My ignorance of embrology. Most abortions in the early part of pregnancy have not yet taken on human form, there is no person hood until later in pregnancy. Most elective abortions at any age seem to me to be a matter of self defense for the woman. The women I know who had abortions did not take it lightly, and because I wouldn’t want to go through having one doesn’t give me the right to judge another womans reason.
Monavis
I should have added, that there are many who think the moring after pill is an abortion;no one knows for sure if a woman is pregnant the day after intercourse, and at best it is just a bunch of cells that would become a pregnancy.
Monavis
My point is proven by the fact that you are here,You came through a long line of ancestors,If you Believe the Bible, it started with Adam and Eve, a longer period of time if you use science,No human came into the world except through the sperm and egg of it’s parents. Name one who had no parents first. The life one has, came through another even if it is cloned life was first in another and passed on. No ancestors, no life.The conception that you argue for started in reality in the first human beings weither you belive in Evolution or Adam and Eve.
Your person hood started with conception,your life came from your ancestors.
Monavis
If you were in a burning building with the choice of saving an already born person or a vat full of fetuses you would save the life you felt more importent to you. That would prove what life you most valued. An already born human, or a lot of potential humans.
Monavis
No, "hypocrite"means someone who wants to make anything illegal.
“Pedantic” means “dancing the foxtrot with a German Shepherd while a fat person at the next table complains that his salad doesn’t have enough croutons”.
In my worldview.
Regards,
Shodan
Well I suppose you have to do something to compensate for lack of basic reading skills.
::* laughs big fat ass off* ::
::* shakes head* ::
Worth the price of admission in itself.
If you get to define words however you want, I reckon Shodan can as well. After all, basic reading skills applied to this thread indicate clearly that Rick is not a hypocrite. And yet, you persist in believing him one due to your “worldview.”
So, what are your thoughts on choice in relation to State law. If the State Law prohibits you from building a porch on your house on punishment of taking away that house from you if you do, and actively prevent you from finding any building constructors that are willing to do this for you, do you still have a choice? Legally? Morally? Practically?
I have stated that certainly in the context of this discussion, if we, as a society, want to limit certain choices, we do this first and foremost by making something illegal. If you think that is completely far fetched, then I’ll gladly hear why. Do recognise, however, that I’ve already shown I understand Bricker’s point of view, and that I can see that from that standpoint, Bricker does not consider himself a hypocrite. And yet I disagree with him on the meaning of choice - pro-choice being generally, after all, considered to apply to legal abortions. I have to ask, is this really, really so far fetched?.
Now on the other hand, Shodan claims that I am saying that anyone who wants to make anything illegal is a hypocrite.
This is not only far-fetched, but an outright lie. I’ll be interested in hearing by what creative process (probably featuring a lot of omission), you’re going to make that outright lie suit even your own personal world-view.
Applying my basic reading skills, I can see he did no such thing.
Rick does not profess something he does not believe. Ergo, not a hypocrite. Under the common definition of the word, I’ll admit, rather than the custom version.
(And in case you didn’t notice, that second quote was a sarcastic reference to the first, and not an out of the blue example of random redefinition of words)
The operative term being “sarcastic.” As opposed to “big outright lie.”
Sarcastic reference to the first statement, also by Shodan. Thereby the reference being sarcastic, the implication a lie, and the logic phallic … (no, wait … ).
Hans … wake up, Hans … *
: queue twilight zone music :
(don’t know why/how that dropped off the end of the post … although based on my long experience with IT, it is probably a user error … :D)
No, it’s close to accurate. I don’t know if making things illegal is always our first choice for discouraging behaviors - see cigarette smoking for an example of a different approach - but for the purposes of this discussion, we can accept this as a premise.
Nor from the standpoint of anyone making consistent use of language. That’s why nobody else agrees with you that Bricker is being hypocritical.
Yes, it is quite a stretch. Bricker is not pro-choice.
No, it follows from your position.
You refer to Bricker as being a hypocrite because he wants to make something illegal. Ergo, anyone who wants to make something illegal is a hypocrite.
Unless you want to use the term “hypocrite” to refer only to those who want to make abortion illegal. But this is also silly. “Hypocrite” necessarily involves some degree of inconsistency between a position and an action. There is no such inconsistency in Bricker’s case - indeed, he is one of the most honest and consistent Dopers I can think of. He does not want and has never advocated keeping the choice of abortion available. He wants it to be illegal, and he wants to take other steps to minimize the impact of removing that choice.
In other words, Bricker and the others have broken your argument off at the knees. It happens, and not rarely.
Regards,
Shodan
Listen you twat, I like Bricker as much as most people on this board. But when he says he wants to make something the ‘more life-affirming choice’, and at the same time he wants to make that illegal - which, thankfully, for the purpose of this discussion you accepted as a premise is removing that choice - I have decent grounds of calling him a hypocrite.
More honest would be to say that he wants to make abortion illegal, and then wants to soften the hardship of (unwanted) pregnancy by trying to help make it less unwanted.
Bricker is very skilled in presenting an argument. When he says overturn Roe vs Wade, he mentions that it should be a federal matter as one of the reasons. But the real reason is that he thinks there is much to gain by making it a state matter, as on the state level there is a large chance of overturning Roe vs Wade at least in some states. You can argue what you like about his honest beliefs about the role of federal vs state, but Bricker has himself clearly stated this as an important step in fighting the evil murder of children. Let’s go back to page 2 for a moment, shall we?
Bricker: But I would rather work step by step, calmly and rationally, because that is the road that ultimately will succeed, and in that success millions and millions of future unborn children will be saved.
jsgoddess: What steps, specifically?
Step 1:
And, in a later post:
Step 2:
The skill is to present your arguments in such a way that as many people as possible are attracted to them, and as few as possible people are offended by them, and Bricker possesses that skill. Most of the time he uses it for the common good, and on this board he is a great friend to many, giving advice liberally to those who ask for it. But that does not make him immune to criticism in my regard, on an important matter such as this.
Again, this is very clearly not what I’m saying.
You see, I agree. I think he wants it to be illegal, and he wants to take other steps to minimize the impact of removing that choice. That is fine, and that is what I’ve understood him to want. But if he then says:
Now, that sounds all nice and flowery. Except that he wants to create a world where having an abortion is illegal. Which, according to the premise we’ve accepted for the discussion, can be taken to understand that abortion is no longer a choice.
If you now don’t understand that what I’m saying is not “anyone who wants to make something illegal is a hypocrite”, you will probably never. Or at the very least, I won’t be able to do anything in the near future to make you understand. I’m done. Good night.
Done, except for noting that Italics tags don’t stand out terribly well in quoted text, so I feel compelled to point out that the emphasis was supposed to be on the final word ‘choice’.
The light dawns. I get you now.
But I have to wonder why someone cannot choose to do something illegal. Whether or not I exceed the speed limit is my choice, whether or not I steal from my employer is a choice, whether or not I kidnap, cook, and eat Kanye West is a choice.
Women will still be able to choose abortion, even if abortion is made illegal. AFAICT, that’s what Rick meant.
But I think the point is, you’re being somewhat dishonest, if you advocate removing a “legal” choice, under the premise of creating other or more choices, by crimimalizing it.
How do you create more choices about eating cake, by making it illegal? We’re going show you that it’s better to eat carrots, by removing your choice to LEGALLY eat cake now. Sure you can still eat cake, but only if it’s worth breaking the law over. How does that create more options for me?
I already have the choice whether or not to eat cake or carrots legally…by criminalizing my cake eating, you’re removed a good portion of my previous choice. Sure I can choose to break the law; but what kind of choice is that?
Pfew! As for your other comments, see, among others, post #251. 