As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Assuming abortion is illegal, how much time does she serve?

11617181921

Posts

  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Rypruchet, why don't you tell us your position instead of getting mad at us for perceiving your position because you didn't tell us?

    What I'm saying here is tell us your fucking position.

    Me Too! on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    You advocated a total ban. You don't get to dance around the issue, because those women don't either. I would be surprised if you don't back the upcoming Ohio legislation a few pages back that gives men control over the uterus and removes access to abortion from rape-victims, as that would be inconsistent with your stated position. Which is support for a total ban.

    When did I advocate a total ban? I've added the clause "except in rape/incest" several times. Here's one such link, where I clearly stated that I do consider exceptions for rape and saving the mother's life.

    Yes, exceptions for rape which no doubt require at least a police-report if not a conviction (so that those dirty dirty whores can't lie), which equates to no exceptions for rape. You're okay with that blood on your hands, then?

    Nice job in trying to put words in my mouth. Can you tell me where I listed my personal opinion on how rape exceptions should be processed?

    You don't get to dance around this shit, fuckstick. If you're not going to state your position, I'll assume it's consistent with the rest of your position. If it's not consistent with the rest of your position, then shit, your argument's inconsistent and I don't even have to mess with it.

    No, what you're doing is following a specific argument about a specific piece of data and then feeling the need to chastise me for not automatically writing a full report on how I would handle every possible permutation.

    It's a false argument. If I say "we're arguing about all abortions except rape", because rape is a rare thing and it may or may not be an exception, you don't get to jump my shit for focusing on the cases representing the vast, overwhelming majority of abortions. More than once the pro-choicers have gone off about how partial-birth is a red herring of sorts because it's rare, and they won't defend that and all pro-lifers are wrong for ever bringing it up. Double-standard? Maybe. Or maybe we're just arguing the pieces that represent a super-majority of the cases.

    You want legislation. Legislation has to account for all situations. You don't get to just ignore the inconvenient bits of reality when arguing in favor of legislation. Once again, you don't get to dance around this shit just like they don't get to. And you keep saying it's not important because it's so rare, so my question as to whether you're okay with that blood on your hands because it's rare is not in any way out of order.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    I do support comprehensive sex-ed. I do support birth control.

    That's nice. Could you point me to some of the larger, louder, lobbyist-er (what, I like l's) pro-choice groups which share your concerns and are attempting to legislate improved education and access to safe sex?

    No.

    Maybe they are out there, maybe they aren't. That was never my point. My point was that the reasons for opposing one are not always the reasons you oppose another. There may be a good chance that you oppose it all and choose to lump them together, but you are arguing against me, not against a pro-choice group.

    I have a pretty good memory. You said that only some pro-lifers oppose contraception, and then you've failed to back your point.

    If you don't feel like supporting your statements, then don't make them; it's pretty simple.

    I backed it up already. I stated that I did not oppose contraception. That means you can't say all of them. I showed a group that did not take a position, that means they don't oppose it. It also means they don't suppose it. But if you state a rule, then I show an exception to the rule, you can't keep saying "you failed to prove your point." I don't recall I ever qualified what % opposed it, or even that it was not a major part.

    You have yet to offer up an example of a 'pro-life' group that supports comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. That was and has been the recurring request. In order to have 'backed it up already' you would have had to of linked to a 'pro-life' group that supports comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. You have not linked to a 'pro-life' group that supports comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives, so you did not back up your claim that there are plenty of 'pro-life' groups out there that support comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. All you have proven is that some individuals who self identify as 'pro-life' support comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives, however I have also proven that some individuals who self identify as 'pro-life' support abortions for themselves or their friends/relatives due to their perception of a 'unique' circumstance for them. In other words, you've proven that people can be inconsistent in their personal actions but not that their larger advocacy groups actively support and lobby for comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives.

    moniker on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I thought we had already gone over why fetuses are still people. Even the organ-donor-equivalency side basically allowed that assumption. Read back into the thread, I think around page 19~20, I explained it.

    No, we never agreed on that. The closest I ever got was saying that if fetuses are people, they still don't get to use the uterus without permission.

    The fact that they aren't people only helps.

    Zalbinion on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    And people need to stop assuming pro-lifers (or anti-choice, whatever, I guess pro-choice and be pro-death if you think about it) are all of the same ilk. I understand many are from the same evangelical Christian vein of ignorance, but not all are. I oppose abortion, but I am against the death penalty, for gay marriage (or removal of marriage in law altogether), and pro-sex-ed that focuses more on birth control than abstinence.

    Care to find me pro-life groups that are also for contraceptions? See, I've been told the ones against it are a minority.

    That's irrelevant. I'm saying that not all are like that, and I understand they're in a minority. Attacking the issue by attacking the general person who advocates it is irrelevant, because not all believe that.

    Sorry, it's actually not irrelevant, just inconvenient. And no, they're not a minority.

    I'm saying that pro-lifers that aren't conservative are a minority. I think we agree on this, right? And abortion is frequently opposed for the wrong reasons, I know that.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    I do support comprehensive sex-ed. I do support birth control.

    That's nice. Could you point me to some of the larger, louder, lobbyist-er (what, I like l's) pro-choice groups which share your concerns and are attempting to legislate improved education and access to safe sex?

    No.

    Maybe they are out there, maybe they aren't. That was never my point. My point was that the reasons for opposing one are not always the reasons you oppose another. There may be a good chance that you oppose it all and choose to lump them together, but you are arguing against me, not against a pro-choice group.

    I have a pretty good memory. You said that only some pro-lifers oppose contraception, and then you've failed to back your point.

    If you don't feel like supporting your statements, then don't make them; it's pretty simple.

    I backed it up already. I stated that I did not oppose contraception. That means you can't say all of them. I showed a group that did not take a position, that means they don't oppose it. It also means they don't suppose it. But if you state a rule, then I show an exception to the rule, you can't keep saying "you failed to prove your point." I don't recall I ever qualified what % opposed it, or even that it was not a major part.

    You have yet to offer up an example of a pro-choice group that supports comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. That was and has been the recurring request. In order to have 'backed it up already' you would have had to of linked to a pro-choice group that supports comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. You have not linked to a pro-choice group that supports comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives, so you did not back up your claim that there are plenty of pro-choice groups out there that support comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. All you have proven is that some individuals who self identify as pro-choice support comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives, however I have also proven that some individuals who self identify as pro-choice support abortions for themselves or their friends/relatives due to their perception of a 'unique' circumstance for them. In other words, you've proven that people can be inconsistent in their personal actions but not that their larger advocacy groups actively support and lobby for comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives.

    You know?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    I'm saying that pro-lifers that aren't conservative are a minority. I think we agree on this, right? And abortion is frequently opposed for the wrong reasons, I know that.

    I'll agree on the second part, but only on the second part, and only because opposing abortion in law is wrong.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Wiggin wrote: »
    Rypruchet, why don't you tell us your position instead of getting mad at us for perceiving your position because you didn't tell us?

    What I'm saying here is tell us your fucking position.

    Oh, Wiggin.
    Then he has to defend his position, because we'll know EXACTLY what he's arguing.
    You have yet to offer up an example of a pro-choice group that supports comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives.
    ...Planned Parenthood?
    EDIT: Upon reading the quote tree, did you mean ANTI-choice or PRO-Life?

    Because Ryuprecht really doesn't care about making pro-choice look good, I'd imagine :P

    The Muffin Man on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2007
    Wiggin wrote: »
    Rypruchet, why don't you tell us your position instead of getting mad at us for perceiving your position because you didn't tell us?

    What I'm saying here is tell us your fucking position.

    Oh, Wiggin.
    Then he has to defend his position, because we'll know EXACTLY what he's arguing.
    You have yet to offer up an example of a pro-choice group that supports comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives.
    ...Planned Parenthood?

    He meant pro-life.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Wiggin wrote: »
    Rypruchet, why don't you tell us your position instead of getting mad at us for perceiving your position because you didn't tell us?

    What I'm saying here is tell us your fucking position.

    Oh, Wiggin.
    Then he has to defend his position, because we'll know EXACTLY what he's arguing.
    You have yet to offer up an example of a pro-choice group that supports comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives.
    ...Planned Parenthood?
    EDIT: Upon reading the quote tree, did you mean ANTI-choice or PRO-Life?

    Because Ryuprecht really doesn't care about making pro-choice look good, I'd imagine :P

    I want to know his fucking position on rape. He keeps dancing around that shit.

    Me Too! on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Shush, I edited it and noone would have been the wiser if it weren't for you meddling kids.

    moniker on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Wiggin wrote: »
    I want to know his fucking position on rape. He keeps dancing around that shit.

    He doesn't have one and you know it.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    And people need to stop assuming pro-lifers (or anti-choice, whatever, I guess pro-choice and be pro-death if you think about it) are all of the same ilk. I understand many are from the same evangelical Christian vein of ignorance, but not all are. I oppose abortion, but I am against the death penalty, for gay marriage (or removal of marriage in law altogether), and pro-sex-ed that focuses more on birth control than abstinence.

    I refuse to call "pro-life" by that term because it's inappropriate. The objective of "pro-life" pundits is not to protect life but rather to punish women for fornicating and/or being the victim of an assault. If you remove abortion as an option, more people die, either from unsafe procedures or from inability to feed themself and their child or from choosing suicide over the percieved threat of murder. That is decidedly not pro-life.

    That's pretty much wrong and a wild-ass assumption.

    Maybe I should refuse to call you pro-choice and say you're, what? pro-death? anti-life?

    Your standard position is to kill the baby. All you want to do is kill babies. You hate babies.

    Now is that an accurate summary of position? No. And it's not accurate to say that pro-lifers only seek to punish women. That's childish.

    ryuprecht on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Your assumption is that the rapist will kill the mother and child, therefore the child should be sacrificed instead? I don't think you're approaching the situation properly. If the rapist is threatening to kill the mother and child, we should be arresting the rapist (and should have already done so when he committed the rape). Just because it goes unreported doesn't mean anything. This is law we're talking about, and if someone takes the law into their own hands by not reporting a rape that's a terrible decision that we should educate against.

    My stated fact is that many rapists will kill the mothers. Arresting the rapist? Oh God, you've never seen the world outside your bedroom before, have you? Way to outwardly endorse punishing rape-victims for being dirty, dirty whores.

    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    And people need to stop assuming pro-lifers (or anti-choice, whatever, I guess pro-choice and be pro-death if you think about it) are all of the same ilk. I understand many are from the same evangelical Christian vein of ignorance, but not all are. I oppose abortion, but I am against the death penalty, for gay marriage (or removal of marriage in law altogether), and pro-sex-ed that focuses more on birth control than abstinence.

    I refuse to call "pro-life" by that term because it's inappropriate. The objective of "pro-life" pundits is not to protect life but rather to punish women for fornicating and/or being the victim of an assault. If you remove abortion as an option, more people die, either from unsafe procedures or from inability to feed themself and their child or from choosing suicide over the percieved threat of murder. That is decidedly not pro-life.

    That's pretty much wrong and a wild-ass assumption.

    Maybe I should refuse to call you pro-choice and say you're, what? pro-death? anti-life?

    Your standard position is to kill the baby. All you want to do is kill babies. You hate babies.

    Now is that an accurate summary of position? No. And it's not accurate to say that pro-lifers only seek to punish women. That's childish.

    Exactly. All they want to do is to force the woman to carry the baby to term and go through labor in order to birth it. Because, as we all know, pushing a watermelon out of your vagina is simply an 'inconvenience' and one that women can take standing on one leg. Right spyder?

    moniker on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    And people need to stop assuming pro-lifers (or anti-choice, whatever, I guess pro-choice and be pro-death if you think about it) are all of the same ilk. I understand many are from the same evangelical Christian vein of ignorance, but not all are. I oppose abortion, but I am against the death penalty, for gay marriage (or removal of marriage in law altogether), and pro-sex-ed that focuses more on birth control than abstinence.

    Care to find me pro-life groups that are also for contraceptions? See, I've been told the ones against it are a minority.

    That's irrelevant. I'm saying that not all are like that, and I understand they're in a minority. Attacking the issue by attacking the general person who advocates it is irrelevant, because not all believe that.

    Sorry, it's actually not irrelevant, just inconvenient. And yes, they're a minority, and anyone who says otherwise should back it up.

    Can you support that it's a majority? Lobbying groups /= the de facto majority. They often = the most passionate of the positions though.

    ryuprecht on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    That's pretty much wrong and a wild-ass assumption.

    Maybe I should refuse to call you pro-choice and say you're, what? pro-death? anti-life?

    Your standard position is to kill the baby. All you want to do is kill babies. You hate babies.

    Now is that an accurate summary of position? No. And it's not accurate to say that pro-lifers only seek to punish women. That's childish.

    No. Our "standard position" is that women are human persons, and entitled to control over their bodies just as men have control over theirs.

    Our "standard position" is that women, since they're people, are the sole arbiters of what happens to their reproductive systems. If that includes terminating pregnancies, then so be it.

    Zalbinion on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Your assumption is that the rapist will kill the mother and child, therefore the child should be sacrificed instead? I don't think you're approaching the situation properly. If the rapist is threatening to kill the mother and child, we should be arresting the rapist (and should have already done so when he committed the rape). Just because it goes unreported doesn't mean anything. This is law we're talking about, and if someone takes the law into their own hands by not reporting a rape that's a terrible decision that we should educate against.

    My stated fact is that many rapists will kill the mothers. Arresting the rapist? Oh God, you've never seen the world outside your bedroom before, have you? Way to outwardly endorse punishing rape-victims for being dirty, dirty whores.

    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    What are your thoughts on pregnant women bleeding to death from lacerations to their uterine wall?

    moniker on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Now, to address those who believe the fetus is not a child, why is that? It is simply a child that cannot support itself yet without external help. A premature child suffers the same consequences, are you implying that we should be allowed to kill them if we want to? The only difference is that one is outside the womb and the other is inside. How far along the development cycle they are is irrelevant.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    Wait, fetuses are infants now? When did medicine change as drastically as that, exactly? And no, I don't see how it's a faulty legal observation to punish people for failing to report a crime when reporting that crime is unlikely to result in anything but the victim being publicly branded a whore.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Your assumption is that the rapist will kill the mother and child, therefore the child should be sacrificed instead? I don't think you're approaching the situation properly. If the rapist is threatening to kill the mother and child, we should be arresting the rapist (and should have already done so when he committed the rape). Just because it goes unreported doesn't mean anything. This is law we're talking about, and if someone takes the law into their own hands by not reporting a rape that's a terrible decision that we should educate against.

    My stated fact is that many rapists will kill the mothers. Arresting the rapist? Oh God, you've never seen the world outside your bedroom before, have you? Way to outwardly endorse punishing rape-victims for being dirty, dirty whores.

    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    What are your thoughts on pregnant women bleeding to death from lacerations to their uterine wall?

    Thats a medical situation in which the life of the mother is threatened. I've stated numerous times before that is the only situation in which an abortion should be allowed. To use a poor analogy, it's like a Siamese twin separation operation in which something goes wrong. The one that can be saved must be saved first.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    you did not back up your claim that there are plenty of 'pro-life' groups out there that support comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives.

    I don't recall that I made that claim, so why do I have to prove it? I made the claim that being pro-life /= being against contraception or education.

    ryuprecht on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    Abortion /= infanticide, but don't let reason get in your way.

    Rape is a violation of a woman's control over her body. Preventing her from terminating a pregnancy that results from that violation of control is an equal violation.

    Zalbinion on
  • Original RufusOriginal Rufus Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Now, to address those who believe the fetus is not a child, why is that? It is simply a child that cannot support itself yet without external help. A premature child suffers the same consequences, are you implying that we should be allowed to kill them if we want to? The only difference is that one is outside the womb and the other is inside. How far along the development cycle they are is irrelevant.

    Can you at least understand why we should consider more strongly the freedoms offered to people whose status of being "alive" can't be debated?

    Original Rufus on
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    And people need to stop assuming pro-lifers (or anti-choice, whatever, I guess pro-choice and be pro-death if you think about it) are all of the same ilk. I understand many are from the same evangelical Christian vein of ignorance, but not all are. I oppose abortion, but I am against the death penalty, for gay marriage (or removal of marriage in law altogether), and pro-sex-ed that focuses more on birth control than abstinence.

    I refuse to call "pro-life" by that term because it's inappropriate. The objective of "pro-life" pundits is not to protect life but rather to punish women for fornicating and/or being the victim of an assault. If you remove abortion as an option, more people die, either from unsafe procedures or from inability to feed themself and their child or from choosing suicide over the percieved threat of murder. That is decidedly not pro-life.

    That's pretty much wrong and a wild-ass assumption.
    Because it's insane to assume a woman who cannot support HERSELF, let alone a child, will do something drastic when she has had to spend 9 months carrying around something she cannot care for, and has to hope that an adoption agency will add another unwanted child to their legions of unadopted kids.
    Maybe I should refuse to call you pro-choice and say you're, what? pro-death? anti-life?

    Your standard position is to kill the baby. All you want to do is kill babies. You hate babies.
    No, but see. Anti-Choice is actually accurate.
    Whether you'll admit it or not, you oppose leaving women with a choice in the matter.

    I guess if they're too stupid to just keep their pants on, they're too stupid to make their own decisions.
    Now is that an accurate summary of position? No. And it's not accurate to say that pro-lifers only seek to punish women. That's childish.
    Have you SEEN some pro-life arguments?
    It's not childish. At worst it's mildly unfair to a very small minority of pro-lifers.

    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?
    So wait.
    "You were raped, and treated like nothing more than a cum dumpster, and are probably too terrified to even admit you were raped to anyone but your closest friends because of how worthless the justice system is to anyone in your position. Now, wait 9 months so that the offspring of union of hatred can be thrust out of you in a painful fashion, and you can live with the fact that you were treated as an object for the rest of your life."
    Yeah, that kids not gonna grow up with problems. And the mother will certainly not experience negative effects. Especially not to that "Mommy, what happened to daddy?" question that's hard enough to answer for a widow.

    The Muffin Man on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    you did not back up your claim that there are plenty of 'pro-life' groups out there that support comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives.

    I don't recall that I made that claim, so why do I have to prove it? I made the claim that being pro-life /= being against contraception or education.

    I keep repeating myself.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Now, to address those who believe the fetus is not a child, why is that? It is simply a child that cannot support itself yet without external help. A premature child suffers the same consequences, are you implying that we should be allowed to kill them if we want to? The only difference is that one is outside the womb and the other is inside. How far along the development cycle they are is irrelevant.

    Tell me how a thirteen year-old is not an adult, how a six year-old is not a teenager, and how a lone sperm isn't a fetus.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    Wait, fetuses are infants now? When did medicine change as drastically as that, exactly? And no, I don't see how it's a faulty legal observation to punish people for failing to report a crime when reporting that crime is unlikely to result in anything but the victim being publicly branded a whore.

    Just because you don't want the social stigma doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do, and the proper lawful thing to do.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    Wait, fetuses are infants now? When did medicine change as drastically as that, exactly? And no, I don't see how it's a faulty legal observation to punish people for failing to report a crime when reporting that crime is unlikely to result in anything but the victim being publicly branded a whore.

    Just because you don't want the social stigma doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do, and the proper lawful thing to do.

    Okay. Thanks for clearing up how misogynistic you are.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Now, to address those who believe the fetus is not a child, why is that? It is simply a child that cannot support itself yet without external help. A premature child suffers the same consequences, are you implying that we should be allowed to kill them if we want to? The only difference is that one is outside the womb and the other is inside. How far along the development cycle they are is irrelevant.

    Tell me how a thirteen year-old is not an adult, how a six year-old is not a teenager, and how a lone sperm isn't a fetus.

    Adult, teenager, whatever, that's all irrelevant semantics. They're all human beings, and killing them is wrong.

    A sperm isn't a fetus because it doesn't have a full DNA sequence, and incubating it and nourishing it won't create a person.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Your assumption is that the rapist will kill the mother and child, therefore the child should be sacrificed instead? I don't think you're approaching the situation properly. If the rapist is threatening to kill the mother and child, we should be arresting the rapist (and should have already done so when he committed the rape). Just because it goes unreported doesn't mean anything. This is law we're talking about, and if someone takes the law into their own hands by not reporting a rape that's a terrible decision that we should educate against.

    My stated fact is that many rapists will kill the mothers. Arresting the rapist? Oh God, you've never seen the world outside your bedroom before, have you? Way to outwardly endorse punishing rape-victims for being dirty, dirty whores.

    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    What are your thoughts on pregnant women bleeding to death from lacerations to their uterine wall?

    Thats a medical situation in which the life of the mother is threatened. I've stated numerous times before that is the only situation in which an abortion should be allowed. To use a poor analogy, it's like a Siamese twin separation operation in which something goes wrong. The one that can be saved must be saved first.

    So you wouldn't be opposed to a safe and legal access to abortion if the likely alternative to occur (as has been documented to be the case) would be taking a wire hanger up the crotch. Thank you.

    moniker on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    Wait, fetuses are infants now? When did medicine change as drastically as that, exactly? And no, I don't see how it's a faulty legal observation to punish people for failing to report a crime when reporting that crime is unlikely to result in anything but the victim being publicly branded a whore.

    Just because you don't want the social stigma doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do, and the proper lawful thing to do.

    Okay. Thanks for clearing up how misogynistic you are.

    How? Because I think women should be allowed to kill their children?

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    Wait, fetuses are infants now? When did medicine change as drastically as that, exactly? And no, I don't see how it's a faulty legal observation to punish people for failing to report a crime when reporting that crime is unlikely to result in anything but the victim being publicly branded a whore.

    Just because you don't want the social stigma doesn't mean rape-victims don't deserve to be punished for being victims.

    Yeah, I got that you think that already, you can stop repeating it over and over before I vomit, thanks.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Now, to address those who believe the fetus is not a child, why is that? It is simply a child that cannot support itself yet without external help. A premature child suffers the same consequences, are you implying that we should be allowed to kill them if we want to? The only difference is that one is outside the womb and the other is inside. How far along the development cycle they are is irrelevant.

    Oh, okay, I get it. Sorry for the misunderstanding---guys/girls, this is parody, Stalin's really on our side.

    I realized the sarcasm as soon as I read your assertion that the union of sperm and egg is morally equivalent to a healthy toddler.

    Zalbinion on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    First, having a direct, physical reminder of the rape around for 9 months plus is a bad idea for many women.

    Second, abortion isn't infanticide by definition. If the baby is born prematurely (hint: fetus/before birth baby/after), and needs life support, the mother has the option to NOT provide that. It isn't any different when it is still inside her. The fetus doesn't have the right to continued support.

    Third, I have yet to see a pro-lifer say "hey, we need to MASSIVELY increase funding for adoption agencies, child protection agencies, pre-natal care, and the like to take care of all these extra pregnancies". Given that you won't pony up to support the child after its born, what right do you have to interfere before it is?

    Phoenix-D on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Your assumption is that the rapist will kill the mother and child, therefore the child should be sacrificed instead? I don't think you're approaching the situation properly. If the rapist is threatening to kill the mother and child, we should be arresting the rapist (and should have already done so when he committed the rape). Just because it goes unreported doesn't mean anything. This is law we're talking about, and if someone takes the law into their own hands by not reporting a rape that's a terrible decision that we should educate against.

    My stated fact is that many rapists will kill the mothers. Arresting the rapist? Oh God, you've never seen the world outside your bedroom before, have you? Way to outwardly endorse punishing rape-victims for being dirty, dirty whores.

    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    What are your thoughts on pregnant women bleeding to death from lacerations to their uterine wall?

    Thats a medical situation in which the life of the mother is threatened. I've stated numerous times before that is the only situation in which an abortion should be allowed. To use a poor analogy, it's like a Siamese twin separation operation in which something goes wrong. The one that can be saved must be saved first.

    So you wouldn't be opposed to a safe and legal access to abortion if the likely alternative to occur (as has been documented to be the case) would be taking a wire hanger up the crotch. Thank you.

    Yes, I'm against killing babies in a clinic even if it means they'll do it in a back alley. It's still wrong.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    First, having a direct, physical reminder of the rape around for 9 months plus is a bad idea for many women.

    Second, abortion isn't infanticide by definition. If the baby is born prematurely (hint: fetus/before birth baby/after), and needs life support, the mother has the option to NOT provide that. It isn't any different when it is still inside her. The fetus doesn't have the right to continued support.

    Third, I have yet to see a pro-lifer say "hey, we need to MASSIVELY increase funding for adoption agencies, child protection agencies, pre-natal care, and the like to take care of all these extra pregnancies". Given that you won't pony up to support the child after its born, what right do you have to interfere before it is?

    Because it is not and never has been about the not-yet-a-child.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • widowsonwidowson Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    The Ohio thing makes me want to barrrrf. It's a blatant attempt at slut-shaming and trying to force people into the legislator's personal preferences for relationships: monogamous and male-controlled. SHOCKING. Good thing it's never going to get anywhere.

    I expect it to pass with flying colours, just like the parental-consent law did. Ohio doesn't really count women as people, you see. You guys are more like ovens. Ovens for making buns. Oh but you're also allowed to suck dicks. Ohio legislators are pieces of shit, you see. Both our Republicans and our Democrats. So there's another false-choice.



    Do something for me.

    -Go to google.com
    -Type in "aborted fetus"
    -Click on "images"

    The pro-life movement has nothing to do with enslaving or demeaning women, it has everything to do with not turning babies into hamburger.

    Even if you argue "civil rights" issues, a perfectly rational, sane, good person can be pro-life simply because of how horrific abortion is much in the same way someone can be a total pacifist because of how horrific war can be, reguardless of self-defense considerations.

    I may not agree with the latter, but I can see his/her point. You may not agree with the former, but can you see how this might have nothing to do with some sort of invented, phallocentric "keep them barefoot and pregnant" tyrrany but instead be justifiable horror at a bloody act?

    widowson on
    -I owe nothing to Women's Lib.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Your assumption is that the rapist will kill the mother and child, therefore the child should be sacrificed instead? I don't think you're approaching the situation properly. If the rapist is threatening to kill the mother and child, we should be arresting the rapist (and should have already done so when he committed the rape). Just because it goes unreported doesn't mean anything. This is law we're talking about, and if someone takes the law into their own hands by not reporting a rape that's a terrible decision that we should educate against.

    My stated fact is that many rapists will kill the mothers. Arresting the rapist? Oh God, you've never seen the world outside your bedroom before, have you? Way to outwardly endorse punishing rape-victims for being dirty, dirty whores.

    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    What are your thoughts on pregnant women bleeding to death from lacerations to their uterine wall?

    Thats a medical situation in which the life of the mother is threatened. I've stated numerous times before that is the only situation in which an abortion should be allowed. To use a poor analogy, it's like a Siamese twin separation operation in which something goes wrong. The one that can be saved must be saved first.

    So you wouldn't be opposed to a safe and legal access to abortion if the likely alternative to occur (as has been documented to be the case) would be taking a wire hanger up the crotch. Thank you.

    Yes, I'm against killing babies in a clinic even if it means they'll do it in a back alley. It's still wrong.

    You're in favor of two deaths instead of one, and you have a problem with people pointing out the "pro-life" moniker as disengenuous?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    I understand rape is bad, and the vast majority of it goes unreported. That doesn't mean the baby should be killed. The mother should have to go through the pregnancy. Your argument for allowing abortion in the face of rape is that someone will do something illegal if it isn't done. How do you not see how that is a faulty legal observation?

    Edit: And my position on the whole "anti-choice" thing is that sure, it isn't the mother's choice to kill the baby. Infanticide is wrong.

    Abortion /= infanticide, but don't let reason get in your way.

    Rape is a violation of a woman's control over her body. Preventing her from terminating a pregnancy that results from that violation of control is an equal violation.

    Mmhmm.
    Rape is a violation of control. Or choice in not being treated like an object(at the very least)
    Banning abortion is a violation of control. Or her choice in not giving birth to a child borne out of hatred.

    But at least you're not arguing that you want to take away a womans right to choose what SHE does with HER body.

    Tell ya what. When the kid is born? Then they can have a say in what happens.
    Until they stop feeding off the mother(and no, I am not likening them to a parasite. That's what happens) and being inside of her body, or at least until they can feel pain, I'm 100% pro-choice.
    Just because you don't want the social stigma doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do, and the proper lawful thing to do.
    This doesn't mean that she should be forced to give birth to the child. I will never argue that a rape victim should at least report it, because she has done nothing to deserve being a social outcast (in fact, if she reports it, I'd say just the opposite. She should be commended for her bravery in such a hard time), but I will NEVER condone that she should have her body put in control of SOMEONE ELSE when she is perfectly healthy.

    The Muffin Man on
This discussion has been closed.