easier.
Besides, what’s “unnatural” about an abortion? Gynecologists aren’t aliens or anything. Are other medical procedures unnatural, too? Someone could be denied cancer treatment and the “naturally deriving consequence” is a rapid and painful death. Would it be fair to say that death was “forced” ?
Anyway, under an abortion ban (or with the kinds of barriers South Dakota is erecting to form an effective ban), the state is intervening with the “force” of police, courts, and jails behind it. For the most part, that’s okay - the state “forcing” people not to rob banks, for example - but in the case of abortion, the intervention is (I figure and the current example in Canada supports) unwarranted and unnecessary.
Odd, I would have said “yes, you can”, and considered these as examples of those “force” situations you mentioned earlier. The courts can garnish your wages, put your assets into receivership etc. to cover your child support and bills. There are various strategies an individual can try to use to minimize this, I guess, bankruptcy and whatnot… it’s not exactly my field of expertise.
Well, feel free to stop paying bills to a creditor that is inside your body. And if you’re paying to support for a child you didn’t want (and possibly that the woman you impregnated didn’t want either), you can blame the politician who banned abortion.
I’m going to have to ask for some clarification on this. What, for instance, does the “they” in your reply refer to? Whose “right to act” is being invoked?
Basically, I just don’t understand your answer, and I don’t think it was that complicated a question.
So it’s “I dunno, but you’re definitely wrong” ? Okay, then…
You have the right to make that declaration. Freedom of expression, and all.
I wouldn’t advise taking it further than that, though.
So, health care, gay marriage, the war on terror… yeah, there are a lot of issues that get kicked around at American election times more than abortion.
Oh, I wouldn’t be fine with that. I’m not “fine” with pointless laws written only to mollify pro-lifers (or mollify anyone, really - I’m not big on mollification; sometimes you need it to make a pest go away but it risks letting the stupid think they accomplished something). I asked you a few times (as I often ask pro-lifers on this board) what kind of ban you’d be satisfied with, and in other threads I’ve proposed the creation of “The Federal Abortion Enforcement Agency”, with the absolute and sole jurisdiction to regulate, investigate and prosecute abortion anywhere in the U.S. and whose budget was permanently fixed at $5 per year.
So abortion’s illegal on paper, and there is absolutely no way to enforce it. I’m not “fine” with it, but if it does away with pissant death-by-red-tape efforts like South Dakota’s… I could imagine accepting it.
If I was American, that is. I’m most definitely not fine with the idea of Canada changing its current status just to bring in a useless law.
Fine, call it fearmongering if you must. I can’t imagine anyone actually being scared by what I’ve written, though. Possibly the most hyperbolic thing I’ve said is that 200 American women a year might die from botched illegal abortions following a nationwide ban.
Oooooh… scary…
Ah, but you’re only just now expressing acceptance for a toothless ban. Prior to this, I either didn’t know what you had in mind (which is why I asked several times) or figured you wanted to throw the issue open to the states. If this latter option comes to pass, I figure, most states will not criminalize abortion and a handful will criminalize it a lot.
The problem I’d have with making it illegal just for the sake of making it illegal is described above.
Their reasons for wanting an abortion don’t concern me (though I point out again that you seem to be admitting that unwanted children can have a negative effect on careers and education, which is why I’m mystified by your claim that “Children don’t cause poverty nor do they cause one to remain in poverty” - surely employment and education are routes out of poverty), just that the wealthier women have the means to procure an abortion and poorer women are less likely to.
I’m okay with calling abortion a form of birth control. I’m not sure why anyone claims otherwise, nor why this should be a problem. It’s not the safest or most efficient form of birth control, I guess, and if a gynecologist is seeing a woman for her second abortion, I’d hope that gynecologist would offer advice on contraception or sterilization.
“So…?” to the price an abortion rising (thus fewer poor women can get them) and to some women undergoing unsafe abortions? Well, that’s a bit callous, but okay.
So improve the education. But even if there’s a large cohort of woman under 30 (i.e. with no memory of pre-Roe America) who have the attitude of “Why bother with a condom - if I get pregnant, I’ll just get rid of it”… well, it’s kinda hard for me to get worked up about that, since I have no particular moral qualms with abortion.
Actually, I could imagine a woman calculating that a weekly dose of RU-486 (perhaps every Monday morning) turns out to be cheaper and with fewer side-effects than conventional oral contraceptives, i.e. it is indeed easier to abort than prevent.
Well, when 99% of Catholic women start running Catholic-themed websites, that’ll have some relevance to my original comment.
A poor women with two children she already has trouble supporting (thus, three people living in poverty) finds herself pregnant. If she aborts, nothing changes. If she cannot abort, she ends up with three children and now four people are living in poverty.
It’s, like, arithmetic. Of course, if we want to add some extra information, we can make up a happy ending - the father of the third child has a good job, marries the women, supports her and the kids, the kids end up in college, get good jobs of their own, break out of poverty into comfortable middle class and live happily ever after.
I’m wiling to make a token bet, but I’m not quite sure of the terms you’re proposing. Is the wager that legal abortion will continue in South Dakota past July? I’d have to read more about the situation before predicting yes or no, and there’d have to be some conditions, like what happens if the South Dakota courts (or the federal courts, for that matter) intervenes.
Over what timeframe? Maybe the wager could take the form of: If abortion is de facto banned in South Dakota because of the number of regulatory barriers, will sometime over (say) the following two years there be an irrational pro-lifer formally charged with violently assaulting a gynecologist or bombing a clinic or something else that causes death or has the intent to cause death?
I don’t want to get overly goalposty on this, nor, to be honest, am I eager to bet anything of objective value on whether or not someone commits a violent felony. After all, I am posting under my real name.
They are.
In the news papers I have read it is spelled Usama!!!
Since his name is actually in Arabic and there are not strict rules about rendering such names in English, there is some variation in how his name is transliterated. Neither Osama or Usama is wrong, Osama just became more common (in the US at least). Gaddafi’s name is similar - you see some variation in how it is spelled in English, but none are ‘wrong’ per say.
So, unsurprisingly, classylady seems to be about as right about this as she is about everything else.
Really? USAMA BIB LADEN? I highly doubt that. Was the editor on crack:rolleyes:
You expect me to fucking believe that he went by the name BIB Laden? Really?
Shut the hell up. Idiot.
She said usama bib laden as in the thing babies wear around their necks.
I know exactly what you said. Repeating it doesn’t make it more accurate. The % spread between 1st trimester and 3rd is 51 to 53 points. How do you get that big a difference if the majority, 51% ,agrees that abortion should be legal with strict limitations? Would those restrictions vary from 1st to 3rd trimester?
All polls are dubious and not proof.
It depends on how the question is framed. In this case I gave you two examples of “between a woman and her doctor” being one choice and your specific restrictions the other choice. By any reasonable standard any person of average intelligence would interpret that to mean “woman and doctor” would be more liberal , with less restrictions, than those specifically named. Why wouldn’t the majority take that opportunity to endorse the restrictions they believe in rather than support a nebulous, {your word} and likely less restrictive “woman and doctor”
It seems clear that if they want the law to enforce those restrictions, they won’t be leaving the choice up to the woman and her doctor.
. Once again you’re misrepresenting my words and your phrasing makes it even more obvious. I didn’t say that.
What I noticed in looking over a lot of polls, is that consistently abortion in the 1st trimester is more acceptable by a long shot. Roe v Wade is also supported by a long shot and it legally supports abortion in the 1st trimester, which was mentioned in some questions. Add to that the polls that favor the choice being made by a woman and her doctor over those restrictions you mentioned.
OTOH, the polls do indicate the majority feels abortion is morally wrong in cases such as “don’t want another child” or “interfere with career” and as a personal moral judgement call the majority may indeed favor the restrictions you mentioned. Reconciling the different data, is best summed up in the LA times quote I posted earlier. While people have their personal opinion about what is moral they are reluctant to force those on women through the law, ESPECIALLY IN THE FIRST TRIMESTER. They are less comfortable with very restrictive laws in the 1st trimester but more able to accept them in the 2nd and 3rd, which hinges around viability.
As it turns out , when women are allowed to make their own choices, that’s how it falls.
Don’t have to. I used the data from links you provided which is more than you did with your cherry picking.
Oh please. If your restrictions are turned into law, then obviously several choices are taken away from a woman and her doctor.
This is pretty funny coming from you. I’ve made several similar comments about what you describe as taking things to their logical conclusions , and why they aren’t logical.
We obviously analyze the polls differently. I at least understand that all polls are suspect and don’t qualify as proving anything. They may indicate a general trend, and they have have to be interpreted. I also understand the differences in judging the data and conclusions as “not likely, somewhat likely, less likely, more likely, and very likely” in analyzing polls rather seeing them as proof. My only objection was your cherry picking the data and passing it off as proof. It just isn’t. Now you’ve added some IMO, far fetched interpretations of the specific data I presented concerning the “women and doctors” vs your quoted restrictions.
I’m also willing to admit my own bias affects how I interpret them, as yours obviously does your interpretation, whether you admit it or not.
I’ve already explained my take on the data. The majority may indeed agree with your restrictions as a matter of personal moral opinion, but they are reluctant to enforce that moral opinion on others. They clearly value women’s right to choose, and are more accepting of abortions in the 1st trimester. That’s also reflected in a clear support for upholding Roe vs Wade.
Please don’t bother with some long convoluted post that amounts to " You’re wrong and I’m right" or “you ignored my proof” which is what a lot of your posts amount to. It’s ever so tiresome.
For example this.
I didn’t ignore it. There is conflicting data , which is why your cherry picking doesn’t constitute proof.
here’s another example
I didn’t ignore this either. I’ve explained my take. using your select polls and considering the others as well, while you dismiss conflicting data and just repeat the ones that agree with you. Just the fact that you keep saying polls prove anything indicates a bias that is very willing to ignore reality. Polls do not constitute proof, and that’s widely recognized.
Ah yes, another boring “I’m right no matter what you say” post.
Blatantly evasive of what you responded to. These people were given two choices only. Please explain why, given the opportunity to endorse your restrictions, they chose not to.
You don’t. I stated it pretty plainly and you immediately misrepresented what I wrote. I only pointed out that conflicting data exists, which you ignored, polls are subject to interpretation, and you haven’t proven anything.
You’re funny. I repeat, you take a message board and yourself waaaayyy to seriously. Nothing from you or the SDMB could make me squirm. It’s casual interest and entertainment at best. You are getting less interesting and entertaining with every redundant post.
CLHP- you are making fun of somebody’s typo 10 pages after you had a snit fit when someone did the same to you.
Once again, you prove incapable of understanding irony.
She missed posts 2640 and 2641 as well. Oh, how they burn…the irony, the hypocrisy.