[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
This is also clearly false to anyone who takes a few minutes to think about it. We’ve already given several examples in this thread where people are allowed to make choices which have a great negative impact on others and are allowed. Can I choose to not give my blood in a life saving transfusion? A kidney, bone marrow? Can a businessman decide to close a factory and put hundreds of people out of work, with no pay or benefits. Your argument obviously fails with just a little thought.
[/quote]
You know, you would have had a “Gotcha!” moment if I would have said that choices which negatively affected someone were never allowed, instead of saying that choices which negatively impact someone else are typically disallowed. I mean, really. I guess I’m just typing out for my own amusement or something.
Again, it’s not a nonsense argument. Just look at this thread for example. Tell me how many pro-choicers have argued that abortion should be impermissible because of the effects it would have on the unborn versus not? I’ll tell you right now. The answer is zero. When I consistently point that “choice” does not exist in some kind of nebulous vacuum, this is what I mean. Choices have effects and, in the case of abortion, the choice you make has a disproportionate effect on others. You discount those effects, however, and choose to focus solely on the one doing the chosing. By focusing on the one doing the choosing, you treat the outcomes of that choice to be qualitatively equal. If you did not, then one of those choices would not be considered to be a choice at all.
I’m not assuming anything. It’s a statement of fact to point out that an abortion (overwhelmingly) requires the the abortee to forfeit his or her own life. The very definition of the word abortion involves the death of the fetus. Seriously. Try not to pass things off as mere “perceptions”-- especially when they’re not.
As one semi-smart women once said, viability is really is irrelevant. If tomorrow, technology moves viability back to 23-weeks, are you going to argue that after 23 weeks abortions becomes impermissible? What if technology moved it back to 22-weeks? 21-weeks? 20-weeks? 10 weeks? 5 weeks? If you want to tie your argument to viability, then as technology advances and viability occurs earlier in pregnancy, then so does the limit at which abortions are allowed. But you wouldn’t think that okay.
Stuff like viability and the health of the mother are only relevant insomuch as pro-choicers use them to argue that abortions that they can stomach legal remain legal.
The concept of choice is predicated upon not choosing to do wrong. People cannot act and then rationalize it based on choice. I’ve said this an inumerable times now.
However, as far as the condescending dribble line goes well… That’s pretty stupid. As I pointed out, the only real difference between a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer are their views on abortion. One says no, one says okay. Therefore, we can just cut to the chase and reference them as anti-abortion and pro-abortion, respectively. You know, it’s funny how most pro-lifers will revel in the anti-abortion moniker, but most pro-choicers shudder in contempt at being labeled pro-abortion.
Because I’m not making an argument. I’m telling you what it is. Just because you don’t like the moniker, doesn’t mean it’s incorrect.
Okay… yes, slaves should be emancipated regardless of the effect on the overall society.
I still don’t get the relevance to abortion, I admit. Slavery is evil, and evil practices should be ended, therefore slavery should be ended. Since abortion isn’t evil (opinions vary, of course)… that’s pretty much where the sequence stops.
Well, I gather in your personal opinion, abortion is murder. In my personal opinion, it is not. So… murder has been a matter of personal opinion for as least as long as we’ve been chatting in this thread about abortion.
No, I’d rather talk about abortion, thanks. Since I don’t consider abortion to be murder, or analogous of murder, or suggestive of murder, or a “gateway drug” to murder… I don’t see any reason to talk about it any more.
So start a thread on it.
Fine, for the sake of argument, she exists. Lots of women just like her exist. If the question is “Would you tell a woman she can’t have an abortion for any reason?”, my answer is no. I don’t care if her reason is a bad one. Her reason is none of my business.
Fine, one should be held responsible for the welfare of the lifeform for as long the lifeform exists. Once the lifeform ceases to exist or the responsibility gets transferred to someone else, one’s responsibility ends. I figure this applies to fetuses and lab-created genetically-engineered lifeforms alike.
In the case of lab-created genetically-engineered lifeforms, I figure the scientist’s responsibilities include liability if the lifeform breaks loose, runs amok, and eats a bunch of teenagers. I’ve seen numerous drive-in documentaries about this very topic.
How convenient. The law is inept when you disagree with it.
No, I wouldn’t so argue, because it would (a) make no sense and (b) have no bearing on abortion rights.
I think that exchange really needed to be quoted in full and kept intact for posterity. Heck, I thought conservatives were for personal responsibility. You’ve just, more or less, declared it moot. Bravo. You’ve embraced communism.
I’m sorry, you did, and as you’ve done repeatedly, you’re denying the implications of your own arguments.
[quote]
You’re going to have to show me where I said anything about trivial or non-trivial choices.[/quuote]
No, I don’t have to do that. I’ve already demonstrated that your whole “definition of choice” tangent is nonsense.
It’s not a straw man if I’m quoting your own nonsense back to you to demonstrate that is in indeed nonsense. I’m not exaggerating your position. I’m trying to skim away all the crap you’re slathering on and get to the heart of it, which so far seems little more than “abortion is evil”.
I have never heard a pro-choicer say this, and it would never have occurred to me that having an abortion and having a baby were qualitatively similar or equal outcomes. As far as I can tell, you just made this up and are doggedly determined to keep on claiming it, to accomplish a goal I can’t understand.
Anyway, good luck with that. I’m really going to try to make this my last word on your eccentric definition of “choice” and all the flawed conclusions you reach starting from that definition.
Heh, can’t resist, but I hope this will be my last word on the “choice” thing. It looks like since the two sides of the debate are broadly labeled “pro-life” and “pro-choice”, you’ve concluded that “life” and “choice” are antonyms.
They’re not.
There’s an element you’ve missed (or just ignored), and which I’ve pointed out repeatedly. An abortion ban alone means nothing, of course, especially if it’s a largely toothless ban that makes the occasional token arrest while 99% of violators are ignored. I’ve make a point of saying the deaths and related problems will be in proportion to how aggressively the ban is enforced. Abortion is now safe because doctors are performing them, but what if doctors start going to jail because an aggressive district attorney is determined to end abortion in his jurisdiction. Isn’t the logical result that abortions will no longer be performed by doctors? That doctors will leave that jurisdiction?
I figure the availability of penicillin alone will keep the death rate from returning to pre-1920 levels. I just don’t get why even a small death rate is acceptable. If in 1957 there were 260 abortion-related deaths, I don’t see why you shouldn’t expect that number (or a higher one, given the greater population) in post-ban 2012.
And I don’t see why that number should be acceptable as casualties of the war on abortion, an unnecessary war if ever there was.
So… yes, I value the lives of women considerably more than the lives of fetuses, even at a 4000-to-1 ratio (i.e. a million dead fetuses concerns me less than 250 dead women).
I don’t see the value of writing laws that might punish one stupid person while also punishing a million smart (or at least average) people. Simple cost/benefit analysis.
I only care that if she chooses to become non-pregnant, she has the opportunity to do so in a way the offers minimal risk, stress and expense. Keeping abortion legal is the best way to ensure this. Making it illegal drives the price up, adds elements of risk, wastes law-enforcement resources…
So I can casually disregard this “15 year” thing, right? You have literally no evidence of any negative result likely to emerge from Canada’s lack of abortion law. There’s no group about to lose their rights because Canadian women can get legal abortions. You were talking pure bullshit and hoping it would pass as an argument.
Thank you for the clarity and directness of your opinion. A friend of mine had a brain tumor during her first pregnancy. It grew due to hormones during the pregnancy. If her birth control fails, I’ll be sure to tell he she’s a selfish bitch for saving her own life.
QUOTE]
You are just stupid. Really you are dumb as a box of rocks. I never said that a woman should continue the pregnancy if her life is in danger. You imebcile:rolleyes:
I don’t answer questions posed by idiots like you.
It’s funny how all of a sudden all the pro-choicers seem to have “friends” or “relatives” that have these extremely rare conditions. Stop making shit up. If pregnancy could kill her why doesn’t she fucking get a hysterectomy instead of having sex and hoping that the birth control doesn’t fail. That way she can have piece of mind and not have to kill a baby at the same time.
I called women who have abortions because they decided they just cna’t be botheredd with raising a baby selfish bitches and I stand by that.
The very fact that the term pro-abortion is anathema to so called pro-choicers is an admission that abortion is wrong.
Oh yes they will chime in and say that they are personally opposed to abortion and then claim that they will not take the choice away from a woman. It’s kind of like being a little bit pregnant.
I’m pretty sure you have to be an adult to ship things UPS. Maybe you can borrow your brother’s ID and you both can go get a brewsky after sending me some midol for my bad “time of the month” hormones.
Or you could just be a crazy bitch, it’s about 50/50.
I already did. You must be confusing me with someone else. The only new information you gave me was in response to a sincere question as to why a woman should be forced to give up control of her own body when other people are not. You used an analogy of credit card debt. A credit card balance cannot be compared to a woman’s body; the analogy is not remotely sufficient.
Your more direct answer was this:
Here you finally addressed my question. However, “Direct result of existing due to actions of another” is not a compelling to me. Your argument, again, requires us to give special consideration not only to the fault of the mother for bringing something into existence but to give special consideration to that “coming into existence”. You won’t be able to convince me otherwise but I thank you for at least addressing my comments instead of making up something that I didn’t say.
The rest of your post was filled with trite distractions and misunderstandings of my position while blaming me for the misunderstandings. For example, me stressing the words embryo and fetus in an argument about embryos and fetuses has become “moving the goalposts”. Deliberate misunderstandings like this are too numerous and shows that your responses and even your whole interest in this thread is disingenuous. I have no interest in continuing to engage with you.
No, it’s a statement that while we agree that women should have the choice of what they should do with their own bodies we’re not interested in forcing anyone to respond in a certain way. Pro abortion by it’s purest definition would be as bad as anti abortion. The goal is not to force anyone to choose a particular path, it’s to make sure the paths available are legal, safe and judgement free.
I understand that last part is particularly difficult for you.
Nonsense. I don’t think abortion is wrong. However, it’s a difficult thing born out of negative circumstances. Minimizing those circumstances (poverty, inadequate access to birth control, genetic disease etc) is a good thing. Pro-abortion is incorrect term because it inaccurately reflects the position of the pro-choice movement. Others may be pro-abortion, but that is a different ideological position.
Reposting for the benefit of classyladyhp. Despite the fact that I never insulted you (or maybe because of), you never did follow-up this discussion and clarify your position. Your conflicting statements throughout this thread make it very difficult to understand your logic.
Here is where you fell out of the discussion. How about answering these questions?
I’ve bolded the main part of the question. Please consider the ramifications of each scenario.
No, a credit card balance cannot be compared to a woman’s body, but the notion of a naturally deriving consequence stemming from one’s choices is absolutely comparable. Just because you don’t like the comparison, doesn’t mean it’s not valid.
If it’s not a compelling reason, then you think that parents have no obligation to care for their children, yes?
Incorrect. The “rest of my post” was me calling you on your BS.
My accusation of you trying to move the goalposts was in relation to you trying to change your argument up by arguing that personhood is hard to define as it relates to embryos and fetuses, which is just stupid. Why is it hard to define in relation to embryos and fetuses? If, as the pro-choicers in this thread have claimed, they know what the criteria of personhood is, then it’s a simple matter of observing who does and does not meet those criteria. You can’t say that personhood as it relates to a fetus is a hard concept to define, while defining embryos and fetuses out of rights because they do not meet the definition of personhood, which apparently isn’t so hard to define as was first stated. Seriously. If, for example, you have to be sentient to be a person, then anyone who is not sentient is not a person. That wasn’t so hard.
Of course, this brings us to point two which you ignored. Why must we accept your definition of personhood? Why not accept a definition of personhood which involves awareness? Why is it okay to for the pro-choicer’s definition of personhood onto an individual who has a different definition of personhood? Why are people such as Michael Tooley’s and Peter Singer’s definition of personhood unacceptable?
You see, this is nothing more than you refusing to answer a series of questions because you know you can’t answer it without either contradicting yourself or liberally ignoring large portions of your own argument. We both know this, so don’t even try to claim it’s not true. How convenient it must be for you to run off instead of having to respond to this.
And what if a woman is not aware that she has a condition which would make pregnancy dangerous until after she gets pregnant? Sometimes there are complications with a particular pregnancy which put the mother’s life at risk that did not occur in previous pregnancies, and may not even occur in future pregnancies. Are they supposed to run the risk of dying rather than terminate a dangerous pregnancy?
And why are you accusing people who relate events that happened to friends or relatives of “making shit up”? Do you expect them to submit certified copies of medical records to support their claims? And what’s with putting “friends” and “relatives” in quotes?
If you are asking what I think you’re asking (it’s hard to tell because there seems to be a word or two missing), the answer is that it doesn’t matter if you agree with my definition of personhood (which is irrelevant by the way) because by virtue of being pro-choice, an individual can choose act on another definition and it doesn’t offend me in the least. My belief is that you have complete autonomy over what happens to and within your own body. If you believe a fetus is a person and choose to incubate that fetus, okay by me. If you believe a fetus is a person and choose to cease incubating that fetus, okay by me. If you believe born person should have your kidney, okay by me. If you believe a born person should not have your kidney, okay by me. It’s really very simple.
Hey Classy – did you know Firefox has a built-in spell checker? You can download the latest Firefox for free, right here: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/new/. Just thought you would like to know.
Absolutely not. As someone who is pro-choice, my goals are:
For women not to need to have an abortion. Having to make that decision is excruciating and I wouldn’t wish such a thing on anyone. Women who are pro-choice do NOT and would not use abortion as a means of birth control. However, there are some circumstances in which abortion is the right decision for the woman and the fetus.
For safe abortions to be available when a woman needs to make that choice. I don’t want my daughter brought up in a country where a medical decision is a matter of legislation. Her choices with respect to her medical care should be between her, her doctor and, until she is of age, her family.
Related to the above, for people to mind their own damned business.
So, yes, it is accurate to call me “pro-choice.” I don’t want women to have abortions. And as my own circumstances have demonstrated, it’s not something I would do unless I were threatened with serious bodily harm, up to and including death. But I want women to have access to abortions if they need one. If you want to get into semantics, perhaps you can refer to pro-choicers as “pro-option.” But I can’t think of a single person who is pro-choice who encourages women to have abortions.