Oh, the first time she shouted about why Jewish law should pertain to her and why it be forced on her, irony detection went out the window.
Why shouldn`t I. Everyone else is allowed to be a jerk. Also she said his name is usama in the newspaper and did not acknowledge bib was a typo. ta-ta
I see unclassy is here to do one of their “hit and run” posts.
Oh sure, YOU would think that. You, who thinks that sperm cells are human life! 
Still my favorite posts in this thread.
So you think that abortion is a matter of self-defense? Just to nip this in the bud:
Good luck explaining how you could categorize abortion as a matter of self-defense.
What country do you live in where the morality of the many is not in some way forced upon the few?
Did you really just call the above a straw man? How ridiculous is that. You live in the U.S., allegedly, and there ain’t a state in the union which allows abortions in the 3rd trimester for the frivilous reasons a woman can obtain an abortion in the 1st trimester. Everyone here knows this.
Because, as we all know, (1) the majority of abortions are done because of the mother’s health (<6%) and (2) I’ve totally said the above.
nods head
But you contribute nothing else.
Millions of American women ever year have an abortion for reasons which are completely unrelated to “their body”, but rather reasons which are gender neutral and classify as lifestyle choices (i.e., “don’t want to be a parent”, “want to have a career”, “want to go to school”, etc.). The vast majority of abortions are done for absolutely no reason relating to the fact that it’s the woman’s body. Anyone who pays any little amount of attention to abortion knows this. Here is data compiled by Guttmacher detailing the qualitative reasons why women abort. The three biggest given reasons for having an abortion are because having a baby would change her life (i.e., would interfere with her education, would interfere with her career or she has other children to care for), because she can’t afford it or because she doesn’t want to be a single mother or is having relationship problems. Only 12% of all women who obtained an abortion mentioned mentioned, say, something like health concerns (which would be linked to her body) as a reason for having an abortion.
So please, spare me. I don’t really know who you’re kidding. Well, maybe besides yourself and the few people who’d rather not look things up (which seems to be a rather large amount of people, actually). The whole “her body” line is a complete red herring, for the majority of abortions aren’t done for any reason relating to it being “her body”, but rather her not wanting to care for a child in the future.
At any rate, that still doesn’t answer my question. You can try to speak around it all you like, but it’s not going to disappear.
(Oh yeah, and before I forget I feel I must ask; what would you say if I were a female who had given birth to multiple children?)
Except it’s not, since someone who enters your house only because you put him or her there, by definition, cannot be a burglar or an intruder
points above
Murder is always a felony.
Yes, the fetus is the kidnapper, due to the fact that it holds the woman hostage against her will as a result of the woman acting in a manner by which led to the fetus existing.
Because you treat it as self-evident and needing no justification. Nice arguing technique you’ve got there.
How about this? How about you answer my question (since I’ve asked it first and have asked it about a gajillion times), then I’ll answer yours? I think that’s quite fair, don’t you?
No. I’d much rather see you actually-- you know-- defend your position instead of treating it as self-evident. If that’s the way debate around here works, then I’m going to start making a bunch of statements and then claiming that I don’t need to justify them because I view them as self-evident. I wonder how well that would go over?
Because if you assert that one cannot to do and with their body as they please, then you have to justify why it’s okay to let one do to and with their body as they please regardless of the effect it has on another, but not in another instance. This is typically where you respond “Because one is outside of the [woman’s] body while the other isn’t!”, and where I ask you “Why is that important?”, thus creating an impasse because you refuse to justify why it being the woman’s body is important other than you want to treat it as being important.
You said more individual freedoms are better than less individual freedoms. If this is so, then you should also agree that allowing someone the freedom to own a slave is better than disallowing the freedom to own a slave. There’s nothing childish and self-centered about that. I’m just taking what you write to its natural conclusion. As it is, the point of my illustration was to prove that “more individual freedoms” are not better than “less individual freedoms”. Both you and I know this, so there’s no need to further hinge on this point.
So now we’re right back to the point I made initially; what greater justification does the state need than to protect the life of those over which it presides? Essentially, you’ve said time and time again that this isn’t a good justification, yet you seem willing to grant the state that justification in every instance sans abortion. How does that work, exactly?
Well, you know, a few years ago there was a headline in a newspaper which read “Americans Re-Elect GWB as POTUS” or something to that effect. I sure as hell know I didn’t vote for him, and I’m sure that 99.9999% of people who read that headline didn’t think that every American voted for GWB. Same deal here. You’re the one who took that statement to mean every pro-choicer. That’s your problem, not mine.
Now try “pro-life cut unborn dismembered”.
Again I say, “So what?”. Society “forces” people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t want to all the time.
You mean “no legal rememdy outside of breaking the law and/or being penalized”, right? Because there’s a lot of such instances.
Incorrect. Let me help you out here. What actually happens under an abortion ban is that the state tells the woman that because she chose to engage in the action leading to her being pregnant, that she consented to the consequences of those actions. As a result, unless something outside of what’s normally expected to happen during pregnancy occurs, she is implicitly consented to becoming pregnant and is therefore held responsible for the life she helped to create. Nothing “forced” about that.
Because if a pregnant woman is left alone without outside influence, one of two things will naturally happen; she’ll either miscarry or she’ll give birth. Kind of a difference between that and an artificially induced termination, you know.
So you mean the state stepping in to protect the lives of the unborn is unwarranted and unecessary?
My answer was very simple. You only has a right to act in a certain manner because the law allows you to do so.
I might know where your neck ends and your head begins, but I sure know it isn’t your elbow
So then, knowing this, what is this “people’s rights” thing you were talking about?
Again, I never said abortion was the biggest issue in American politics, but a bigger issue than gay marriage. And since you mentioned healthcare, I feel it fair to point out that, without a doubt, the biggest fight of the healthcare law then and now was and is abortion.
But since nothing would change with them on the books, then what would be the big deal? You wouldn’t even know they existed! Seems to me like you shouldn’t argue about that.
Works for me, since most of the “investigating” would be done at the state level. Well, unless you get a notorious abortionist who is injuring, maiming and/or killing a large number of women. Then the FBI/CIA would probably get involved 
I’ve noticed that you keep mentionining South Dakota. Why? South Dakota is, probably, what pro-choicers should model themselves after.
A law which would reduce the abortion rate can’t be called useless. If it had no discernable effect on the abortion rate, then you could call it useless.
Well, that and how poverty would increase. Probably something else I can’t be bothered to go looking for now.
Except it wouldn’t be made illegal just to be made illegal, but rather made illegal to reduce the abortion rate-- which it would, as people are more apt to engage in an action when it’s legal than when it’s illegal.
You shouldn’t be mystified by it. If the claim that having children causes poverty was true, you should be able to find some kind of study which backs up this claim. Yet, unsurprisingly, you can provide nothing, simply because it’s not true and is a very big oversimplification of the causes of poverty.
Ummm, no. The safest and most efficient form of birth control would be, say, a condom (assuming you’re not allergic to them), the pill or an IUD. Anyway, I’m saving this response for future posterity, so the enxt time someone gives me the whole “No pro-choicer thinks of abortion as birth control!” line, I can quote this.
It’s only callous if you discredit the existence of the unborn.
A common pro-choice saying which has been proven to not exactly be that effective (especially since states in which pro-choicers tend to dominate have higher abortion rates than do their conservative counterparts).
I do hope both Irish Girl and Brown Eyed Girl read the above.
Really? I thought they’d much rather jam a coat hanger into their uteruses, since that’s usually how the rhetoric goes.
For argument’s sake, I’ll give you this point (though it’s not true that abortions ban mean more poverty).
Well, that one individual (don’t remember his/her name) flatly stated that come July abortions will be illegal in South Dakota. I said I’d take that bet, but (s)he never responded. Now, if you want, I’d be totally willing to make that bet with you, where you’re betting that come July abortions will be illegal in South Dakota and me betting that come July abortions will still be legal in July.
So, in other words, you’re not willing to put your money where your proverbial mouth is? That’s a shame.
Great. So you agree, then, that the same way all those early feminists were trying to oppress other women by making abortion illegal, they were also trying to oppress other women by ensuring they could vote, own property and even work outside of the home, yes?
Osama
Usama Sama Sama Osama
U Sama Osama
U CL, CL you’re a right wing nut
Sama Osama
U Clusterfuck!
Here. Let me sum of the way this argument has gone.
Me: “Americans would restrict abortions to cases of rape, incest, maternal health and severe fetal defects.”
You: “You’re wrong!”
Me: “No, I’m not. Here is the proof.”
You: “It doesn’t say that!”
Me: Then show me anything which shows that Americans would allow for abortions outside of the ‘hard’ cases."
You: “Here, look! This poll says that Americans would leave the decision up to a woman and her doctor. Therefore, you’re wrong!”
Me: “What does between a woman and her doctor mean?”
You: “It means that Americans would leave the decision between a woman and her doctor.”
Me: “But what does that mean? Does it mean Americans would always leave the decision up to a woman and her doctor? Or does it mean that Americans would leave the decision up to a woman and her doctor in certain circumstances?”
You: <No response>
Me: “As only approximately a quarter of Americans support unrestricted abortion, between a woman and her doctor cannot mean always.”
You: “I never said always, so you’re just making stuff up!”
Me: “No, but you implied it. At any rate, as you’ve acknowledged that between a woman and her doctor doesn’t mean always or, more specifically unrestricted, then we need to find those circumstances in which Americans would allow the decision to be between a woman and her doctor and those cirucmstances in which they wouldn’t. Do you have anything else?
You: “Yeah, look at this poll! Always/most of the time is ahead of sometimes/never! Ergo, you’re wrong.”
Me: “But what constitutes most of the time/sometimes?”
You: “Huh?”
Me: “What cases constitute most of the time/sometimes?”
You: “I don’t know.”
Me: Well, if you don’t know, then how can you say I’m wrong? Different polls have different ways of defining most/sometimes. Unless you know what the poll is using to define each category, you cannot say I’m wrong.”
You: “Yes, I can!”
Me: “How? By your own admission, you don’t know what circumstances are contained in each category. Without knowing this, you cannot say I’m wrong in saying that the majority of Americans would allow abortions in the ‘hard’ cases but not cases outside of that. I can point you to specific polls which spell out each category which show this, while you can show me nothing contradictory.”
You: “I just did!”
Me: “When?”
You: <reposts the same always/most/sometimes/never poll>
Me: “Again I ask you, how does this prove me wrong?”
You: “Because always/most of the time is ahead of sometimes/never!”
Me: “But you’ve already admitted that you don’t know what circumstances are in each of those cases, so you cannot possibly say I’m wrong unless you know the circumstances in each case, something you’ve said you can’t do. So can you or can’t you?”
You: “I can’t.”
Me: “Then I’m not wrong, and you need to provide something which breaks down abortions by specific circumstances which shows that Americans would allow abortions outside of the hard cases.”
You: “I just did.”
Me: "When?
You: “When I…”
Me: rolls eyes
Now on to the responses!
I’m convinced that you really don’t understand what I write out. Here, let me simplify this for you. I said that that as a general rule Americans would restrict abortions to the first trimster, but not leave them unrestricted. Rather, they would only allow abortions in the ‘hard’ cases (i.e., rape, incest, maternal health and fetal defects). Therefore, looking at whether or not first trimester abortions should be legal, you’d get the people who say ‘yes, in the hard cases’, ‘yes, in the first trimester always’, ‘yes, in the second trimester always’ and ‘yes, in the third trimester always’; in the second trimester you’d get none of the aforemtioned 'yes, in hard cases and none of the 'yes, in the first trimester always, though you’d still have the ‘yes, in the second trimester always’ and ‘yes, in the third trimester always’ groups; in the third trimester, you’d only get the latter group. That’s how you get a 50%+ spread. I’ve said this before, but a little understanding goes a long way.
In this case, they’re proof. And well documented proof, too.
Is that so? Would that be why you refused to answer my question which asked you what “between a woman and her doctor” means? Yeah, I think so.
Well, see, I also asked you this question before, but how many people go around saying that the decision to have an abortion should be between anyone but a woman and her doctor? There isn’t a single person-- pro-choicer or pro-lifer-- in this thread who has said such a thing.
No, but you’ve very strong implied it, by asserting that “believing abortion should be between a woman and her doctor” to be a pro-choice position.
…Yeah, see. I went over this in one of my previous responses which you TOTALLY BLEW OVER, so I’m going to have to go over them again.
I facepalmed. I guess you think that if you repeat yourself over and over and over again while ignoring the things I post, that you’ll magically become correct in your assertions. Just so you know, you won’t. Yeah, I’ll be getting to this again.
Yeah, this is a lie. Just like you accused me of ignoring some other poll when I, in fact, totally referenced it earlier, right? Just because you can accuse me of cherry picking, and just because you don’t know how to read a poll, doesn’t mean I’m cherry picking.
Who knew that pointing out that Americans, when given certain situations in which abortions should be legal/illegal, consistenly agree that abortions should be legal in the hard cases while illegal in all others to be letting my biases get in the way? Seriously. Do you even think before you type out? You keep giving me this line, but when asked to provide proof of the contrary, you fail to do so. In fact, what you do is try to find polls which say nothing of what you assert them to say and then assert that they back up your claim and contradict my position, though when I ask you what they mean, you tell me “I don’t know” or simply pretend like you didn’t see the question. How does that work? I mean, really.
No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it’ll forever be a lie. And as you FLATLY ignored this before (quite possibly because it completely contradicts the above stated lie), I’ll quote this again:
Now please, pretend like you didn’t see this and repeat the same lie again.
Again, I feel the need to quote myself.
Unsurprisingly enough, you ignored that.
Wait. I’m going to have to quote myself yet again:
So is the fact that you don’t read my posts and ignore those things which contradict your claims. But that’s your schtick, so I’ve grown used to it.
Yeah, no there isn’t. Either you don’t understand what you post, or you don’t understand what I type out. Or else you have a piss poor grasp of the English language. I haven’t figured out which yet.
Yes you did ignore, and with good reason, that reason being because you can’t find any poll which says “Americans would allow for unrestricted abortions during the 1st trimester”. The absolute closest thing to this you could find was “Americans believe that abortion should be a decision between a woman a doctor”, which I’ve responded to not only in this one, but my previous posts as well, though you’ll probably come back five days later and pretend I never typed it out.
At any rate, I lol @ your accusations of me ignoring stuff. This is proof that you don’t read. I did your work for you and found what you were incapable of finding, which was one study from 1997 that said Americans would allow unrestricted abortions during the 1st trimester that I brought up (only to have you ignore). So please, do try again.
This is a case of you not posting anything which contradicts what I’ve claiming, even further evidenced by the fact that when I ask you to show me something, for example, which breaks down abortions by specific case which would show that Americans are comfortable with abortions outside of the hard cases, you fail to produce. I noticed how you cut the portion of my post out which flatly stated that you cannot show that the majority of Americans would allow for abortions because a woman doesn’t want a child, because she is having relationship problems, because she wants to have a career, because she wants to go to school, because she doesn’t like the sex of her baby, etc. I wonder why? It couldn’t possibly be because no such poll, study or virtually anything which agree to the above exists? I think so.
lolwut? Again I have to ask you this, but what does “illegal in most”/“illegal in few” constitute? The only way you could possibly argue the above is to know what each category entailed, but you can provide nothing detailing which each category entails which shows that Americans would support abortions for cases outside of this. For example, one of those polls I posted categorized “most” as rape, incest, fetal defects and the health of the mother, while another categorized that as a few. It’s not that hard to understand. In fact, it’s quite easy. It’s odd how you call my posts “blatantly evasive” when you continue to tell me what circumstances are held in the “most”/“some” categories. Disengenuous, much?
Oh, but I do. You keep telling me all this stuff I’ve ignored, yet when you examine my posts, you find that I indeed didn’t. Go figure.
Uh-huh. So is this a way to try to gracefully exit while saving face?
QUOTE]
I’m honestly mystified how you can post this example of you misrepresenting my posts as if it shows you didn’t. Not only is it a misrepresentation it isn’t even a logical one.
Your phrasing above clearly shows your responding as if I made a personal statement about how I personally value other people’s opinions. As I’ve said repeatedly, I didn’t do that. I made a very general comment that people’s opinions matter because over time they do affect the law.
2ndly, Even if I had made a more personal comment {I didn’t} there’s no logic in your conclusion of what I ought to be doing. It’s just one of many examples of how your conclusions don’t logically follow the original premise
Another misrepresentation. I never said any such thing. It’s pretty obvious that people’s opinions do influence the law over the long haul. It was people’s opinions that originally made abortion illegal , and later brought Roe vs Wade before the SC. It’s people’s opinions that are now influencing changes in state laws, which will in turn prompt a push back from pro choice advocates.
The average person of average intelligence who doesn’t let emotional arguments and ego supersede their ability to think rationally.
.
Except your so called logical conclusions aren’t logical. Your conclusions do not follow. You gave one example above. Here are a couple of more
#1484
Is is not the necessary conclusion that in balancing the value or importance of two things one must be valued at nil. Such a premise is illogical.
1584 you use your illogical on personhood/ awareness.
fairly typical of your style of argument you start from the premise “if awareness is the ONLY relevant factor,” to conclude, then someone supports a woman killing her newborn. Your premise is faulty because awareness is not the only relevant factor. As I’ve already explained, abortion is a complex issue that deals with several components that cannot be separated, and “taken to the logical conclusion” The attempt to do so is illogical.
We can look at you “right to life vs. bodily integrity” argument in that same post and see more of your trying to discount the fact that abortion is an act of trying to balance various issues as you try to create a false and illogical absolute.
The same is true of your “if bodily autonomy is the ONLY relevant factor”, then you must support rape or theft of whatever nonsense you mentioned.
You refer to these arguments as logical conclusions but they are based on a faulty premise. The issues are not separate and come to an unique situation in pregnancy.
Right, because we recognize with rational minds that pregnancy and abortion present a unique combination of principles and problems and the balancing of them isn’t so simple. You OTOH, try to argue the relevant issues and principles separately , forming false premises and arriving at illogical conclusion.
Then again there are those people who, for whatever reason, are just in complete denial of the failings of their arguments. Their arguments boil down to “I’m right no matter what” We’ve seen a few round here.
I didn’t say you missed any. I said, Just for yucks can you find one or two posts from you where you acknowledge that someone who doesn’t agree with you made a good solid point, or one incident where you admitted an error other than a typo.
However, now that you mention it, you ignored this question in your response.
How about a direct concise answer?
It has to do with the application of logic. When you claim you’ve proved something, it means your conclusions necessarily follows your premise. However if your premise is faulty, {because you’re leaving out relevant factors} then your conclusion isn’t logical. Also if your conclusion is only one of a variety of possible outcomes then it doesn’t necessarily follow, it only means "it could possibly follow, which is long way from proof. In that case your claim of proof is illogical.
you’re taking this out of context and trying to argue it as an absolute. That’s a false argument. Because of the subject matter there is obviously an implied “in the case of abortion” and this is asserted precisely because the definition of personhood, in regard to in uteri is not clear. Nobody is arguing that in cases where person hood is already clearly defined by law and the customs of society then people have the right to ignore those laws and customs. That’s why, this argument,
…fails. It’s a good example of your pattern of a false premise that leads to an illogical conclusion.
This isn’t really what I’ve said. I’ve said that being in a society makes it possible , and at times necessary, to come up with definitions at least in legal terms.
Because the abortion issue is a unique combination of principles that need to be balanced. Bodily autonomy is one of them.
because the situation, existing commonly in the lives of citizens and society, requires a decision. It doesn’t guarantee a perfect solution or a permanent one.
Nobody is assuming that so this is fakse and illogical in it’s disregard for relevant factors apparent in reality.
Same as above.
in # 1934 I asked a question that you tried to answer in post 1951.
your response
You completely avoid and ignore the physical enslavement portion of my argument and talk only of self determination to create a false premise and illogical conclusion. You ignored a similar question in #1699 as well.
?? So all that was state the obvious that society is able to pass laws making abortion illegal. I’m sure we all knew that already.
You haven’t succeeded in making any argument that the issue of bodily autonomy is irrelevant. The fact that society is able to pass anti abortion laws doesn’t remove bodily autonomy from the equation at all. If you do have some point to make about the unborn go ahead. I remain skeptical about it’s quality.
I think the difference is my appraoch is realistic about people and society while this comment, suggesting carrying a pregnancy to term and all that entails , is just a matter of inconvenience, is oversimplification to the point of utter nonsense.
Holy fuck will you please get a grip on the difference between some evidence and what actually constitutes proof. I never claimed it proved anything , while you continue to misrepresent inconclusive evidence as if it proves something, once again demonstrating you don’t really understand how logic works. You just like to insist you do as part of your “I’m right no matter what” position.
I’m not sure what you mean, but why wouldn’t I?
You might consider that your strategy of never admitting an error in logic, a mistake, or conceding a point, as a discussion strategy is obviously an attempt to play a game you can’t lose.
Just keep claiming victory and “I’m right no matter what” and you can’t lose. That kind of victory exists only in your head and in any fool that chooses to swallow it. Youy won’t find that many on this message board.
…and you IDT oops:D I mean ITD contribute the same bull shit time after time after time. You say you’re leaving and you come back for more. Can’t stay away can you. This little obsession you have with following me around is frankly getting kinda creepy:dubious:
Still pissed that you can’t even get your own weird username right.
Retard=John Mace
Retard=John Mace
Retard=John Mace
Retard=John Mace
Buzz off…show me one site that lists his name as BIB-LADEN
psycho. Your little rhyme is like Dr. Seuss without any of the talent.
No, I expected that you were freaking out about using Usama instead of Osama, rather than freaking out over a simple and very obvious typo. That was clearly giving you too much credit.
Furthermore, you said “Who the hell is usama Bib-Laden? Osama’s baby brother?” Saying they were brothers implies that you acknowledged that they had the same last name but (you thought) different first names. Now I see that you were trying to make an extremely weak ‘bib=baby’ joke, presumably to remind us to think of the children, the poor innocent children!!!eleventy!!!
Lame.
Yes bib as in baby. Babies wear bibs. You must have quite a few of them in your personal collection.
Wow. So very clever
Uh, no.
You really are one stupid lady!
You just keep proving everyone’s comments about your lack of reading comprehension right. Or willful ignorance. Or retention defect. I have answered a variety of interesting questions that you yourself posed and you chose never to comment on them. You prove your own motives by your own words. Show me where, as of late, you’ve contributed anything beyond snark. Your right, of course, but you then own what you replies you get.
When I make a typo or error I admit it just fine. I am secure in my own competency that mistakes don’t make me defensive. Yup, I mistyped my username initials. You got me there. What a win. :rolleyes:
Yes and I’ll take your word for it since you are so so smart:rolleyes: IDIOT.
No. You’re still pissed about it because it make you look like the idiot that you are.
Ok. You caught me. I’m the idiot. And if these other well-written, logical, articulate posters are idiots too, then I’m in good company.
Sorry. No. You didn’t close the door properly and you let them in.