And yet you think it is possible to “murder” a fertilized egg.
WTF?!?!? When, in your fucked up view, does a neonatal go from being a “potential baby” to an actual baby? You mentioned “many weeks” earlier. I’m having trouble even guessing at what weird dividing line you’re seeing between a 3-week old baby and a 30-week-old baby.
So what you’re saying is this entire stupid draft thing is just a stupid smokescreen for you loudly saying “I think abortion is bad, and I vote!” It’s not an argument so much as you asserting tht your opinion should be law because you wish it was, and this draft shit is unrelated at best.
Did I say that somewhere?
Are you, or are you not, arguing in defense of these laws announcing fetuses are fully-fledged persons in possession of full human status and rights?
“this draft shit” is related to posts #475 & #476. It’s one data point to illustrate that “we as a society force people to give up control over their own bodies in myriad ways and for various reasons.” If you already accept / agree with that point, then you can safely ignore it, as it’s an argument for those that don’t already accept / agree with that point.
And of course I’d like to see my preferred policies adopted by the government. That’s a rather mundane observation that’s probably true of most people.
Not “for various reasons”. For false reasons.
Their point was that conservatives don’t really think abortion is murder, or even all that bad, and thus since the reason they’re claiming they want to control women is a lie, there’s no justification for government to get into the controlling-women game. The implication of course was that conservatives have other reasons for wanting to control women that they don’t like to admit in polite company.
Given that there are numerous recorded examples of conservatives who spout that abortions are evil and then get one themselves the point seems at least worthy of consideration.
You responded to this with a random nonsequiter about how the government drafts people and thus it can so control women. For this comment of yours not to be completely stupid, you pretty much have to have been arguing that the draft is and always has been completely unjustified, or else it couldn’t really support the notion that conservatives should be able to ban abortion despite lying about their reasons for doing so.
Well, that or your response was just dumb.
It depends on the definition of baby. A neonatal is nothing more than a pre-autonomous lifeform that fairly rapidly becomes a thing with increasing self awareness and responses other than mere reactions to physical stimulus.nuntil that happens, usually over a two to three week period it is just a thing with potential, nothing more.
Look, I’m a grandfather and have watched my kids and grandkids grow as well as watching one die three days after being delivered. I’ve seen the changes that take place in the first few weeks of life and the differences that take place are huge.
In any case this article may be of interest?
Gee, so would I. So I guess our preferred policies are morally exactly equivalent. Thanks for clearing that up.
But wait. My preferred policies don’t trample on the fundamental rights of blameless innocent people (notice I said “people”, not “zygotes”) and they don’t cause myriad untold suffering because of some bullshit superstition I happen to believe in that I want to inflict on others by force of law, in the manner of an Islamic theocracy. So maybe our beliefs aren’t morally equivalent after all.
Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy since your side is supposed to be opposed to the encroachment of “big government” on civil liberties. But I guess that only applies to guns, not human rights.
Malaclypse, this is perhaps the most fucked up thing I’ve read all month. Do you understand (at least in the eyes of the law even if it’s not a viewpoint that you accept) that once a baby is born, it’s a full-fledged person, not “just a thing with potential, nothing more”?
The changes and differences that take place between a typical two-year-old and twenty-year-old are “huge” too, but it doesn’t make the two-year-old “just a thing with potential, nothing more” either.
No, in this case it’s being applied very directly to “human rights”: some of the smallest and most vulnerable humans, in fact.
And no, I don’t think “our preferred policies are morally exactly equivalent”. Yours strikes me as despicable.
I don’t necessarily agree with the dude, but his position is no stupider than the position that from the moment of conception we’re dealing with a fully-fledged one-celled human with all human rights.
In actual fact the point where we decide a person is a full-fledged person is entirely arbitrary - and I’m pretty sure there have been actual societies where the tipping point was post-birth. Myself I’d be willing to split the difference and put the tipping point somewhere in the latter half of the pregnancy, but this is obviously a matter of debate.
I love how the go-to example for how “the government forces us to give up our rights” is something that hasn’t been relevant for about twice the length of my life and almost certainly never will be again.
Honestly I don’t know why people engage with pro-life arguments as though they’re made in good faith. By and large? They aren’t. The pro-life side lies. Constantly, remorselessly, and with a smile on their face. They lie about what they care about. They lie about what they believe. They lie about the effects their policies will have. They went to court to ensure they could keep lying to people about what kind of health care facility they’re entering.
There’s this desperate liberal belief to act as though any given confrontation can be handled with honest debate on the merits. With all due respect, we need to cut that shit out, because it has never been true and fascists will abuse that instinct until the cows come home. The way to win this argument is to treat pro-lifers the way the catholic church treats an 11-year-old who gets raped. Shun, deplatform, ignore. Don’t take their shit seriously. Don’t treat it like it’s meant as a serious argument. It isn’t.
But…this is Great Debates.
Have you considered the possibility that maybe the SDMB, with its focus on public discourse, isn’t the right fit for you?
I think he fits in quite well. Is there some reason you want him gone?
I’m largely indifferent to if he stays or goes, but in general I think it’s going to be difficult to maintain a community that wants to foster robust public debate if many of its members adopt his “shun, deplatform, ignore” strategy. YMMV.
This is a warning for accusing another poster of lying. Asserting someone asserts a position they do not hold (pretend) in order to deceive (inconvenient to the argument) fits the criteria. Don’t personalize arguments in this fashion.
[/moderating]
Thanks. I note that immigration statistics show a significant increase of like-minded despicable people like me applying for immigration to Canada – an increase of more than 2000 per year above nominal numbers that mysteriously started around 2017. I’m pretty sure the major reason is the top quality maple syrup we produced that year. But still, we in Canada welcome well-vetted well educated despicable people like that couple, and the thousands more just like them. You should welcome it, too, as it removes the well-educated despicable infidel demographic, and gives you higher voting margins for your highly moral theocracy.
Incidentally, I understand that the Sultan of Brunei recently decreed that, in the name of religious morality, gays will now be stoned to death in the town square. You might want to give that idea some thought, too, in your newly emerging theocracy.
Great, and I’m sure we’ll have a lovely time debating the shape of the jew skull vs. the shape of the negro skull. 
I don’t have a problem with debate. I just wish we had some standards and stopped giving fascists yet another platform to spread their bullshit propaganda.