I didn’t imply it because it was irrelevant to my point which you have manged to avoid by pulling “between a woman and her doctor” out of the context of the specific question in the poll.
Given the only two choices offered in those questions,** I asked this**
You avoided giving any direct answer with this.
The specifics of just how liberal , or what restrictions are meant under the former is irrelevant, given the two choices. I repeat, by any reasonable standard the choice was between your specific restrictions , and something that could only be more liberal. If you’re suggesting the two choices essentially reflect the same restrictions that’s obviously nonsense.
This too is an attempt to avoid a direct answer and avoiding the actual point.
Again you’re avoiding the clear implications of the only two choices given. According to you the general public wants the woman and her doctor to be restricted to those hard cases, which were offered as one choice. And yet they didn’t choose those restrictions when they were specifically listed and offered as one of two choices.
You’re suggesting that they want the choice to be between a woman and her doctor, with those restrictions legally enforced right? That would mean in that question and those examples I gave, the two choices were essentially the same thing. That doesn’t make any sense. So, please address my question and those examples directly.
This still doesn’t make sense to me. Are you suggesting they can only choose one trimester rather than offer their opinion on all three? Even in the example you posted in #1497 the 1st trimester is much higher, and the option of “depends” which might include “on the reason” is very low.
If a simple majority agrees abortion should remain legal with strict restrictions, then I’d expect that to be a consistent number for all trimesters. Given the restrictions I would think the trimester becomes far less relevant, with few possible exceptions. I’m also assuming that this simple majority agree with the “embryo the same as 9 month fetus, or newborn” concept, which would also indicate the trimester doesn’t matter. The human life is the same from conception to birth right?
So, with the value of human life being the same throughout gestation, and the hard case restrictions in place, a simple majority would support abortion equally in all trimesters. {with minimal exceptions} That leaves less than a majority to spread between the trimesters, and a % of those would want it illegal in every case. I fail to see how a majority could disagree on trimesters if a simple majority agrees it should remain legal with hard case exceptions. Consistently, every poll that deals with trimesters show the 1st as dramatically higher than the other 2 , especially the third. That indicates to me that the general public sees the 1st trimester much differently.
They’re not just because of your claim. Can you provide any credible cite that indicates polls can and should be regarded as proof? IMO, you’re ignoring what is widely accepted about polls. That’s why I provided the link showing that experts that deal with them recognize their flaws and dubious nature.
For the sake of brevity that’s all I’m dealing with for now. If we can address these, we can move on to the other issues in later posts.
I see. Thanks. Funny how it works. I was posting on another site and let my frustration get the best of me and spelled out “fuck” rather than f**k. It wasn’t directed at another poster. I was summarily banned and my emails inquiring about the rules and possible reinstatement went unanswered. Today, using a friends computer , I find I can post there , so I assume they ban the IP. Just goofy. Sure made me appreciate the SDMB, and reasonable guidelines.
That site also had posters constantly accused of having several identities they were posting under at the same time which seemed odd.
No kidding, on another board (that’s not exactly a hive of activity) I posted to a thread that was maybe 3 months old and got my ass chewed for necroposting, even though there were plently of other posts on that board that were more than 3 months apart and the rules said nothing about necroposting.
You’re kidding! Pro-lifers are damn near always republican, who are famous for shooting down social programs and their ideas of “small government” nearly always mean taking money away from welfare programs and education. They are the ones who bitch and moan about “welfare queens” and such. That is not the language of the left.
Well, at least you’re honest about it, which is more than most pro-choicers, who seem content to ignore the fact that women overwhelmingly have abortions for reasons not related to their bodies.
It was in the link I gave you. But you don’t have to go back and look. I’m kind enough to just post the data here (you’re welcome):
It sure as hell benefits the kid who gets to live.
It’s not that you can’t give me the answer I want, it’s that you can’t give me an answer at all. There’s a stark difference between the two.
Oh… I thought you would give my argument more credence, since you seemed to imply that because I’m a guy my opinion is irrelevant.
No, I didn’t. For all intents and purposes, burglar, intruder and tresspaser are being treated to mean the same thing.
Of course not. And luckily for you, no one is claiming that the unborn be given indefinite lodging.
Of course I didn’t, because it’s a false dichotomy (well, at least as it relates to the question posed, anyway).
Which doesn’t change the fact that murder is always a felony. You cannot get charged with murder and have it be a misdemeanor, which was the point.
Except it’s not ridiculous. Your problem, and it is a problem whether you want to acknowledge it or not, is that you assert that abortion is non-analogous to either kidnapping (which it wasn’t being compared to) or murder because neither kidnapping nor murder involve the unborn being inside of the woman’s body. Of course, this goes back to you needing to justify why it being the woman’s body is important, which you’ve failed to do, as “Because it is!” isn’t a valid justification.
Then your argument is unsupportable and you realize it’s unsupportable, which is why you refuse to try to justify it and instead want to treat it as a self-evident statement.
An actual response? I mean, seriously. Here is the debate.
Me: “If bodily autonomy entails the right to act, then rape and murder are perfectly justified.”
You: “No, they’re not because those instances involve someone being outside of the woman’s body.”
Me: “Why is location of the one you’re acting against important?”
You: “Because it is!”
Me: “But why?”
You: “Because it is!”
Me: But why?"
You: “Because it is!”
Me: “But why? ‘Because it is!’ isn’t a response.”
You: “That’s the best response I can give.”
Me: “So the best response you can give is a self-evident statement which relies on itself as proof?”
You: “Yes.”
Me: “And you see nothing wrong with that?”
You: “No. That’s the best response I can give.”
The simple fact is that you have no argument. Really, you don’t.
Then you should also have no problem rescinding the woman’s “right to bodily” autonomy during pregnancy, since it’s a unique circumstance.
A net benefit? Really? Are you going to be like that other guy who never came back who wanted to argue utility? I mean, if you want we can go down this route, though it won’t benefit you to do so. It’s amazing just how many social ills abortion contributes to.
Yet when someone asks you why location is important, you just respond “Because it’s in your body”. But since you’re content to continue to do that, let’s try a different angle. Let’s assume that, for whatever reason, all you know about abortion is the following. Assuming two individuals, either you’re the aborter, in which you live but the other dies, or you’re the aborted, in which you die but the other lives. Without knowing which you are, and someone asks you whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal, which would you choose?
So preventing one human from killing another isn’t a good reason to restrict abortion? Again I point out that if that’s your position, then you can’t say that murder should be illegal.
Number one, a slippery slope is not always a fallacy. Number two, if as you’ve asserted more freedoms are better than fewer freedoms, then how can you say that the freedom to own a slave (more) is not better than not being allowed the freedom to own a slave (fewer)? Didn’t you say that more freedoms are better than fewer freedoms?
…Oh, and what about the slaves individual freedoms? They have none.
If you ever find, or can find, a thread with me complaining about Democrats, feel free to bring it to my attention. But good luck ever finding one.
Wait wait wait wait… You think “freedom” trumps “life”? Let’s ignore abortion for a moment. Show me an issue where this is the case? You can save yourself the trouble, though, because it doesn’t exist. So explain to me why abortion should be any different?
(Oh, because it’s different, right?)
That’s not a slippery slope; that’s a straw man
The argument isn’t that the state’s overriding priority is to maximize the number of citizens by any means necessary, but rather that the state’s overriding priority is to ensure that the lives of those it presides over are protected.
Banning abortion is a lot more effective.
Incorrect. The difference is that… Well, there is no difference. You assumed “pro-choicers” mean “all”.
Overgeneralized, you say? Perhaps you should pay more attention to what pro-choicers type out or the arguments they make? Too many times in this thread have I heard something like “Oh, you’re just generalizing” when a simple internet search will prove otherwise. Or you can just look at this thread. Either or (though you should look online).
So let me make sure I understand all of this correctly:
(1) Protecting human life is not a good reason to ban abortion.
(2) There is no value in forcing a woman to have an unwanted child.
(3) There is value in forcing a man to be liable for a child he didn’t want.
Is that right?
I’m sure you know the difference between a naturally occurring abortion (i.e., a miscarriage) and an artificially induced abortion.
So your argument, again, boils down to protecting human life being subverted by the will of the invidual looking to kill that individual, yes?
Then you’re being selective in your application.
Great to know. So then, I guess, is everyone who realizes that you only have the right to, say, vote because the government says you do, is an Ayn Rand antagonist.
Nope. Wouldn’t have passed without some anti-abortion provision.
So what’s the point in arguing a toothless ban if you wouldn’t accept that toothless ban? Seems rather odd to me.
Works for me, because with only a budget of $5 the FAIA can’t afford to bring suit to any state effectively forcing the ban.
And then he’d go to jail and all would be well until the next guy (or girl) shows up. Kind of like it is now whenever some abortionist kills someone.
Lower pregnancy rate and lower abortion rate.
It would lower the abortion rate, which is what pro-choicers claim they’d like to see happen and it would, for example, cause the incidence of contraception use to go up, the incidence of STD’s to go down and result in a higher adoption rate. How are any of those things useless?
Why does that make the U.S. worse off? Anyway, I’d say many of them. Again, most people don’t care about abortion, but of those who do pro-lifers care more than do pro-choicers. So if I had to guess, I’d say ‘long time’.
Well, mine isn’t, but yours is
Errr, I’m pretty sure you did.
Or anal.
But, you know, I thought I’d just mention those things pro-choicers wouldn’t call “ridiculous” to expect people to stick to.
When have I spelled it incorrectly?
Of course it’s foolish, but that doesn’t stop pro-choicers from discrediting their existence. For example, you, who has argued that a woman has an absolute right to abort regardless of the effect it would have on the unborn or how developed it is.
Indeed it doesn’t, which is why no one has said that she should have to give birth at her expense.
[quote]
Should it matter to me if they have qualms about my lack of qualms?
No. Rather I was hoping they’d see your comment.
No, that was a serious comment. Apparently, you’re unaware of how “coat hanger abortions” are a rather popular rallying cry of those on the left. Just ask your local congressmen who are inudated with coat hangers every time abortion comes up. I just figured that I should point out to you that, as per those pro-choicers women wouldn’t resort to RU-whatever the numbers are in favor of jamming a coat hanger into their uteruses (or is it uteri?).
Except that doesn’t happen. Typically, children are an impetus that makes one try to better themselves for the sake of those children. Well, unless you want to adopt the decidedly conservative* notion that people in poverty who have children are happy to live off the system.
It doesn’t have to be money. Just something rather innoculous. And why aren’t you comfortable with it? You brought it up. It seems silly to bring something
It wasn’t poorly written. I want to know which 19th century idea the early feminists promoted to be deemed as trying to oppress women and which ideas, not.
If your screen name is any way accurate and you’re American, then you’re in favor of slavery for women, where your ancestors—the women that is----were once treated exactly as you want to treat women now.
You really need to proofread before you hit <submit>. I’m one of those pro-choicer who’s content to ignore the that women have abortions for reasons not related to their bodies, because I don’t care what reasons they have. If they want to end a pregnancy, that’s good enough for me. The only person who has a need to know why a woman is choosing to abort is her doctor, I figure, and only if there’s some medical issue he or she should be aware of.
And this isn’t the first time you’ve expressed something that suggests a complete misunderstanding of what you’re responding to.
Getting born to someone who doesn’t want them? In any case, I’ve weighed that benefit versus her benefit, and I figure it’s better to give her the edge. And not that I need to, but I can see other possible problems depending on her situation:
[ul][li]She’s young, not yet finished her education… if she aborts this pregnancy and waits a few years, the children she might eventually have will be getting born into a more economically stable household.[/li][li]She’s older, already has children, the economic situation is a touch precarious… if she aborts this pregnancy, her existing kids will not have their situation made even more tenuous.[/ul][/li]
Oh, I’m sure this is untrue, but in all honesty I’ve lost track of what your question is. Something about “if bodily is integrity is important, why can’t I commit rape/keep slaves/rob banks…” and I don’t feel like searching backward through multiple specious accusations of “you didn’t answer my question” to find the original text.
What is your question, in its final form?
Well, there are indeed aspects where you being male would render your opinion irrelevant, i.e. if you were the father of the fetus, you don’t really get a say in whether or not the woman you’ve impregnated gets an abortion.
But I don’t recall ever saying or implying that discussing the issue, or voting on the issue (if it came to that) or voting for or supporting politicians who’ve expressed a view on the issue was irrelevant because you are male. That would be a very odd thing for me to suggest, since I’m male.
Anyway, your question seemed odd. I’d’ve made the same arguments to you if your username was OMG a Black Conservative Woman with Kids. I was willing to make same arguments to classylady, who claimed to be female and I think to have kids… but she (?) was too obviously a troll and an idiot and now it’s moot.
Well, after I take a fresh shot at your question, how about you taking another shot at mine, which was, essentially, “do you have the right to remove a burglar/trespasser/intruder from your home?” And I don’t care about your need to embellish the hypothetical by probing how the intruder got there in the first place. It’s a straightforward question, faced by lots of Americans every day who didn’t kidnap anyone. I suppose I could dig up some statistics on calls to 911 about trespassers and burglars and intruders and whatnot, but I think I’ll just assume it happens a lot, a few thousand times a day across the U.S.
So now we’re going to quibble if “nine months” counts as “indefinite” ? Fine, if there’s an trespasser in your house who announces his intent to leave on some date nine months in the future, are you helpless or can you remove him on your timetable instead?
It’s a simple question. I figure after you answer it, then we might probe how the trespasser got there and what, if any, responsibility the homeowner has.
Misdemeanor? I don’t understand what you’re talking about, because I suspect you don’t know what “felony murder” means. It’s not a lesser form of murder or an excuse for murder or a get-out-of-jail-free-card for murder or whatever you seem to be claiming. The definitions slightly vary by venue, but the gist is that felony murder is a killing committed during a felony, which will treated as first or second degree murder even if the killing would not otherwise qualify as first or second degree, i.e. a person robs a bank. Their intent is to get money. If during the robbery they fatally shoot a bank employee even if there was no premeditated intent to do so, they can be charged with felony murder, i.e. first- or second-degree murder. In venues where the felony murder rule is in effect, it’s degree and the list of qualifying felonies will be defined by law. This list typically includes major felonies like kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, etc.
So, yes, if you kidnap someone and then throw them out of the hideout into a hurricane and they die as a result, you can indeed be charged with felony murder if your venue recognizes it, which will be equivalent to being charged with first- or second-degree murder, depending on the local definition, even if you didn’t actually kill the person - the hurricane did.
Of course, if I’ve made some errors, I invite a legal expert to offer up corrections as necessary. The point is that “felony murder” is not a misdemeanor or a slap on the wrist, or whatever it is you’re talking about.
I invite you to actually talk to a woman, then, and ask her if a pregnancy is “important” or not. If she’s ever been pregnant, ask her about the physical effects in the later months. Quote possibly she’ll tell you about nausea and weight gain and back pain and insomnia and hemorrhoids… I invite any woman reading this thread who’s been through pregnancy to generously contribute.
Now if the child is a wanted child, great. But to force a woman to go through that for an unwanted child? Why?
Oh, as arbitrary standards go, I think I’ve got a pretty good one, here.
Heh, that’s comical. For starters, we could have a debate in itself on what “right to act” means. I think you’re way off on that one. But in any case… yes, “inside the body” is a significant enough difference that it alone renders your analogy to rape and murder vapid, and that’s not even addressing the whole baffling idea that the people you want to rape and murder don’t themselves have freedom. Can they rape and murder you? I really don’t get the link.
Why would I want to do that? I would need a reason, and a better reason than “more babies”.
Feel free to list them. I’ll gladly consider them. And if their number is truly “amazing”, perhaps you’ll even change my mind.
I cannot in good conscience demand that another person be forced to contribute blood and nutrition or the use of their organs for my survival. And if someone were to make such demands of me, I reserve the right to choose not to.
If it’s a more generic Saw-type scenario where me and some other person have been chained to a giant coin which will be mechanically flipped, randomly crushing one of us unless he or I can unhook the chain that will drop the other into a vat of acid… well, I’ll weigh my options.
Well, there are established circumstances where killing another human being is not considered murder. I figure an unwanted pregnancy is a mishmash of home invasion / self-defense. Even in other circumstances, killing is not automatically defined as murder, so I see no reason to define abortion as such, and I’m little curious if in the U.S. it was ever defined so and punished with corresponding severity.
How did the slave’s freedom go from (fewer) to (none)? That represents a net loss of freedom, so unless you can somehow argue that you being a slave-owner offers some critical benefit…
I don’t intend to follow your posting history that closely, but I’ll assume a self-identified conservative will find something to complain about sooner or later.
It can. I don’t see either winning automatically. Anyway, among life v. freedom issues in the U.S. … I guess self-defense (including lethal self-defense), the freedom to sign Do Not Resuscitate orders and refuse medical care, Oregon’s assistant suicide law, capital punishment should probably be in there somewhere… thing is, there are circumstances in which people can die and it the state doesn’t go after the people who participated for murder. The state could investigate the circumstances, I guess, to be sure various conditions were satisfied.
Well, I listed a few above. You can argue whether or not they’re on point, if you like.
Pregnancy is different enough, I figure. It certainly has several unique features to it that I don’t feel like shrugging off.
Possibly, but it creates more problems than it solves, and I’m not really convinced it solves any.
Nah. My arguments stand or fall on their own. I don’t feel the need to track what other pro-choicers are doing. I’ll assume if you’re quoting another pro-choicer, you’ll have ignored whatever compelling arguments they’ve made and cherry-picked the stupider ones.
I’d modify (1) slightly:
(1) Protecting human life is not a good enough reason to ban abortion.
And (3) may seem unfair, but there’s nothing I can do about that. The value in that case is a child not being deprived. Not banning abortion may help minimize cases like this, so a man won’t be liable for a child that neither he nor the woman wanted. Banning abortion creates cases where neither parent wants the child but is liable for it anyway, for no benefit I can see. If they want a child later on, either together or with other people, let them.
That’s a pointless quibble. If we’re limiting ourselves to what will happen “naturally”, then an urban pregnant woman with no outside help at all will probably starve (and, for that matter, spontaneously abort). Are supermarkets natural or unnatural? Heck, without what is commonly considered modern medicine, it’s perfectly “natural” for the woman to die in childbirth or as a result of it, and for the child itself to die in its first year. Just check some pre 20th-century stats.
In this very specific circumstance, yes.
Yes, but not randomly, I’d hope. And I’m open to evidence, if you have any, as to why I should reconsider.
As well as being someone I would hope Thomas Jefferson would view with contempt. I expect he’d say governments exist at the sufferance of the people, not the other way around.
Then I figure your Republicans are indeed willing to sacrifice individual liberty for pandering political gain.
Because assuming I had to accept a toothless ban, I’d want it to be genuinely toothless.
Nope, the states have no power to enforce the ban on their own, nor any standing to seek such powers through the courts. It’s exclusively an FAIA matter. Any state official who tries can be hauled up on civil rights charges, such charges to be pursued by the Attorney General, to come out of his budget.
What did you think “toothless” meant? The Feds are toothless but the states are not? That’s not what I had in mind.
By “someone”, did you mean the woman or the fetus? Or both? Your statement is unclear.
And why is that better than the negative results, assuming you recognize negative results. If you don’t, I withdraw the question as being pointless.
Well, I’m not sure they would happen, truth be told, and even if they did, the rate of abortion doesn’t much concern me. STDs can be battled in other ways, including better education about condoms and better health care. I’ve no problem with pregnant women having the opportunity to contact potential adopters.
Thing is, your claimed benefits can be had without banning abortion, and none of them strike me as being of enough benefit to outweigh the problems of banning abortion.
It suggests religion has more influence over your country’s laws than I think is wise.
I don’t know what part of that, if any, says I’m discrediting the existence of the unborn. The unborn exists. I can’t recall implying otherwise.
Well, I figure the best judge of the expense is her, which is why I defend her choice.
I’m aware of it, I’d just hoped you’d address the points I raise, and not drag in something some other pro-choicer said. I don’t care about random pro-choice rhetoric. I didn’t base my arguments on it.
I recognize that people mired in poverty might not have any choice but to live off the system. And it’s great if some pull themselves up by their bootstraps etc. but I don’t banning abortion as an effective tool to force them to. More carrots, less sticks.
And, yes, it does happen that young women (teenagers, really) who have children drop out of school, miss opportunities, and not even get the chance to better themselves before their daughters repeat the cycle of getting pregnant, dropping out of school, missing opportunities…
I brought it up? I believe the first mention of a “bet” in a conversation between you and me was in your post #2643. Anyway, if you have a stake in mind, let me know.
This is pretty much why I stopped talking to OMG A Big Doofus. He seems to think HE’s got YOU over a rhetorical barrel if someone on your side once said something stupid.
