Thanks for admitting it:D
Doesn’t it feel better to get that off your chest?
Still head and shoulders above you, of course…
Actually, the rules of this site state that nobody’s allowed to be a jerk here. Your admission that you are intentionally being a jerk with your posts is an admission to what’s commonly referred to as trolling. One would hope that alone gets you banned and soon.
Are you a mod? I don’t think so. This is the pit where insults against posters are allowed. I said everyone on this thread is being a jerk and it is perfectly fine.
Believe that if it makes you feel any better about yourself. Now leave me the hell alone. I don’t like you. Thanks. Have a nice day. I’m going to be the better person as usual and no longer respond to posts directed at me by you. I actually mean it.
Meh, I don’t care if “their body” is the first priority or the fiftieth or even if it never occurs to the women to name “my body” as a reason. Her reasons are none of my concern. It might be mildly interesting to know what are the most common reasons are, but I see no value in arguing for a ban because the reasons don’t match some arbitrary significance test.
So? I don’t see forcing her to act against her own interests benefits anyone.
Your question doesn’t have to disappear, but I apparently can’t give you the answer you want, and that’s going to keep happening every time you ask until one or both of us loses interest in the thread.
Um… Mazel Tov?
I see you left off “trespasser.” But even then, you “putting” someone in your house does not, as far as I know, entitle them to indefinite lodgings. Anyway, you did not answer my simple “yes or no” question with a yes or a no.
Uh, yeah… but the phase “felony murder” has a specific meaning I invite you look up.
I don’t think that’s inherently more ridiculous than your attempt to analogize abortion with kidnapping and murder.
That is entirely correct, or at least it’s as “justified” as most issues involving personal freedom and liberty.
Well, I’ve given you the best answer I can - what kind of answer did you want?
I was under the impression you’d been doing that since you registered, truth be told. As far as I know, you haven’t been warned or suspended for it, so I guess it’s going over without a problem. I figure just about everything I’ve said to you in this thread could be transplanted without modification to Great Debates and not even raise an eyebrow there, so… yes, I guess this is how debate works around here.
Well, pregnancy is a unique enough circumstance that I see no problem having special rules for it. If you want to me to justify this admittedly arbitrary distinction, well… I figure there’s enough evidence that giving women control over their reproductive choices is a net benefit.
Well, if the fetus was in my body (assuming some highly unlikely sequence of events) and I didn’t want it there, I figure the choice to remove it should be mine alone. I believe I’ve said this already. If there’s a fetus in your body (assuming another highly unlikely sequence of events), is the decision to let it stay there yours or the state’s? I’m willing to defend your right to make that choice and any woman’s right to make that choice because I’d want the right to make that choice.
Well, that’s my default position. Certainly there are some individual freedoms which, if exercised, could cause society itself to unravel, in part or in whole, to the detriment of all individuals. The point is that I’ll accept a limitation on individual freedom if shown a good reason for it, and so far reasons relating to abortion are elusive.
No, the term is “slippery slope” and you must have really laid on the grease to get from “maximize individual freedom” to “legalize slavery”. Where, to ask the obvious, did the slave’s individual freedom go during this transition?
As with your “check higher authority” statement, I predict the above statement can and will be used against you if ever you post in a thread complaining that the Democrats or Obamacare or whatever is infringing on your rights. You’re basically arguing for authoritarianism, one flavour of which is, yes, communism (if not in theory, at least in practice).
I daresay to protect the freedom over which it presides. There’s a conflict in this case, arguably of “life” against “freedom”, and given the natures of the lives involved (i.e. fetuses/children whose own mothers don’t want them) and the freedom involved, I side with the latter, and I’m willing to shift priorities when a significant benchmark is reached (i.e. birth).
If I can propose a ridiculous slippery slope right back at you - if the state’s overriding priority is to maximize the number of citizens by any means necessary (i.e. “life” takes precedence over all), then all women 15-34 should be imprisoned, forcibly inseminated once a year and made to deliver babies for the state. If the woman’s life or health is destroyed after her fifteenth child, at least it’s a net “life” gain for the state. The population of the U.S. can grow dramatically, maybe even catch China and India by the end of the 21st century. Why should it do this? Who cares? It’s LIFE!
Now, there are ways to preserve and protect life without forcing women to have babies they don’t want. Universal health care, for starters, but that’s a whole other thread.
Well, the Americans did re-elect GWB - it went through the process and that was the result. The difference is that your statements about pro-choicers are typically generalizations about what you think pro-choicers feel or believe or claim, and that’s a rather more individualized concept than the mechanics of the Electoral College.
Anyway, fine, whatever. From now on, I’ll just ignore your “pro-choicers claim/feel/believe…” statements because they’re pretty much all been over-simplified and over-generalized. Heck, you can easily find a pro-choicer willing to say all kinds of crazy stuff, and if you want to extrapolate from “that pro-choicer said…” to “pro-choicers say…” I can’t stop you, anyway.
Yeah, I’ll get right on that.
And I feel society needs a better reason than any anti-abortion argument I’ve seen thus far. I just don’t see the value in forcing someone a woman to have an unwanted child. I recognize the biological unfairness to a man in this, in that he can’t prevent a woman from aborting his child, nor can he avoid liability if the woman delivers his child because she wanted it and he didn’t, but I see no easy way to resolve it.
Well, it’s not really a legal remedy by definition if you have to break the law to perform it, I’d’ve thought.
Uh, no… “force” is a good enough word to describe the situation. I don’t see how it’s grossly inaccurate or even offensive (that was the failing of calling pro-choicers “pro-abortion”) and I’m not interested in indulging a pointless definition debate. You used the word “force” earlier (albeit in quotation marks) so I figure you’re not too put out by it, and I will continue using it in this context where appropriate.
Without “outside influence”, most Americans (at least those in the cities) would rapidly starve to death. I don’t see why a woman getting medical assistance somehow invalidates anything. Heck, what if she’s growing a “natural” abortifacient herb, then eats this herb to end her pregnancy? Does that count as “outside influence” ?
Against the will of the person carrying that unborn? Yeah, pretty much. Her choice is the determining factor, as I see it. If she wants to continue her pregnancy and walks into an emergency room with symptoms, I can easily see a partly-state-funded hospital going to great lengths to preserve the life of her and the fetus. And I don’t really object to criminal enhancements that make sentences harsher for men who deliberately kill or injure their pregnant wives or girlfriends, if the intent was to stop the pregnancy and the woman effectively “got in the way”.
And that is just so classically authoritarian, and familiar. There’s a passage in Ayn Rand’s Anthem that seem relevant. The novella is set in some kind of post-apocalyptic pseudo-communist regime. The hero/narrator has found an ancient manhole cover with a descending ladder, an obvious artifact of the oft-rumoured pre-catastrophe Unmentionable Times (talking openly about the Unmentionable Times is punishable by “three years in the Palace of Corrective Detention”) and wants to explore it. His friend is skittish:
So, congratulations, OMG… you’re an Ayn Rand antagonist.
I kinda thought the biggest fight was about overall funding, actually. Or that Republicans were eager to defeat anything proposed by Democrats, because it was proposed by Democrats.
Were there Republicans who said they’d support the bill if the abortion aspect was left out? I cheerfully admit, I wasn’t keeping track.
I’d have absolutely no reason to trust that it would end there. How long before states demand the right to enforce the toothless ban? How long before vigilante action occurs, using the ban as justification?
If I were to accept, grudgingly, a toothless paper ban, I’d need some kind of reassurance that it stays toothless, with punishments for states and individuals who try to enforce it on their own.
Nope, that’s not part of the deal. Only the Federal Abortion Investigation Agency is authorized to investigate. Any evidence gathered by state or local law enforcement without the written permission of the FAIA will be tossed before any case can come before the Federal courts, and such cases can only be prosecuted by a U.S. Attorney working for the FAIA, though with a budget of only $5 a year, the FAIA cannot afford to hire any. Unauthorized investigations are a civil rights violation and the full weight of the Federal government must be brought down on state agencies who flout the law. This prosecution is the responsibility of the Attorney General and not the FAIA. The budget for the FAIA cannot be increased with a 90% yes vote from both houses of Congress and the signature of the President.
When I say toothless, I mean ironclad toothless.
You recognize that such incompetence exists, right? Do you think the incidence of this kind of incompetence will increase, decrease, or stay the same after an abortion ban?
Really. I invite you to elaborate.
Well, I’m okay with calling something “useless” if it offers no benefits and creates additional problems. If this varies from my earlier uses of the word, so be it.
Then the U.S. is even worse off than I thought, though I’m kind of curious how many politicians who claim they’d ban abortion would really do so, and how long they’d last in office if they tried.
Well, I’m still not seeing the benefit this offers. Is your country so hard-up for babies that you need to force (or “pressure” or “trick” or “influence” or whatever you want to call the hypothetical effect of a toothless ban) women to have them against their will?
It very well might be, but it’s not the claim I was making.
Yeah, probably. Or abstinence, even. Or limiting oneself to oral sex. Whatever.
You have my absolute and unhesitant invitation to do so. I only ask that you spell my name correctly.
No, it’s foolish to discredit the existence of the unborn. If the unborn didn’t exist, this whole issue would be moot.
Of course, the mere fact of their existence doesn’t move me to give them rights at the expense of their mothers.
Then you’re not doing it right, or the issue is just something you’ll have to learn to live with (or you can try to “solve” it and, I predict, create even more problems).
Should it matter to me if they have qualms about my lack of qualms?
I gather this is you trying to be facetious.
Well, more poor people, the same limited resources… I’d take that to mean more poverty, but you’re free not to.
What kind of stakes did you have in mind, assuming I accepted?
I should offer a money wager to some anonymous internet acquaintance? I don’t think so, and I’m not comfortable betting money (ESPECIALLY with some anonymous internet acquaintance) that someone will commit murder.
No, because your question is poorly written and I said I wouldn’t be discussing the 1859 thing further.
Had a great day, thanks!
Somehow I’ll have to survive without the stimulating intellectual debate our interactions provided.
Q: Did I say I was a mod?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Did I issue a warning?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Did I point out a fact?
A: Yes, I did.
Well, we’ve all seen the caliber of your cognitive ability. You really don’t need to state the obvious about yourself.
Not all insults are permitted and, as has obviously escaped your notice (perhaps because of that sub-par cognition), even in The BBQ Pit nobody’s allowed to be a jerk.
Apparently (or is that evidently?), it is only you so far being a jerk in this thread. That means that, yet again, you are wrong.
Well, since nobody’s being a jerk except you, of course their behavior’s fine.
By the way, have you considered spending some time on this site?
What will I do? The king of the idiots says I’m stupid:rolleyes:
You are being a jerk in this thread. Everyone is being a jerk because everyone is insulting each other. Are they not? Get a life. You are an arrogant condescending twit with illusions of grandeur.
I know a gastro doc whose first name is Osama. He does colonoscopies. And on his days off, he explores caves. It’s true–I swear.
Does his license plate say assman:D
Hey classyladyhp - I’ve got it that you think a sperm or egg are not human life - although it’s not clear if that’s because you don’t think they’re human or that they’re alive - but I’m still curious as to whether you think a red blood cell or a skeletal muscle cell or a neuron are human life, and if not why not.
By human life I mean human. I don’t consider a red blood cell human. I don’t consider a muscle cell or a neuron human.
I consider an human embryo human life.
Cells (neuronal or skin, for example) are alive. How does one distinguish between living human cells and human cells that are life?
Ah yes, I can’t tell you how often I act the better person by calling someone else an arrogant condescending twit. It goes over a treat at the office, I tell you!
Thanks! I needed a soul-cleansing belly laugh right about then!
Yes there is. If people’s opinions matter, as you claim, then you should no problem in letting people’s opinion shape the law. You’ll notice I never said anything about you agreeing with them. Though this is rather hard for you to understand.
LOL! This is a nice backtrack, which I already explained to you once before. “People” made abortion illegal. Because pro-choice advocates couldn’t get “the people” to change their minds on abortion, they went to the courts who mandated change. Today, the law isn’t allowed to be influenced by “the people” unless SCOTUS ever overturns Roe v. Wade (see: that one quote from some judge I posted). Which, for the record, pro-choice advocates don’t want, because they’re not going to win stateside as “the people” will restrict abortion more-so than it is now.
Oh, and you clearly overstimate the sway pro-choicers have.
Then pro-choicers as a whole must be of below average intellegience 
No, but seriously. Reasonable to whom? I posted a link detailing why pro-lifers are far more effective at arguing when it coems to abortion than are pro-choicers, yet you ignored. That leads me to conclude that you’re content to live in your own little bubble where your arguments only make sense to yourself and those who want to think like you.
No, they’re perfectly logical. However, because you don’t like the outcomes, you cry foul.
Oh, boy. This oughtta’ be fun.
/obviousscarcasm
Ahahahaha! God, you’re such a moron. You might want to enroll yourself into an intro to logic class at your local college or something. The phrase “my body, my choice” is a basic conditional and can be written as such, where B is body and C is choice: B > C. Assuming that statement is true, as it’s purported, then the antecedent can’t be true while the consequent false. That statement can only be true where the antecedent is true and the consequent is false, where both antecedent and the consequent are false or where the antecent is false but the consequent true. Now, I’m only focusing on the situation where the antecedent is true. That is, I’m assuming that it really is the woman’s body and it’s always involved. Assuming this is true, then if “my body, my choice” as a statement is true, then for as long as her body is hers, the choice to abort must be hers as well. For the statement to continue to be held as true without making the antecedent false, then the value of or importance of the unborn must be nil, or at least severely below that given to the woman, or else the ‘choice’ given to the women ceases to be a choice, and the statement becomes false. Before calling a premise ‘illogical’, learn what you’re talking about first. But moving on…
LOL! You really don’t know what you’re talking about. If, as has been claimed in this thread, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs about personhood, then someone who concludes newborns aren’t persons because they lack, say, awareness-- of which they deem to be an integral part of personhood-- is therefore justified in killing that individual. To break it down for you, there argument would look as such:
To be a person you need to be aware.
Newborns aren’t aware.
Newborns aren’t persons.
That’s a perfectly valid and logical argument. It doesn’t matter whether or not YOU think awareness is the only relevant factor. It only matters whether or not the individual defining newborns as non-persons thinks awareness is the only relevant factor. If they do, then they are perfectly justified in acting in accordance with those beliefs as the pro-choicer will have allowed them, as everyone is entitled to their own beliefs about personhood.
In short, you totally, completely and utterly fail.
Read the fucking thread, especially the arguments of pro-choicers who have been busily arguing that the right to bodily autonomy is absolute. For example, I point to Bryan. If the right to bodily autonomy is absolute, then it must also entail the right to act. The location of those you’re acting against, therefore, is irrelevant, as preventing one from acting against an entity simply because you want to should he be inside of your body is fundamentally no different than preventing one from acting against an entity simply because you want to should be be outside of your body. Both are a violation of the right to control your own body, as you will be prevented from acting according to your own will in a fashion you deem appropraite. Of course, said pro-choicers will quickly chime in with an “only in the case of abortion”, but that brings us to a future point.
Incorrect. What you realize is that your position is so absurd that you don’t want to apply it to anything else, as you’d see just how absurd it really is. And on a side note, what’s infinitely funny is that the same people who argue that because pregnancy is different it deserves its own rules throw out said rationale to argue that pregnancy should conform to the same rules as everything else? How does that work?
You’re going to have to explain to me how you can, in one breath, argue that “pregnancy is a unique situation which deserves its own rules and considerations” then turn around and argue that “abortion should be legal because in no other instance can you be ‘forced’ to give sustenance to someone”. Apparently, it only deserves its own rules and considerations when it comes to aborting. Go figure.
Yeah, no. What it means is that one group of people is arguing way past the other (pro-lifers past the pro-choicers, in case you didn’t know) and to compensate for being behind the eight-ball, one group (again, the pro-choicers) start playing willfull ignorance and claiming that its really the other argument which doesn’t make sense.
You know, I’ve got the perfect response; “pregnancy is a unique situation”.
I read what you wrote. And no, it didn’t make sense. I can very well read what others type out. Can you?
Uh-huh. Could you show me where personhood is clearly defined by the law? I ask because I was looking at different state laws, and wouldn’t you know it? Some states do actually define the unborn as persons which, they couldn’t, if there was a clearly defined law stating otherwise.
Except, and wouldn’t you know it? It doesn’t fail.
Great! So then you should have NO problems in people decided to define the unborn as persons under the law, and won’t give me this line about “not forcing your morals on another”. I’m glad you agree.
Which doesn’t explain why said logic should only be applied to abortion and not elsewhere. Oh, and before I forget, let’s be frank; your argument is entirely dependent on some notion of bodily autonomy. It’s not just “one of many factors”. It is the factor, which is why about 99.99999% of the pro-choicers here have focused on it almost entirely.
Oh, you’re not? Really? I think you need to examine your arguments. So you think the right to an abortion, which is rooted in the notion of bodily autonomy, doesn’t entail the right to act against another regardless of the effect it has on that entity? Really? Then why can a woman have an abortion and do just that? The only way you could argue differently-- possibly arguing that abortion is a form of self-defense, or self-preservation of one’s right to bodily autonomy-- would require a hell of a lot of mental gymnastics, as you would be essentially arguing that the mere existence of an entity is grounds to act against that entity. But such a statement is pure nonsense (see: one of my responses a bit earlier), though I’d love to see you try to rationalize it. Go ahead. Amuse me.
No, I didn’t ignore it. See, this is one of those instances where you’re behind the proverbial eight ball. If you would have read my response, you’d clearly see that it was aimed at pointing out that self-determination doesn’t mean a lick, as you wouldn’t allow me to throw a newborn into the Hudson who is unable to exercise self-determination because (s)he is no longer inside of his/her mother’s body (much like I’d doubt you’d say abortion is impermissable even if the unborn was able to exercise self-determine because (s)he is inside of his/her mothers body). As I say often, because you accuse someone of creating a “faulty premise” or an “illogical conclusion”, actually understand what they’re typing out. K? Thx.
Apparently, you don’t, since there is some kind of outcry in this thread when someone points out that society can do just that.
If the argument was about bodily autonomy, then abortion would always be legal on demand for a woman’s body is always her own. This would also entail her being allowed to do whatever she wants. Of course, that’s not the way the law works. Actions are restricted based on the effect allowing that action the exist would have on another relative to the effect disallowing that action would have on the individual engaging in that action. This is how the law operates in every circumstance-- sans abortion. Why should abortion be treated differently than anything else under the law?
(Oh, wait. Because it’s different, amirite?)
Look at the reasons women have abortions. They don’t overwhelmingly have abortions because “they don’t want to be pregnant”, but because they don’t want to take care of that thing which results from pregnancy. Whenever you want to deal in reality, let me know. It’s a wonderful place, though it’s quite hostile to pro-choice rhetoric.
Considering the women you quoted (Reagan something) was using his quote to prove that abortions were made illegal in the 19th century due to nativism and anti-Catholic sentiment, I think I’ll stand by my statement and tell you good luck proving that abortions in the 19th century were made illegal due to nativism and anti-Catholic sentiment.
You can’t admit an error in logic that you’ve not made, nor concede a point you haven’t lost. You can, however, play that game Bryan stopped playing (unfortunately. I really wanted my question answered!)
Considering that this message board tilts to the left, I wouldn’t doubt that many would agree with what I write out. Oh, and I will when you continue to either make flatly incorrect statements, or try to tell me that my arguments are illogical while either flat out misunderstanding them or simply not understanding them (on account of them being uber sophisticated and all).
Taken individually, are any of the cells of an adult human being human life? Or of a newborn, for that matter?
If the individual cells are not human life, then I’m guessing that you would say that certain collections of cells and tissues are also not human life - like muscle tissue, or bones, or a lung, or a tumor, etc. Is that correct?
It’s more like you locked the door but the lock wasn’t good enough, if birth control was being used.
No. You were talking about bodily autonomy, not just abortion. However…
The fetus would be stealing from me and endangering my life. Just as I would be allowed to use force to protect myself and my things from a burglar, so I am allowed to use force to protect myself from an uninvited parasite. Even if you think it’s a real person.
I don’t live in a country like that, I live in the US where the majority still feels that abortion is not immoral.
Then why did you throw that strawman out?
Also, I cannot believe that you feel that not being able to afford a pregnancy/child, not liking/wanting children or endangering the woman’s health are “frivolous” reasons to get an abortion.
Remember when you asked why there isn’t a roll eyes smilie - there is and I need to use it here. :rolleyes: I have to believe that you aren’t dumb enough to have misunderstood my post, so you are trying to avoid addressing it. You keep claiming you don’t understand why the fact that a fetus is inside a woman’s body is so important, and we tell you it’s because a fetus that isn’t wanted is violating that woman’s bodily autonomy (well, even a wanted one is but the woman is giving it permission to do so). Then you try to muddy the waters by talking about women having abortions in the third trimester for no reason, which just doesn’t happen.
Perhaps you are confused by the idea that a woman would know right away that a pregnancy would risk her health, which is why you bring up late abortions? Or maybe you have forgotten that many late abortions are done because the fetus has something profoundly wrong with it? I have to think this is true when you blithely throw out things like “once the fetus becomes sentient, abortion becomes impermissible”. Did you forget that some women have to run a long road to actually get an abortion, meaning some might be in your “once the fetus reaches viability, the woman loses her right to have an abortion just because” range. If anti-abortionists had kept their noses out of her uterus, she’d have had that abortion long before then.
No, the lock failed and they came in without invitation or permission and won’t leave.
Oh my, I made a typo error and you must forgive one who you consider ignorant…shame on me for my ignorance, and praise to you who never made a mistake or a typo. It must be so lonely at the top! You have my sincere pity!!