Abortion & gay marriage should not even be controversial

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Bryan_Ekers

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.

Do the colors of the rainbow and/or the whinnying of unicorns determine the morality of an a stated action?

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.

The only “unfortunate” part is your willingness to try to sweep abortion under the proverbial rug under the rationale that it’s “none of your business” (without explaining why, mind you). When you refuse to acknowledge the fact that abortion is indeed a moral issue, you concede ground to your opponent. Something, mind you, which is fine by me. But I’m pretty sure I’ve said this to you before only to have you ignore it, so I doubt it will make much difference now.

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.

It wasn’t a “gotcha’!”. It’s amazing that no matter how many times I explain something to you, you still act like I did not. The purpose of the slavery analogy (which really wasn’t an analogy), was to demonstrate that if an action is immoral/wrong in actuality, then the negative consequences addressing that wrong would have on society would be irrelevant to whether or not that wrong should be addressed. Iirc, you even said that if the topic was about slavery, this would be the position you adopt, rather than the position you’ve adopted in regards to abortion, because slavery was “evil”. which was funny, because it seems you have no problems debating the morality of an issue. Unless, of course, that issue is abortion. Then you obfuscate with the best of them.

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?

Yup.

(I’m seriously lazy at the moment, but I tend to have a pretty good memory, so you can trust me ;).)

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.

Is any one of those reasons “because someone wants to kill them”? As far as the “unwanted intruder” thing goes, I’ll just give you the example I always give you. If I had a hypothetical mother-in-law who came to visit and I didn’t want her at my condo, I couldn’t shoot her in the head and throw her out in the street. I’d go to jail. Individuals have to be providing a direct threat to your life or the life of another to warrant killing them.

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.

What you want and what society wants of you are two very different things.

“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.”

And we’re back to this question; why is it none of your business? Mindlessly stating it’s none of your business without explaining why-- while being your favorite debate tactic-- isn’t much in the way of defending your position. Why should, say, a woman deciding to have an abortion be none of your business but some woman in Canada somewhere whom you neither know or knows exists who decides to, say, drown her newborn in a fit of rage would be your business?

If that’s what you think I’m doing, then you are ignorant, but that’s okay since I have no egotistical expectation that you’d have read or remembered the various arguments and reasoning I’ve presented in various abortion threads, even though many of them were wasted on a slug-brain like OMG a Black Conservative.

For months, and in multiple threads, I have been begging you to show me these “well-reasoned arguments” you keep speaking of, yet you never produce them. In fact, most of your “well-reasoned arguments” are either (1) dubious claims you refuse to source, (2) dubious claims which are contradicted by actual evidence or (3) you simply making a claim and then stating that you don’t have to defend it because it’s self-evident. But how many times have I pointed that out? A lot.

@Meyer6

I’m not sure why you think this is such a conundrum. One can be pro-choice on logical grounds and still think certain abortions are not such a great idea on moral grounds. I believe that abortion should be freely available because a woman has rights to her own body and shouldn’t be forced to incubate against her will. But if I personally knew someone who used abortion as regular birth control or who aborted their fetus just for being female, well, I’d find that morally questionable and I probably wouldn’t think too much of them. But that doesn’t mean I think those things should be illegal - just because I think something is immoral personally doesn’t mean I automatically want it outlawed.

I think you need to go back and read precisely what I said for if you did, yo would clearly see I said “should not be allowed”. Furthermore, my comment was directed at a Canadian regarding the mini-uproad about sex selective abortion. With that in mind, I present you with this.

51% believe there should be laws which outline when a woman can have an abortion in Canada; 37% think there should be no laws on this matter and want a woman to have the unrestricted right to have an abortion at any time up to the moment of birth. 60% believe there should be laws which outline whether a woman can have an abortion based solely on the gender of the fetus; 30% think a woman should have the unrestricted right to have an abortion in any circumstance.

Note that the percentage of people who say sex-selective abortions should be disallowed is higher than the percentage of people who say that abortions should be allowed for any reason, at any time up to birth. How do you reconcile the two? Well, I’ll tell you. When people are presented specific circumstances, they tend to adopt a certain viewpoint based on the perceived “permissibility” of said action. The rigid pro-choice thought, though, does not allow one to enact any restrictions on abortion below the allotted minimum timeframe (usually, no sooner than viability). Which brings me to my next point:

Now, I’m perfectly aware that some pro-choicers have stated that they want sex-selective abortions to be made illegal, and that does seem to go against their principles.

Yes, it does. If you can explain to me how, say, making it illegal for a woman to abort at 7-weeks because she doesn’t like the gender of her child is compatible with:

-“She has the right to abort right up until birth!”
“-She has the right to abort right up until viability!”
-She has the right to abort until the fetus becomes a person!"

I would surely love to hear it.

But your contention that all pro-choice people would be stymied by this issue and therefore ‘gleefully ignore’ it is just not true. It’s not the gigantic stumbling block you seem to think it is.

What I said was pro-choicers like to willingly and gleefully ignore any moral issues involved in abortion, which they do. Look at any thread on abortion around here and you’ll see it to be true. Virtually every pro-choicer argues one of two things: “It’s the woman’s body and none of your reason why she wants to abort!” or “The fetus isn’t a person!”. Neither of these argues lend themselves any room to look at moral issues involved in abortion. It’s just mindless rhetoric.

[Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge]

Wow, I had no idea what a complete shit stain magellan01 is. I need to pay better attention.

[Lobohan]

@magellan01

Ha. You’re either stupider than I thought or more of a liar. Either way, I laugh at the chuckle head that is you.

This is you being a coward again. You refuse to state your point, because you don’t have a point.

But you don’t have the integrity to admit it.

@magellan01

No, it didn’t. You and others keep dragging out this false, bullshit argument. In fact, there was no time during the history of the U.S. that antimiscegenation was illegal nationally. Also, at no time was it illegal in all colonies or states. IN fact, of the 13 colonies, 3 of them never even had such laws. So, since marriage was always legal for interracial couples someplace in the U.S, there was no need to find another word for it. Plus, there is nothing about interracial marriage that would call for another word, as the union was between one man and one woman.

There is nothing about a same-sex marriage that would call for another word, because it is between two adults.

You know, there’s one good thing about liberal dolts like you bringing up this bullshit argument. It rightly pisses of American blacks when you try to ride on the coattails of their very unique history of abuse, and pushes them a little further into the conservative camp. So, nice work. Especially since its unintentional.

The difference being, I’m not the bigot here. You’re the one who thinks that homosexuals are so beneath you that they will make the concept of marriage filthy if they’re allowed in.

So lighten up on the faux outrage.

That’s not what separate but equal means. If there is one set of laws that groups by two different names gain access to, that one set of laws cannot be separate from itself. It’s only ONE set of laws. So, if civil unions and marriages are ruled by two sets of laws, as is the case now, then separate but equal does indeed apply. But as I’ve described numerous times to you, one can have the two groups access one (1) set of privileges and benefits, which does away with your SbE claim. At the very least, you should recognize the distinction.

You don’t understand what you’re talking about. There is a white water fountain and a colored water fountain. There is a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual civil-union. It’s the same thing you fucking child.

See above, idiot. The definition of the word was not altered. There was no confusion. There was only debate in some states as to whether the marriage should be allowed. The same way there was a debate as to whether a black man should be free.

Yeah, and there is a debate as to whether same-sex couples can marry. But vile, bigoted scum like you are standing in the way.

In other words, fuck people who see the world differently than you due to religious values. Gotcha.

If your religion tells you to be bigoted, fuck your religion. If your religion tells you to hate gay people, don’t marry one. But your religion, which is completely made-up by the way, doesn’t get to tell other people how to comport themselves.

[martu]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

What I said was pro-choicers like to willingly and gleefully ignore any moral issues involved in abortion, which they do. Look at any thread on abortion around here and you’ll see it to be true. Virtually every pro-choicer argues one of two things: “It’s the woman’s body and none of your reason why she wants to abort!” or “The fetus isn’t a person!”. Neither of these argues lend themselves any room to look at moral issues involved in abortion. It’s just mindless rhetoric.

What moral issues exactly? Leaving this decision up to the person directly involved seems pretty moral to me, anything else leads to one losing the right to do with their body as they see fit.

[Meyer6]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

As far as the “unwanted intruder” thing goes, I’ll just give you the example I always give you. If I had a hypothetical mother-in-law who came to visit and I didn’t want her at my condo, I couldn’t shoot her in the head and throw her out in the street. I’d go to jail.

No, but you could ask her to leave and if she refused you could have the police remove her, with force if necessary. You wouldn’t go to jail for that. Even if she had nowhere else to go and she’d starve or freeze without your support. That’s not your problem.

Abortion is just removing the unwanted intruder (whether you consider it a person or not at that point) from your body. Since fetuses tend not to respond to being asked nicely to leave, they must be removed, with force if necessary. The fact that the fetus can’t go it alone is not the woman’s problem - she doesn’t owe it support.

I think you need to go back and read precisely what I said for if you did, yo would clearly see I said “should not be allowed”. Furthermore, my comment was directed at a Canadian regarding the mini-uproad about sex selective abortion. With that in mind, I present you with this.

I’m not sure why you think ‘should not be allowed’ is especially important in that post, but let me assure you that I am perfectly aware of the issue of same-sex abortion in Canada (I’m Canadian too). The entirety of your point seems to be that pro-choicers do not all agree, borg-like, on exactly what the law should say. And? Some say abortion should be legal anytime up to birth, some say up to viability, some say first trimester, some say other limitations should be placed. The fact that we don’t all march in perfect lockstep is really not the ‘gotcha’ moment that you seem to think it is.

What about the fact that many pro-lifers are okay with allowing abortion in the case of fatal defects in the fetus or in when the pregnancy is the result of rape, but other pro-lifers say that there should be no time that it’s okay to have an abortion? I could just as easily say that you are ‘willingly and gleefully’ ignoring the moral issues on your side, because clearly you pro-lifers don’t have your shit together enough to agree on absolutely every detail.

[The_wind_of_my_soul]

@Sitnam

If there was a medical advancement that allowed the fertilized egg/fetus to be taken from the mother and transplanted in a willing participant or grown in a jar with legal rights to a parent should it be ‘born’ would both sides be ok with that?

-The pro-choice crowd shouldn’t care because the mother is just donating tissue, who cares what happens to your tonsils after they are taken out.

-The Pro-life crowd argue they rescued a child from a mother that didn’t want it, like very early adoption.
Would this technological advance dissolve this debate?

Since it doesn’t look like a pro-lifer has responded to this question yet … personally, I find abortion morally offensive. I would not find the solution you proposed above to be morally offensive.

Not looking to get into a debate, just wanted to provide you with an answer.

[florez]

@The_wind_of_my_soul

Since it doesn’t look like a pro-lifer has responded to this question yet … personally, I find abortion morally offensive. I would not find the solution you proposed above to be morally offensive.

Not looking to get into a debate, just wanted to provide you with an answer.

So then women ARE just incubators to anti-choice people, and a jar would serve the same purpose?

[The_wind_of_my_soul]

@florez

So then women ARE just incubators to anti-choice people, and a jar would serve the same purpose?

Pro-life does not mean anti-choice. I believe there are plenty of choices a woman should be allowed to make regarding the fetus growing inside her.

And no, women are not just incubators, but yes, that is one function that they may serve.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Do the colors of the rainbow and/or the whinnying of unicorns determine the morality of an a stated action?

Well, I guess to the parishoners of the Church of the Rainbow Unicorn, they might. I fail to see the relevance, in any case.

The only “unfortunate” part is your willingness to try to sweep abortion under the proverbial rug under the rationale that it’s “none of your business” (without explaining why, mind you).

I know from your past post that this concept will baffle you (I recall you claiming quite casually that individuals cannot be trusted - that they should always check with higher authority before taking action) but I maintain that individuals have rights, and that it’s not up to them to explain why their actions aren’t my business, but on me to explain why they are.

And I don’t see where your proverbial rug fits in, nor how I’m sweeping anything under anything. Abortion kills a fetus. There, I said it. No euphemisms, no evasions, no sweeping.

When you refuse to acknowledge the fact that abortion is indeed a moral issue, you concede ground to your opponent. Something, mind you, which is fine by me. But I’m pretty sure I’ve said this to you before only to have you ignore it, so I doubt it will make much difference now.

Okay, it’s a moral issue to them. It is not, however, a moral issue to me, and I see no point in trying to argue morals, since they’re so slippery and situational and vary significantly from year to year and place to place and individual to individual.

I don’t think you’ve ever said anything I refused to acknowledge. You have said many things I ignored because they were stupid, irrelevant or irrational.

It wasn’t a “gotcha’!”. It’s amazing that no matter how many times I explain something to you, you still act like I did not. The purpose of the slavery analogy (which really wasn’t an analogy), was to demonstrate that if an action is immoral/wrong in actuality, then the negative consequences addressing that wrong would have on society would be irrelevant to whether or not that wrong should be addressed. Iirc, you even said that if the topic was about slavery, this would be the position you adopt, rather than the position you’ve adopted in regards to abortion, because slavery was “evil”. which was funny, because it seems you have no problems debating the morality of an issue. Unless, of course, that issue is abortion. Then you obfuscate with the best of them.

Well, not every issue is (or should be) a moral one. Whether or not slavery is has no bearing on whether or not abortion is, and vice-versa, so whatever observations I may have made about slavery have no bearing on the observations I make about abortion.

I will say, though, that I wouldn’t want to be forced into slavery, so I object to others being forced into it. Similarly, I wouldn’t want to be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term (given some medical breakthrough that makes this possible), so I object to others being forced to. This is straightforward application of the Golden Rule. You could call it morality if you want, I don’t care.

Is any one of those reasons “because someone wants to kill them”? As far as the “unwanted intruder” thing goes, I’ll just give you the example I always give you. If I had a hypothetical mother-in-law who came to visit and I didn’t want her at my condo, I couldn’t shoot her in the head and throw her out in the street. I’d go to jail. Individuals have to be providing a direct threat to your life or the life of another to warrant killing them.

Meyer6 has addressed this in pretty much the same way I have in the past - it’s definitely your right to remove the unwanted mother-in-law from your house, and even to involve professionals (i.e. police) on your behalf, who may employ force. It is conceivable that if your mother-in-law resists and they use tasers, she may die. Are you then liable for that death? Does the possibility of that death cancel your right to remove her from your house?

What you want and what society wants of you are two very different things.

Sure. So?

And we’re back to this question; why is it none of your business?

So… is everything my business until it is proven to not be? Is what my neighbor watches on his television my business? What he writes in his journal? What his religious beliefs are?

As I see it, the onus is on you to prove that these things are my business, and similarly to prove that what I watch on TV, write in my journal or what gods I believe in is anyone’s business.

By the way - Law & Order reruns, fan fiction and none. That’s a freebie for you.

Mindlessly stating it’s none of your business without explaining why-- while being your favorite debate tactic-- isn’t much in the way of defending your position.

Well, I suppose it looks mindless to you because individual rights don’t exist in your worldview. I suggest you do some reading to educate yourself - the concept has been around for quite a while.

Why should, say, a woman deciding to have an abortion be none of your business but some woman in Canada somewhere whom you neither know or knows exists who decides to, say, drown her newborn in a fit of rage would be your business?

Well, now we’re getting to something with meat on it. There is a key difference in the two situations which I feel is sufficiently significant that I can view the actions differently without there being a contradiction. But I’ve described this at length in the past and it didn’t take then, so I doubt it would take now.

For months, and in multiple threads, I have been begging you to show me these “well-reasoned arguments” you keep speaking of, yet you never produce them.

I am satisfied that I have.

In fact, most of your “well-reasoned arguments” are either (1) dubious claims you refuse to source, (2) dubious claims which are contradicted by actual evidence or (3) you simply making a claim and then stating that you don’t have to defend it because it’s self-evident. But how many times have I pointed that out? A lot.

If that’s how you want to characterize my arguments, I can’t stop you, nor would I seek to try. My goal has never been to convince you of anything, but to hone my writing and debating skills (a process that was underway long before you joined this board), and I am satisfied that I have done so and will continue to do so.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@The_wind_of_my_soul

Pro-life does not mean anti-choice. I believe there are plenty of choices a woman should be allowed to make regarding the fetus growing inside her.

Such as?

[Meyer6]

@Bryan_Ekers

Such as?

What to name it? C’mon Bryan, that should be plenty of choice for *any *woman.

[florez]

@The_wind_of_my_soul

Pro-life does not mean anti-choice. I believe there are plenty of choices a woman should be allowed to make regarding the fetus growing inside her.

And no, women are not just incubators, but yes, that is one function that they may serve.

So I am trying to understand… the choice of having an abortion, which you have stated is morally wrong to you, is still a choice that you would “allow” other women to make for themselves?

[kidchameleon]

@Ibn_Warraq

Really?

What are the logical arguments against SSM?

Marriage is a religious institution that should be determined by the tenets of that faith. The government shouldn’t be in the business of recognizing marriage and granting special privileges to a restricted class of people. We’d probably be better off without the civil entanglement of marriage.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@BrainGlutton

More abortion controversy, this time about the Komen Foundation cutting funding to Planned Parenthood.

Let’s keep all this in its proper perspective: Abortion, like gay marriage, is one of those controversial things that shouldn’t even be controversial. Sometimes RWs have some good or at least challenging arguments on economic issues. But on social issues – there’s no merit at all to the anti-abortion/anti-gay-marriage side. It’s like arguing with flat-Earthers. :rolleyes:

I have come around on gay marriage. I used to give people the benefit of the doubt but the debate on DADT made it so fucking clear that the push to keep DADT had nothing to do with the efficacy of the fighting force and an effort to persecute homosexuals.

I saw senators dismiss the secretaqry of defense and ask the chiefs of staff to testify and when all of them other than the one from the marines said that repealing DADT would be either have little or no effect on or be good for morale, they dismiss the generals and order a survey of the soldiers and when THAT doesn’t come support their argument, except in the marines, they imply that what the marines want to do should control because they do so much of the fighting. :smack:

Watching them twist and turn as witness after witness (that THEY called) told them that the military can handle openly gay soldiers with little or no effect on fighting capabiklity or morale, it became obvious to me that these guys just fucking hated gays and this informed my position on gay marriage which used to be a bit on the fence.

I don’t think theya re evil but I do think they are bigoted and ignorant.

Abortion on the other hand is controversial. Personally i think Roe v Wade got it right. You can have unlimited abortions during your first trimester, states can ban abortion (with exceptions for life and physical health) in the third trimester and something in between in the second trimester.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Meyer6

What to name it? C’mon Bryan, that should be plenty of choice for *any *woman.

though it does remind me of an oddball anecdote. My girlfriend’s half-sister lives in Norway and wanted to name her son “Kananga”, after the villain in Live and Let Die (additionally, the family elders own a hotel in Jamaica and provided craft services for Dr. No, or so goes the family lore, though I’m not sure if this is relevant). The government wouldn’t let her - she was forced to compromise with a more conventional name.

The boy is called Kananga-Lars.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@kidchameleon

Marriage is a religious institution that should be determined by the tenets of that faith. The government shouldn’t be in the business of recognizing marriage and granting special privileges to a restricted class of people. We’d probably be better off without the civil entanglement of marriage.

Are you aware of what those entanglements entail? Marital privilege in court proceedings is a big one. There are quite a few governmental entitlements that are contingent on marriage. Next-of-kin decisions on critical medical matters. Wiki’s Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States page is an interesting read.

Fact is, marriage is a legal status with governmental recognition being key. Participants are free to add on (or not) whatever religious significance they choose. As far as I know, it’s the filing of the official marriage license that seals the deal, not the “I now pronounce you…” words of the priest. That ceremony can take place years before or after the paperwork - it has no legal significance.

[njtt]

My ethical intuitions are clearly true. Your ethical intuitions are clearly false.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Meyer6

No, but you could ask her to leave and if she refused you could have the police remove her, with force if necessary. You wouldn’t go to jail for that. Even if she had nowhere else to go and she’d starve or freeze without your support. That’s not your problem.

Abortion is just removing the unwanted intruder (whether you consider it a person or not at that point) from your body. Since fetuses tend not to respond to being asked nicely to leave, they must be removed, with force if necessary. The fact that the fetus can’t go it alone is not the woman’s problem - she doesn’t owe it support.

To make an imperfect example, hypothetically speaking, and assuming there’s no law against kidnapping, if I were to drag my mother-in-law into my condo against her will and created a situation where she was dependent on me for a specified amount of time, I would be held to some standard of care for her well-being. I could not, again hypothetically speaking, drag her into my condo against her will, create a situation where she could not leave for a specified amount of time and then kick her out right in the middle of, say, an oncoming tornado. I would be charged with endagerment. To say her well-being “would not be my problem” ignores the fact that my mother-in-law is only in a position where she is reliant on me because of my own actions. I would be assumed to have some duty of care. It’s the same rationale by which parents much care for their children or one has to act in a way which does not endanger someone else.

Well, except in the case of abortion, which is subject to a totally different standard.

I’m not sure why you think ‘should not be allowed’ is especially important in that post, but let me assure you that I am perfectly aware of the issue of same-sex abortion in Canada (I’m Canadian too). The entirety of your point seems to be that pro-choicers do not all agree, borg-like, on exactly what the law should say. And? Some say abortion should be legal anytime up to birth, some say up to viability, some say first trimester, some say other limitations should be placed. The fact that we don’t all march in perfect lockstep is really not the ‘gotcha’ moment that you seem to think it is.

…Yeah…

Okay. Let’s try this one more time.

No, the entirety of my point is not that pro-choicers do not all agree, borg-like, on exactly what the law should say. My point was that those who use the typical pro-choice arguing points instantly discard them in favor of more pro-life’esque arguments when they come to face-to-face with a situation they deem less-than-desireable. Again, I pose to you the following, which you ignored:

If you can explain to me how, say, making it illegal for a woman to abort at 7-weeks because she doesn’t like the gender of her child is compatible with:

-“She has the right to abort right up until birth!”
“-She has the right to abort right up until viability!”
-She has the right to abort until the fetus becomes a person [which doesn’t happen until later in pregnancy]!"

I would surely love to hear it.

And, yes, I would surely love to hear it, for you would have to butcher logic to even begin to try to argue the idea that restricting abortion prior to any of those times would be compatible with the aforementioned statements. I’ll wait.

What about the fact that many pro-lifers are okay with allowing abortion in the case of fatal defects in the fetus or in when the pregnancy is the result of rape, but other pro-lifers say that there should be no time that it’s okay to have an abortion? I could just as easily say that you are ‘willingly and gleefully’ ignoring the moral issues on your side, because clearly you pro-lifers don’t have your shit together enough to agree on absolutely every detail.

What about it? Can you show me a case where a pro-lifer shifts their argument away from the unborn and starts to recite the typical pro-choice mantra (i.e., “Her body, her choice!”/“The fetus isn’t a person!”)? I’d be rather shocked if you could.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Goalpost moving, huh? They should really anchor those things.

[Der_Trihs]

@njtt

My ethical intuitions are clearly true. Your ethical intuitions are clearly false.

The anti-gay, anti-abortion side isn’t motivated by ethics, intuitive or otherwise. They are motivated by hatred and sadism, fueled by bigotry and religious delusions.

And the pro-choice, pro-SSM side’s worldview is much more based on reality than their opponents; it isn’t just “intuition”. The other side is constantly making arguments that are flat out false.