Typical 16 year old boy, can’t do math to save his life.
Oh, I don’t believe a 16 year-old boy is all that likely to have a strong opinion about abortion, but I understand some of them looove to try to rile up people on message boards. It lets them think they’re cool and smart.
Oh my gosh. You are lost. I feel sorry for you Bryan. I feel sorry that your life is so miserable that picking on me is the only thing that brings you joy. Get a hobby.
At the moment, my hobby (well, one of them) is you.
Heck, I could write up a detailed thoughtful well-cited post describing the value of abortion access and get a 16-year-old-boy’s response from you.
I can call you a troll, and get a 16-year-old-boy’s response from you.
The latter is easier, and if it distracts you from annoying other Dopers, even better.
I’m sure you were a bully in school. I LOATHE bullies.
I don’t have the time patience or interest for your extended word games. Spell out your point, or don’t.
I’m not the one making blanket statements trying to paint one group with the same broad brush, or pretending to be a mind reader. No doubt some pro choice supporters see an embryo as a clump of cells and do not consider it a human life. Others like myself, understand honoring human life, and the potential in any pregnancy but also believe the woman’s right to choose concerning her own body, is the right path.
Yes, the gender is determined at birth, but in many abortions the gender cannot be determined without examining the DNA.
Here’s a good reference page. Most abortions are done before 12 weeks.
Again, clarify or don’t but the incredible waste of time with this shit is not something I’m interested in participating in.
Few if any posters are purposely ignoring what you’re typing. If you’ve got a point please make it.
To many people viability is relevant precisely because they recognize the importance of valuing human life in this issue, even a potential human life. {even if you don’t see it as just potential} I’m pretty sure it’s a point that means a lot to women considering abortion as well. That’s why most are done long before that point. I’m simply not interested in speculating about future technology.
I won’t ignore it. I’ll just note that your repeated attempts at mind reading , predicting how people feel and what they think, is increasingly lame.
Just make your dam point if you indeed have one, rather than this constant whining about everyone missing it on purpose. It’s bullshit.
You said
to which **I said **
“And it’s over simplified nonsense that bares no resemblance to reality, every time. Choices often have some negative and some positive consequences , and we weigh those in making choices. People have the liberty to make certain choices, that may have a negative impact on others.”
Meaning simply that the concept of choice is not predicated upon the not choosing to do wrong. and that is over simplified nonsense. If you have a point beyond that please make it without the BS.
Nice semantic {and largely useless} game , but you are still wrong.
Pro-gun doesn’t mean someone thinks every person should own a gun, {although that’s certainly possible} but it does mean someone who is a gun enthusiast, and likely enjoys owning and firing guns. They would probably encourage people to own guns. The single most relevant thing that pro choice people encourage, and support, is the right to choose. We don’t encourage women to have them. We encourage women to choose what they truly feel is right and best for them either yes or no. So this long convoluted semantic game you played, as pointless as it is, is still incorrect. If you want to twist words around to insist you’re right have at it. I won’t address this nonsense again.
No doubt you’ve convinced yourself this is true. It sure fits with the tone of your posts. You’ve figured out all the semantics and why you’re right on every point, and even when you’re shown to be wrong, you simply deny it and move on. Good for you.
I’ve missed some things because the thread is moving pretty fast and I don’t have time to address everything. The posters have some obligation to make questions relevant and succinct even though it doesn’t happen all the time.
What I’ve noticed with your style is that rather than get to the point and state it simply and clearly so we can discuss it, you ask questions leading to it, not really clarifying as you could, and then when posters respond, it’s because they’re purposely avoiding the obvious conclusion of how very right you must be.
Works out nicely if a sense of victory is your goal , rather than an honest exchange of ideas and facts.
You might ask yourself that question.
The reason the thread started was because people are still working hard to try and prevent women from having that choice.
CLHP - with respect.
If you no longer wish to answer polite questions about your position, nor do you wish to ask posters to explain their positions, but instead wish to insult posters you feel have, in turn, insulted you, well, that’s fine, this is the Pit.
But to then get offended when they insult you right back… well, it begins to look…deliberately provocative.
I’m still waiting for someone representing the majority of Pro-Lifers who believe abortions can be justified to save a woman’s life to delineate for me between a pregnancy which is merely an “inconvenience” which must be borne, and a “life-threatening situation” which can be terminated.
The bitter irony here is the this thread began because of the bullying behavior of the picketers! I agree completely- bullying is loathsome.
Those picketers and their cameras catching women going into the clinic were trying to use intimidation and harassment to prevent women from accessing their legal right to an abortion.
Bullies, the lot of 'em.
Oh look, he’s stamping his teeny little feet and going red in the face! Isn’t he so cuuuuute? (Pinches his cheek)
That’s because you’re weak and stupid.
I’d lay money on ‘idiot’, though.
You already have one.
Beats me. I’m not debating anyone, I was telling that guy how he was wrong. No debate there.
Good. Quit being a sore loser.
I’ve wondered that myself.
If they consider even an embryo a human being deserving of legal protection under the law, and justify making the woman an unwilling biological slave to that life, then it seem to me the extension of that reasoning is that the woman has no right to consider her own health if the alternative is the death of this other human being.
Does the death of the mother have to be pretty certain, somewhat, certain, a reasonable possibility. How at risk does she have to be to make abortion acceptable. Does she and her doctor make that decision, or does she need to get permission from a judge?
Judging by my schoolteacher brother’s facebook every time he posts something about abortion or gay marriage, yes they do. Remember, 16 is prime tribe-forming time, and one of the ways you do that is by strenuously affirming ingroup beliefs.
Have you met** Qin Shi Huangdi**?
nm
Credete quello? La vostra chiamata, suppongo.
Man, I haven’t used Italian in ten years.
It’s my call you guess?
Grazie per la risposta Zeriel. Ti auguro una buona giornata!
Yeah, that’s what I was going for, I wasn’t even going to try for the idiom of “Suit yourself.”
I’d wish you a good day, but I think if you don’t take a step back in this thread and get a coherent statement of the position you’re actually going for, you’re probably not going to have one.
Yep, cosmodan, that’s what I want to know too.
Because I think if you’re going to say:
“I believe abortion is murder, but I support a “life of the mother” exemption” you should be able to clarify when you believe that exemption should apply and who would determine this.
I know, it’s a hard question.
Hell, Ireland can’t answer it.
But you’d think people who spend vast amount of energy debating whether or not 2 cells is a person would be able to make a stab at what level of risk to maternal life is “substantial” enough to make an abortion justifiable homicide or self defence rather than murder.
I can understand not wanting to set the risk too low.
In a world where an Afghan woman has a 1 in 8 lifetime risk of death from a pregnancy or childbirth related cause if you defined a substantial risk to life low enough all Afghan women would be eligible for abortion, and then the Pro-Life people would be sad.
By not even wanting to throw a guesstimate out there it looks like you are happy to stick with slogans and absolute truths, but not actually happy to do any thinking.Which is a position the Pro-life side vehemently deny they hold.
I’m giving them an opportunity to demonstrate that thinking actually occurs, so far though, no takers.
The other thing I’ve noticed that a lot of people calling it murder don’t really want to treat it as murder. If women who have abortions are murderers, and doctors are as well, and others are accessories, then why not advocate for prosecution. Most people I’ve discussed with don’t support prosecuting women and doctor for murder. It makes me question the depth of their conviction. It’s almost as if they claim that embryos are the same as newborns , but somewhere in their minds, not really.
So now we’ve gotten to the point where we’re passing abortion off as a medical decision? Does this mean that anything undertaken by an individual and his/her medical practitioner is therefore protected and allowed on the basis of being a medical decision?
I guarantee you can’t pull up a cite for that. Furthermore, exactly what percentage is “the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases”? 99%? 95%? 90%? 80%? What you typed is nothing more then meaningless fluff. A statement mostly comprised of weasel words will do that for you.
If I had to live in a world entirely of your own fashioning, I would have aborted myself.
You might want to go back and click through some of those links I posted.
Because someone stated that no woman has an abortion cavalierly.
Rights aren’t restricted because they’re deemed distasteful, but because of the effects or potential effects allowing them would have on another. You have a right to free speech; you don’t have to right to make death threats against someone. You have the right to free association, but you don’t have the right to form a dangerous mob. You have a right to privacy, allegedly, but you don’t have the right to drag someone into the privacy of your own home and do to them as you please. You have a right to self-determination, allegedly, but only because you are expected not to do wrong or to harm another.
Again, you’re completely discounting the existence of the unborn. What about its right to self-determination?
And that’s all I needed to know. I didn’t say it; you’ve assumed it. Oh, and to point this out yet again, I’ll kindly bring to your attention that I didn’t say an action is always restricted because of the effects that it has on another, but that choices which bring harm to another are generally disallowed. That’ll be the second time I’ll have pointed this out, and I even made the comment before you tried to “disprove” me, though you’ll probably ignore it all the same.
(A) I can look at data compiled by Guttmacher and (B) I can read what people write out. Can you? There are no assumptions here.
To be a bit juvenille, yes, it is.
It’s just as I said.
I’ve noticed how when I respond to one pro-choicer, another one chimes in that I’m engaging in a straw man because I’m adequately representing his or her own argument. Yet when I do, the other one chimes in straw man because I’m no longer representing his. Perhaps you all need to come up with one, unified argument so that way you wouldn’t contradict one another over and over and over again?
So a fetus is only a him or her if we know it’s a him or her? I don’t think so. Any way you slice it, you’re wrong.
So you base your argument on a concept which itself was based on the medical technology of the day, yet claim that you’re don’t care about the technology upon which viability is based should that technology progress to a point where viability can be pushed further back into pregnancy? Please. Again, you’re just playing some kind of weird game here in which your arguments and criteria are only relevant for as long as you want them to be relevant.
I did. Again, I ask you, are you saying that an individual can do wrong yet have it rationalized away based on the fact that they chose to engage in said action.
Before you call something BS, you’d better make sure it is BS. Please show mere where the law allows you to willfully choose to do wrong. I’d like to see it.
Well that’s just nonsensical. Pro- is short for proponent. Being a proponent of something doesn’t require you to be an enthusiast, or even require you to enjoy that thing you are arguing in favor for. It simply means that you believe the thing you are arguing in favor of should be legal or accessible to others, even if you yourself wouldn’t engage in it. This is how the term pro- is used. Well, outside of abortion, where then it suddenly means you think someone should be forced into an abortion or you think that the more abortions, the better, or something else equally absurd.
That’s great. You’re still pro-abortion.
You’re the one trying to redefine terms because you don’t like the term pro-abortion.
(Yeah, I snipped a lot, mainly the stuff I answered prior only to have you bring it up again.)
Not wanting to be a parent vs. an ectopic pregnancy.