*Crazy, party of one?
Your table is ready.*
Preach it!
Humbug. The way I read this, Blalron merely envisioned the right to abortion as a civil right, with the phrase “just like we take it for granted”. I fail to see how this either equates or trivializes anything. By all means invite your possibly offended black friends into the thread. But, please do tell us how you feel, as opposed to projecting suppositions onto hypothetical people.
How about, I long for a future when this isn’t even an issue, where everyone takes it for granted that a woman should have the right to choose, just like we take it for granted that McDonalds will be serving cheeseburgers for lunch.
Can we now claim as acquaintances some pro-choice vegans who would certainly be offended at equating the civil right of theraputic abortion with the horrific exploitative processes that create cheeseburgers?? 
Abe said:
No matter how thin and tenuous the similarities, huh?
Loaded is right. The struggle for black’s civil rights in the US is a powerful thing. Cloaking your cause in it has real advantages for those who are willing to accept it without scrutiny.
Now we have another similarity:
- Two groups had their "rights’ restricted, and;
- Neither group liked it.
Forgive me for being uninspired.
Ask him what he meant? I know what he intended. You’ve re-packaged it and served it up again. It’s a rank attempt to get some politial benefit out of the civil rights struggle where none exists or is warranted.
Yes. Or, rather, as already explained. Perhaps you wish to prove how the original, rather bare analogy warranted your comments on a topic you clearly disapprove of.
In other words, provide support for, among other items, your implied accusation: “Cloaking [his] cause in it [the struggle for black’s civil rights] has real advantages for those who are willing to accept it without scrutiny.”
Because that doesn’t seem to be concluded at all, it just appears to be your opinion. Or you could consider going easy on the accusations next time. Sometimes --often, in my experience-- comments are indeed meant to be harmless.
Are you guys making it a point to ignore me? This has already been discussed before with much agreement the point raindog and I are trying to make. It wasn’t just some logical analogy, it was a cheap attempt to invoke emotion by yet again conjuring blacks as a convienient hypothetical. That tactic is tired and old. And can’t you just imagine that the average black person doesn’t like to be yanked into a hypothetical whenever someone somewhere wants to argue something? Can’t you see how that’s a little disrespectful (at least. At most it’s dehumanizing to be used as a rhetorical device all the time)?
Er, I disagree.
Take the original quote:
… replacing the final clause with any other true statement:
…in no way equates the proposition with any values in the final clause.
If you believe I am in error, and Blalron actually did mean to imply that a woman’s right to choose is indeed on equal footing with blacks’ right to vote, please pick from this response list:
-
“OMG! I’m SO OFFENDED on behalf of all the black people I’ve ever known at such a statement!”
-
“The right to choose is not a civil right of that magnitude because (insert paragraph here), and therefore you should not be trying to benefit your argument by the comparison.”
Oh, by the way, nice point about the female disenfranchisement being a much better comparison. Though I don’t understand your reasoning.
Crazy? I point out a truth - that most so-called-gays are bi-sexual. I call these persons greedy. You call me crazy. Ha ha, I may be - crazy with reality, which is awful to behold.
As for a party of one - I maybe all alone in this, or perhaps not. It makes not the slightest difference!
A guest membership is a terrible thing to waste. 
I agree! (So why are we listening to you go on about this?)
Anyhoo, just wanted to say I’m glad it only took a few posts before people started implying the pro-choicers were lying, callous baby-murderers. I was worrying I might have to wait for page 2 before this went into the toilet. :rolleyes:
I hardly think that most people here would say “it’s okay to kill an innocent life” to assert “greater bodily control.” No woman I would know would just go out and get an abortion because she could and to prove that she had control of her body. Who the hell does something like that? “See! I’ve had an abortion. I do have control over my body. So there!” What sort of point would that make?
Most women who do have abortions come to that unfortunate conclusion because they either can’t support a child or because it could be extremely damaging to their health to carry one. Other women are simply too young to care for a child. If I were pregnant and unable to support a child, I would be far more inclined to terminate a pregnancy than to carry it to term and put it immediately into the system for adoption, particularly with our country’s disgraceful foster care system. Or, if I were to have an ectoscopic pregnancy, I could very likely die from it, and the baby could very likely die as well. And I would hardly think that forcing a child to have a child would be a good idea. Yeah, the kid shouldn’t be having sex, but I don’t think a lot of children understand the consequences of their actions, and I don’t think a life-long sentence of caring for a child is the way to hammer it home.
Do you really think that the life of a blob of cells is more important than that of the mother? And how did you arrive at that conclusion?
You know, JThunder, I’ve read a lot of abortion threads here and commented on quite a few. Because of that, I know that you’ve commented on quite a few as well and, assumedly, read them. Because of that, I know that you’ve seen Blalron’s argument (even if not offered by Blalron) before, and yet you pull a Fred Sandford and act as if the comment is so beyond the pale, so new, and so shocking that had you an Elizabeth you’d be planning a visit very soon.
That sort of feigned shock and outrage is amusing when done by Redd Foxx. You, sir, are no Redd Foxx.
Now, as for the argument, I’ll make the bald assertion that I have all the rights of an adult, native-born United States of America citizen, and even I don’t get to force someone else to sacrifice their “bodily control” for the sake of my continued existence. This despite me being awfully innocent, sweet, cuddly, and a purveyor of fine chocolates.
Good thing that most elective abortions are performed on zygotes…making your “blob of cells” description true.
Oh…wait. :dubious:
You’re right - sometimes it’s not simply a blob of cells. However, I honestly don’t see why I should allow a politician to essentially sentence me to death because I got pregnant and found out that it will kill me. Not all women realize when they get pregnant that a pregnancy could kill them (such as an ectoscopic pregnancy). I really don’t understand why it’s part of anyone’s political platform (though I’m sure someone will kindly come along and tell me why). It shouldn’t be a political issue, IMHO. It’s a very personal decision, and one I hope never to have to make.
In your opinion, if it’s not simply a blob of cells, but a full-fledge fetus, should I be forced to carry it to term, even though the result may ultimately be my death?
Alternatively, what do you think of the current foster care system? Would you put a child of yours into that, especially after the fiasco last year or the year before when the Florida Child Services realized they had no idea where many of their wards were (cite), and admitted that their social workers hadn’t seen most of them in months? Many of the children were either misplaced, killed or abused. There’s no fucking way I’m putting a child into a system that operates like that.
Sorry - just realized that scandal was 2 years ago.
However, it’s still not an isolated incident, and not a whole lot has been done to fix it.
Here’s one that happened in Michigan in 2002: cite
Here’s another link to some other instances that have happened over the years:
cite.
Do you believe that that sticking yet more children into foster care from women forced to carry unwanted pregnancies is going to make this better? I don’t.
I would not worry about a jail sentence for abortion, our country cannot afford to put a million women in jail each year, which over time, adds up to 30 million women. It is physically and economically impossible to pay for 30 million women in prison. Dont worry about it.
Wrong. It’s not a blob of cells just “sometimes”. Elective abortions are never performed on zygotes, (that I’m aware of… I assume if you’re referring to elective abortions on “blobs of cells” that you could provide just ONE cite of such an event?)
By the time a woman generally learns that she is pregnant, the organism is at least at the embryonic stage.
It’s truly amazing how many pro choice folks (not all pro choice folks…but too many) will knowingly refer to the organism as a “blob of cells” or “blood clot” etc. when making their point. Whenever I point out the developmental reality…they always seem to say something like “Oh I know that…I was just using hyperbole” :dubious:
If folks say misleading or blatantly wrong things about the biology in this debate…it becomes hard to take them seriously, FWIW.
Wow…nice strawman there. Of course you DO realize that I never claimed that all elective abortions are performed on a “full-fledged fetus”? I simply pointed out that abortions are not performed on zygotes.
I’d appreciate if you could actually state my opinion accurately. :smack:
Frankly, my argument in favor of abortion (or the right to have a choice) has far more to do with my aversion to a third party trumping doctor’s instructions or my ability (or in my current position - financial and medical inability) to support a child, forcing me to bring a child into the world that I can’t support or afford, rather than when life begins. I’m not saying I think it’s okay to kill something. Again, an abortion is, I am sure, a rather difficult conclusion to face. However, if I need to have an abortion or simply can’t support a child and manage to get pregnant despite all of my efforts not to, I would like to decide for myself whether or not to have it. That’s it.
As for your “blob of cells” argument, you’re right. Lots of pro-choice folks use that argument. In this case, I also used it. I’m not going to cry hyperbole, because I really meant that I really do still consider it a blob of cells. Perhaps that makes me ignorant, but most of the literature I’ve read states that on the first day after conception, the cells begin to replicate. Then, the bundle of cells formed by the replication of cells has attached itself to the uterine wall on the 9th day. There is still no specialization in the cells (it hasn’t yet developed into heart, lungs, CNS). But at this stage, it’s still a lot of diploid cells which will, after 18 days, begin to specialize to form the heart, and that at 20 days, foundations for the brain & spinal cord begin to develop, with the heart beating at 24 days. Would you like me to continue to prove to you that I understand the developmental process of a baby?
As for the last, if I misrepresented your opinion on the matter, I am in error. You’re right again - abortions are not performed on zygotes (unless, of course, you feel that the morning after pill is really an abortion pill - then I suppose one might be able to say that they are, but not surgically).
Either way, my position is still that I don’t want a politician deciding for me that I can’t have an abortion - whether it’s elective or non-elective. I doubt there are a whole lot of women who use abortion as a method of birth control. But I don’t doubt that there are a lot of women who decide on an elective abortion because they’re too young or don’t have the financial resources to care for a child, or even a pregnancy, which can also be expensive.