Oh dear, oh dear.
emacknight, you’ve gone from a statement that said “it’s OK to oppose Nazism”
and characterized that statement as “Genocide of Nazis is OK”
That’s just sad debating form, man. Sad.
Then by the OP’s very admission, this isn’t even a debate topic, eh? What’s the point in the thread even existing?
It’s a meta debate.
No it’s not!
I’m not wishing away any moral issues. I recognize that pro-lifers see abortion as a moral issue, a view I don’t share, and as a result, I don’t argue morals with them because arguing morals is a waste of time. I argue consequences and realities, something I rarely see a pro-lifer do, or even attempt.
That’s hiding? It’s the basis of my stance. Well, the first part, anyway, since I recognize individual freedom as something that should be increased whenever possible since this has a positive effect on society as a whole. The “personhood” of the fetus, yes or no, is none of my concern.
And sure, I recognize sex selection as a driving force behind many elective abortions. India and China have a gender imbalance already, I believe, which is likely to get far worse in coming years. It’s not something I’m much concerned about, since I figure being pro-choice means being pro letting the woman make the choice. Her reasons might be good or they might be crummy, but I don’t see why she should be compelled to explain them to me or anyone.
Heck, if a “gay gene” gets identified and fetuses are aborted on that basis… it’s still none of my concern.
Don’t demand reasons. Problem solved. Heck, we don’t demand that someone who wants to paint a mural or write a screenplay give reasons - if they want to do it, it’s no business of anyone else to demand to know why.
Judging by the negativity and hatred you show towards people who are anti-SSM, it may be best for you to spend some time with these people. That way you will at least understand where they are coming from. Once you see that they are normal people and not vile monsters, you will just learn to ignore their opinions and stop taking them to heart.
Unfortunately, these “normal people” (at least in several U.S. states) are not merely uncomfortable with and hold a negative opinion of gay marriage - they actually voted to restrict it, a petty and spiteful gesture that gained them nothing while hurting others.
Oh, please; why would I want to hang out with a bunch of bigots? Bigots who will almost certainly hate me, personally, because I’m an atheist and support SSM? I’ve no interest in being assaulted or murdered.
I already know “where they are coming from”; bigotry. That is the whole motivation behind opposition to SSM. There no good reason, there is no rational reason (except for some of the leaders encouraging the bigotry for their own profit). It’s all about bigotry. That’s why when challenged to produce a rational, none-bigoted reason to oppose SSM they fail. Always.
I was not aware that “feminists” were trying to stop sex selective abortions in China. I thought that the situation came about due to gender bias within the culture, combined with technological progress, and the government imposed limit on family size. Are these Chinese feminists, or are they people from outside the culture going there to lecture on the inequalities of their economic and cultural situation?
From what I have read, Chinese orphanages are quite full of children, so how would stopping any abortions in China help matters? I have seen, on an anti choice site, that they consider the Chinese situation to be a unifying factor for the anti choice and pro choice working together to end sex selective abortion in China, but I am not completely buying this.
Do you believe that it would be acceptable to abort a baby that had gone to term normally and was in the process of being born but had not yet cleared the vagina? In this hypothetical the baby is normal and the mother is in no danger.
Slee
I guess it’d be more accurate to say you ignore it.
Pro-lifers acknowledge abortion to be a moral issue and so, too, do most pro-choicers when they’re faced with a proposition to which they disagree (see: sex-selective abortions).
Quite possibly because, if an action is morally wrong, the consequences involved in righting that wrong are immaterial to the debate. You even acknowledged this yourself. Once.
Wait a minute now. Just a few weeks/months ago, you told me that you weren’t arguing that individual freedom should be increased whenever possible. Are you now changing your argument?
Why not?
Why not? As per usual, you don’t ever put forth any reasons why “it’s none of (y)our business” except to claim that it’s none of (y)our business.
Luckily-- or unluckily, depending on your vantage point-- we, as a society, tend to ask “why?” when one individual seeks to act against another, henceforth why you typically don’t see a consistent level of support for abortion given any specific reason. The more “unacceptable” the reason, the lower the level of support. You don’t have to like it, and you will ignore it as you usually do, but it is what it is.
Well, what do you mean by “abort” in this context? As in decapitate it mid-birth or administer a deadly poison or something?
But in any case… sure, I’m okay with this hypothetical because it’s so far fetched that I don’t see it being wise to form an abortion policy on it, and I assume your follow-up question (if I said “no”) would be to ask if it was okay to abort a minute before birth, or a day, or a week, or a month… trying to ferret out some arbitrary line.
I’m prepared to trust in the ethical standard of doctors on vanishingly rare situations like this (but I don’t deny it could happen - the ongoing Kermit Gosnell case is a right bloody mess and fairly close to what you describe, though the charges against Gosnell include accusations of killing newborns after delivery). And, actually, a restrictive abortion policy could easily bring about situations similar to your hypothetical - a woman who couldn’t get an abortion carries the unwanted child to term, then smothers it right after (or, far less likely, during) delivery. That is not an unlikely hypothetical - it’s an unfortunately common occurrence.
Sure, I guess. I suppose I could try to base arguments on the colours of rainbows and the whinnying of unicorns and other notions, but they’d be a waste of time, too.
I don’t know what most pro-choicers believe, I can only speak for myself. If they let themselves get tied up in knots over why a woman is seeking an abortion, that’s unfortunate on their part.
Well, as I recall, that stemmed from a rather unlikely analogy to slavery. Thing is, I don’t equate fetuses and slaves, so it wasn’t exactly the “gotcha!” moment I think you wanted.
I’d have to see a quote of what I allegedly said a few weeks/months ago. It’s certainly possible I made a typo, or I was arguing something on grounds other than individual freedom. Do you expect me to address a contradiction based on a vague recollection of yours?
Because even if the fetus is a person, there are indeed situations where persons can be legally killed, and if one insists on analogizing pregnancy, I can see the “unwanted intruder” being a valid comparison. Far more so than slavery, anyway.
I don’t want to have to give reasons why I’m exercising my rights, so I don’t childishly and selfishly and hypocritically demand that others do so.
“So he was inside your body and you didn’t want him to stay there? Good enough for me. Why you didn’t want him to stay there… none of my business.”
I’ll admit I only skimmed through the responses already posted.
But my response to the OP is that there certainly is room for differing opinions on the abortion issue. The central one is when does life begin. If you believe that life begins at conception, then a foetus is a living individual and is entitled to some basic rights such as the right to life.
Now this obviously isn’t a position founded on objective fact. But while subjective, it’s not such an outlandish idea that it can be dismissed out of hand. It is possible to make a rational anti-abortion argument.
That said, I can’t think of any rational argument against gay marriage. The opponents of that are just nuts.
That doesn’t automatically follow, but okay… is the pregnant woman a living individual and what are her rights in this situation?
This is not a flippant question - once the fetus gets rights, the critical issue is how to resolve a situation where its rights come into conflict with its unwilling host’s (assuming one recognizes the right of an individual to have an unwanted object removed from their body), and recognizing the consequences of allowing the fetus’s rights to prevail.
It occurred to me well after the fact the sleestak (in post #90) might have been asking if I was okay with a purely elective so-called “partial birth abortion”. My response wouldn’t be different.
I asked that question because you said:
It is good to know that you think killing a baby 20 seconds before it is born is ok and it is not ok to kill it the second it is born. Talk about an arbitrary line for when abortion is ok. ‘Has the baby cleared the vagina? Nope, go ahead and kill it then’.
You act as though this is a no brainer, that you are right and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
You are, quite frankly, full of shit. It is a complex question and your position is just as stupid and ignorant as those on ‘no abortion ever’ side.
For the record, I am not pro-life. I just think you are a hateful and close minded. Abortion is a complex issue and pretending that it is simple is foolish.
Additionally, I am all for gay marriage. I don’t give a fuck who marries who as long as both are consenting adults.
Slee
Well, actually, that’s a quote from the OP, which was written by BrainGlutton, not me. I agreed with it later, with a few minor caveats.
Well, as arbitrary lines go, it’s not wholly artificial. Anyway, it sounds like you’re trying to draw some moral conclusions about me based on this, which is your right, but I’m no obligation to take you seriously.
Well, I’ve yet to hear an argument to restrict abortion (or to oppose gay marriage, for that matter) that prompts me to rethink my stance.
I don’t know how much of this is meant for BrainGlutton. Pending clarification, I’ll hold off on throwing back hostility in response. Of course, even if it’s all for me, I don’t feel sufficiently offended by this rather vapid response to work up a good froth.
The word marriage and its meaning have been consistent since its conception and the vast majority of people recognize this. It is an institution that has deep personal meaning to almost everyone. What gives any minority the right to change the definition and meaning of a word? The majority of Americans don’t object to civil unions with all of the privileges of married couples. Why doesn’t the gay community invent a new word for these unions that represents the participation of those of the same sex as opposed to male and female; this word being reserved and representative of same sex unions exclusively?
History in the US has shown that changes in the definition of marriage has been overwhelmingly rejected. In the 1800’s the Mormon community tried to change the meaning from one man and one woman to one man and a plurality of women. It was not accepted until this day.
Although most of the gay community is sincere in their quest to legalize SSM, there are others who want only to stick in the eye of the heterosexual community, (especially those with religious values).
This is not true.
Including gay people, which is why we want in.
A persuasive argument and a convincing demonstration of lack of harm if the change is adopted.
And ten years ago, the majority of Americans objected to civil unions. Y’all will come around sooner or later. Some of you, later than others. Still, no point in stopping now, is there?
Why should we?
This is also not true.
We’re not talking about polygamy, though. We’re talking about gay marriage. There are arguments for and against both concepts, but they are, by and large, not the same arguments. Just because we rejected one model of marriage, it doesn’t follow that we have to reject the other. Similarly, if we accept one, we aren’t obliged to accept the other.
And this is also not true.