Options

ITT the abortions of strawmen

1121314151618»

Posts

  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I must say that the main argument that I've heard that an abortion is killing someone, that as a result, a person who would exist doesn't, starts to fall apart when you think about other things it could be applied to, such as abstinence.

    Excuse me miss, we need to be having premarital sex RIGHT NOW otherwise a potential person might potentially not come into being.

    My god if that worked id go to church.

    And hey, with all that cardio getting got, the obesity/heart-disease epidemics would vanish into thin air! Now, the economy might collapse under every American just spending all their time fucking instead of working, and the millions of unsupported babies, but we could just eat the babies and never miss the agriculture industry.

    Every time a woman menstruates a potential life goes unmade.

    Menstruation should be illegal.

    What is is 23.5 chromosomes come from each parent? That means every 2 menstruations equal 1 abortion. Wow thats six dead babies per year per woman. With 3 billion women on the planet thats 12,000,000,000 dead babies per year. Quick someone throw some used tampon pictures on a sign and lets picket supermarkets!

    Detharin on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    23-point five?

    ?!

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    23-point five?

    ?!

    :LOL:

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I must say that the main argument that I've heard that an abortion is killing someone, that as a result, a person who would exist doesn't, starts to fall apart when you think about other things it could be applied to, such as abstinence.

    Excuse me miss, we need to be having premarital sex RIGHT NOW otherwise a potential person might potentially not come into being.

    My god if that worked id go to church.

    And hey, with all that cardio getting got, the obesity/heart-disease epidemics would vanish into thin air! Now, the economy might collapse under every American just spending all their time fucking instead of working, and the millions of unsupported babies, but we could just eat the babies and never miss the agriculture industry.

    /facepalm/

    There is a very large and quite understandable difference between not creating life and destroying life. Please try not to be stupid.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I must say that the main argument that I've heard that an abortion is killing someone, that as a result, a person who would exist doesn't, starts to fall apart when you think about other things it could be applied to, such as abstinence.

    Excuse me miss, we need to be having premarital sex RIGHT NOW otherwise a potential person might potentially not come into being.

    My god if that worked id go to church.

    And hey, with all that cardio getting got, the obesity/heart-disease epidemics would vanish into thin air! Now, the economy might collapse under every American just spending all their time fucking instead of working, and the millions of unsupported babies, but we could just eat the babies and never miss the agriculture industry.

    /facepalm/

    There is a very large and quite understandable difference between not creating life and destroying life. Please try not to be stupid.

    There is a very large and quite understandable difference between destroying life and deciding not to leave something you don't want in your body long enough for it to become a person. Please try not to be stupid.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    23-point five?

    ?!

    Well, Y hardly counts as a whole one.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    There is a very large and quite understandable difference between destroying life and deciding not to leave something you don't want in your body long enough for it to become a person. Please try not to be stupid.

    The whole crux of the argument comes down to when you believe life begins. Someone isn't being stupid if they are staying consistent in the idea that life starts at conception.

    Babies are pretty dependent on their mothers after birth. You're not allowed to just cut them loose because you don't want to have to care for it. You think a thing becomes a person when it's born, he thinks a thing becomes a person when it's conceived. At some point everyone is against pre-to-post natal abortion, it's just a question of where you draw the line at. Pro-choice wants the law to recognize the line being at birth. Fundies want it at conception, or barring that at least somewhere before the third trimester.

    zerg rush on
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Pro-choice wants the law to recognize the line being at birth.

    I'm not terribly well acquainted with the pro-choice movement, but I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. My impression was that many of them did not oppose abortion bans after a certain point; that point depending on the individual, of course.

    As I said earlier, I am pro-choice myself, but I consider banning abortion after whichever point it is the child can be said to "be thinking" ethically necessary, barring a threat to the life of the mother. I have never looked into this issue with any real depth, though, so I'm not actually sure when that is and how well it matches up with existing abortion laws.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Well, I'm not sure how much of an exaggeration it is. Maybe more of a simplification. I know some are at birth, others are 8th month, others when it'd be able to survive outside the mother.

    My main point is that it's less of an argument about OMFGmurder-vs-scraping cells, and more an argument on what it really means to call something a person. Handwaving that away is really just ignoring the issue.

    zerg rush on
  • Options
    Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Well, I'm not sure how much of an exaggeration it is. Maybe more of a simplification. I know some are at birth, others are 8th month, others when it'd be able to survive outside the mother.

    My main point is that it's less of an argument about OMFGmurder-vs-scraping cells, and more an argument on what it really means to call something a person. Handwaving that away is really just ignoring the issue.

    I'm not as sure if it's handwaving it away as much as it's just really, impossibly hard to agree on what makes a person a "person," and after trying so long and realizing that different faiths/science/philosophies are going to disagree regardless, nobody wants to bother with that line of reasoning anymore.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Pro-choice wants the law to recognize the line being at birth.

    I'm not terribly well acquainted with the pro-choice movement, but I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. My impression was that many of them did not oppose abortion bans after a certain point; that point depending on the individual, of course.

    As I said earlier, I am pro-choice myself, but I consider banning abortion after whichever point it is the child can be said to "be thinking" ethically necessary, barring a threat to the life of the mother. I have never looked into this issue with any real depth, though, so I'm not actually sure when that is and how well it matches up with existing abortion laws.
    You know in giving this some thought, I would consider drawing the line at the point where the fetus is capable of "trying not to die".

    And no, this doesn't mean we kill coma patients willy-nilly but it does mean we can switch off life support on the brain dead.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Pro-choice wants the law to recognize the line being at birth.

    I'm not terribly well acquainted with the pro-choice movement, but I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. My impression was that many of them did not oppose abortion bans after a certain point; that point depending on the individual, of course.

    As I said earlier, I am pro-choice myself, but I consider banning abortion after whichever point it is the child can be said to "be thinking" ethically necessary, barring a threat to the life of the mother. I have never looked into this issue with any real depth, though, so I'm not actually sure when that is and how well it matches up with existing abortion laws.
    You know in giving this some thought, I would consider drawing the line at the point where the fetus is capable of "trying not to die".

    And no, this doesn't mean we kill coma patients willy-nilly but it does mean we can switch off life support on the brain dead.

    You're begging the question. If we know when the fetus is capable of trying not to die, we know when it's conscious.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I don't really understand what point in development you're refering to, electricitylikesme. Babies don't demonstrably cling on to life either.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    zakkiel wrote: »
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Pro-choice wants the law to recognize the line being at birth.

    I'm not terribly well acquainted with the pro-choice movement, but I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. My impression was that many of them did not oppose abortion bans after a certain point; that point depending on the individual, of course.

    As I said earlier, I am pro-choice myself, but I consider banning abortion after whichever point it is the child can be said to "be thinking" ethically necessary, barring a threat to the life of the mother. I have never looked into this issue with any real depth, though, so I'm not actually sure when that is and how well it matches up with existing abortion laws.
    You know in giving this some thought, I would consider drawing the line at the point where the fetus is capable of "trying not to die".

    And no, this doesn't mean we kill coma patients willy-nilly but it does mean we can switch off life support on the brain dead.

    You're begging the question. If we know when the fetus is capable of trying not to die, we know when it's conscious.

    True.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I say let the free market decide the legality of this issue.

    If there's demand, let their be supply.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    I say let the free market decide the legality of this issue.

    If there's demand, let their be supply.
    I'm ordering my supply of 11 year old sex slaves from Thailand right now!

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    I say let the free market decide the legality of this issue.

    If there's demand, let their be supply.
    I'm ordering my supply of 11 year old sex slaves from Thailand right now!

    Well I mean, they're going to be sex slaves one way or the other, because lolThailand.

    This way they'll at least get a good stable home and not a tin shack with a dirt floor.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    I say let the free market decide the legality of this issue.

    If there's demand, let their be supply.
    I'm ordering my supply of 11 year old sex slaves from Thailand right now!

    Well I mean, they're going to be sex slaves one way or the other, because lolThailand.

    This way they'll at least get a good stable home and not a tin shack with a dirt floor.

    I thought Malaysia was the underage-sex-slave-outlet-mall?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    grendel824_grendel824_ Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I'm all for any candidate who is rational enough to realize that there are enough unknowns about the abortion issue (what constitutes a human life, when that happens, etc.) to NOT take a stand and presume that they know what everybody else doesn't (though many act like they do).

    If the candidate basically says "I'm going to stay back from this issue and try to do my best to manage the law without making drastic changes one way or another and try to enact the will of the people to a moderate extent." It's one of the few issues where I actually consider "waffling" to be a trait that shows intelligence and character. I'm leery of anyone who jumps to pick sides on an issue where we are simply unable to determine which action is incredibly evil and which just seems to be.

    grendel824_ on
  • Options
    grendel824_grendel824_ Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Sepah wrote: »
    I believe that abortion in general should be illegal, and only allowed under specific conditions....

    I noticed this opinion get bashed a hell of a lot, but in all honesty it's a well-reasoned and valid opinion that has every possiblity of being morally correct. I don't agree with it. Some because I completely disagree, some because of assumptions I'm just not sure enough about to change my mind. I don't think that I'd vote for a candidate with this platform over a more moderate one simply because it takes a more extreme side.

    What's refreshing is that it's rational and defensible. If one makes certain assumptions that are as yet unproven but as yet still valid, the conclusion that follows is a solid one. Usually someone on a similarly extreme side has giant, gaping holes in their argument that they simply refuse to acknowledge when confronted with and they just zealously pursue their POV. This isn't one of those (which is why it's disappointing to see people bash it simply because they feel extremely differently). Logically, if certain things are true (which have yet to be proven satisfactorily either way), then his argument makes absolute sense. A rational person should also be able to see that, depending on what perfectly valid values and perspective someone has, someone can reasonably favor those assumptions as erring on the side of what they think is important.

    Now, maybe somebody further down the thread put forth a better argument than "you suck!" or "you're insane" and then this poster just crumbled, but judging from this post alone, this is the kind of person I want out there voting, even if they're voting against what I'm voting for. It looks like this guy can actually think! *GASP* And judging from the couple of posts I can see that immediately address it, some people aren't nearly as good at that (or they know something that everybody else on the planet doesn't and are keeping it from us to protect their shot at a Nobel Prize).

    Usually, it's people with really feeble and irrational arguments for an opposing side that just attack people like this, which tells us more about them than the poster they're trying to silence. I never realized why people were willing to pay me $50-$100 an hour to teach logic and argumentation until I started seeing how bad most people were at it... yeesh. I wonder - is it Autism or just ignorance?

    grendel824_ on
  • Options
    Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Sepah wrote: »
    I believe that abortion in general should be illegal, and only allowed under specific conditions....

    I noticed this opinion get bashed a hell of a lot, but in all honesty it's a well-reasoned and valid opinion that has every possiblity of being morally correct. I don't agree with it. Some because I completely disagree, some because of assumptions I'm just not sure enough about to change my mind. I don't think that I'd vote for a candidate with this platform over a more moderate one simply because it takes a more extreme side.

    What's refreshing is that it's rational and defensible. If one makes certain assumptions that are as yet unproven but as yet still valid, the conclusion that follows is a solid one. Usually someone on a similarly extreme side has giant, gaping holes in their argument that they simply refuse to acknowledge when confronted with and they just zealously pursue their POV. This isn't one of those (which is why it's disappointing to see people bash it simply because they feel extremely differently). Logically, if certain things are true (which have yet to be proven satisfactorily either way), then his argument makes absolute sense. A rational person should also be able to see that, depending on what perfectly valid values and perspective someone has, someone can reasonably favor those assumptions as erring on the side of what they think is important.

    Now, maybe somebody further down the thread put forth a better argument than "you suck!" or "you're insane" and then this poster just crumbled, but judging from this post alone, this is the kind of person I want out there voting, even if they're voting against what I'm voting for. It looks like this guy can actually think! *GASP* And judging from the couple of posts I can see that immediately address it, some people aren't nearly as good at that (or they know something that everybody else on the planet doesn't and are keeping it from us to protect their shot at a Nobel Prize).

    Usually, it's people with really feeble and irrational arguments for an opposing side that just attack people like this, which tells us more about them than the poster they're trying to silence. I never realized why people were willing to pay me $50-$100 an hour to teach logic and argumentation until I started seeing how bad most people were at it... yeesh. I wonder - is it Autism or just ignorance?

    I'll try to make this logical:

    I usually grade the "correct" response to a situation by analyzing the situation in question through different filters. First, deciding the morality of the choice. In the case of abortions, until the fetus is viable, the morality of its termination can be argued either way. Hence the morality in the case of abortion is ambiguous, and its legality can't be decided based on whether the action is moral or not. This is due to the difficulty of deciding whether aborting a non-viable fetus is moral or not.

    As the legality of abortion can't be decided through moral examination, the next issue is to examine the effects of the action of aborting the fetus on people connected to the event. In this case, abortion can have beneficial effects on the mother, be it physiological, financial, whatever has been mentioned in the thread already. Keeping the fetus has the potential to cause far more harm than good, if the mother is not financially stable. It would impede with her ability to work, even if given to adoption. This would lean towards allowing abortions. Making abortions illegal would also have the fetus' rights override the mother's, which is more than a bit dicey, considering that a fetus' status of personhood is highly ambiguous, and even an established person can't override someone else's rights. Why should the fetus, who hasn't been confirmed as a person, have rights that exceed those of an established person?

    Lastly, examining the effect of allowing abortions on the society. If abortions were illegal, the effects on the society are largely negative. Crime, illegal abortions --> deaths, and a bunch of others previously mentioned in this thread. Legal abortions would eliminate most of these, as an abortion in a clinic is safer by orders of magnitude, than one made by a hack in a back alley. Legal abortions would also function as a safety net for couples that do not wish a child(due to whatever) in the event of contraception not functioning as intended.

    Looking at abortion through the three different 'filters', the first one is ambiguous, second leans towards allowing abortions, and third leans towards allowing abortions. The total comes to allowing legal abortions.

    Also, I never include religion in my analysis. Religion and logical thinking are like water and oil.


    @Grendel: As far as I can consider the situation, an ambiguous argument about morality that would ultimately be destructive to society is inferior to an ambiguous argument about morality that would be more beneficial to society in comparison.

    Rhan9 on
  • Options
    SnarfmasterSnarfmaster Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    My opinions on this topic have changed drastically over the years. From completely anti-abortion in high school. To Somewhere in between in college. At this point being married with a kid on the way and living and workin in the real world once again things changed.

    If my wife were ever in any kind of danger and losing the baby mean increasing her survival by any kind of % it would be done in a second. No matter what the trimester or developmental stage of the fetus. My wife first and potential offspring second.

    Also, when you get out in the real world and meet more and more people, you begin to realize how stupid many of those people are. Then you thank god for legal abortion or else there would be more of them.

    Snarfmaster on
  • Options
    grendel824_grendel824_ Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Rhan9 wrote: »

    @Grendel: As far as I can consider the situation, an ambiguous argument about morality that would ultimately be destructive to society is inferior to an ambiguous argument about morality that would be more beneficial to society in comparison.

    I actually agree a lot more with you - you sound much closer to my stance at the moment. I just cast my vote for somebody arguing the way you and the person I quoted did as opposed to just hurling insults. Surely you'd rather see someboy who disagrees with you about something state their own case in a self-consistent, well-thought-out manner. That way, it can boil down to a conflict of slightly different values as opposed to the assumption that your opponent is an evil being who means us all ill and must be driven from expressing his opinion at all costs. The way you and he presented your arguments, you showed that you had the ability to state your cases in a rational manner and differ primarily in how much value you place on certain values (erring on the side of caution or not, erring on the side of not risking something evil, and basically disagreeing on how destructive an unproven hypothetical might be and deciding to the best of your ability).

    If some Nazi (I'm not equating any poster's ideas with that, just using a ridiculously extreme example) came on explaining why he believes what he does in that way, I'd still have to applaud the manner in which he did so and voice my disapproval of the people who effectively shouted him down rather than attempt to refute his points or find flaws in his argument. Those kinds of people basically help the cases of those they attack. Saying "You're a dick" doesn't do anything but make the side the heckler is on seem like they're making up for a lack of reasonable support for their ideas with hostility.

    Basically, it's a tough issue with lots of ambiguities - it's the height of stupidity to assume that one's own stance is unassailably correct and someone else's is utterly evil or dead wrong. If someone doesn't realize that there are most definitely unknowns involved that, if proven one way or another, could quite easily prove their current stance to be wrong, they don't know enough about the subject to be able to argue it responsibly. They should sit on the sidelines and try to learn something rather than acting as ignorant as they are. If the poster's I've quoted end up being wrong, they can at least know that they ended up wrong for the right reasons and came to their stances in a responsible manner. Whereas people who end up being correct but who never bothered to examine their reasoning would be much less respectable.

    I'd say that somebody who believes the world is flat for a number of observable reasons (what I understand to be illusions of relative perception) is a lot smarter than somebody who claims it's round and gives the "fact" that 2+2= 7 as their reason.

    grendel824_ on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    As far as I know, the United States has the most liberal abortion laws in the western world.

    How are women as a whole fairing in countries with more restrictive abortion policies? It would be interesting to see the link between the status of women and abortion illustrated.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Shinto wrote: »
    As far as I know, the United States has the most liberal abortion laws in the western world.

    How are women as a whole fairing in countries with more restrictive abortion policies? It would be interesting to see the link between the status of women and abortion illustrated.
    Poorer, more likely to die in childbirth or of stuff like ectopic pregnancies, more likely to become dependant on people who no one should be dependant on, the kids are sicker and poorer and more likely to kick off before age 5. In a nutshell. A link, and another link. The abortion rate doesn't differ appreciably, its just a whole lot more dangerous.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    As far as I know, the United States has the most liberal abortion laws in the western world.

    How are women as a whole fairing in countries with more restrictive abortion policies? It would be interesting to see the link between the status of women and abortion illustrated.
    Poorer, more likely to die in childbirth or of stuff like ectopic pregnancies, more likely to become dependant on people who no one should be dependant on, the kids are sicker and poorer and more likely to kick off before age 5. In a nutshell. A link, and another link. The abortion rate doesn't differ appreciably, its just a whole lot more dangerous.

    No no no. I mean how are the abortion laws different in other western countries and how are the women there doing. That's a little more germane to the question of changing laws here in America than examples from Uganda or Latin America or even Ireland.

    What are some metrics we can use relating to women's social status to make a comparison? Percentage of women in politics? Other suggestions?

    We can compare Belgium, Denmark, Sweden who allow it under all conditions with, say, France, Germany and Switzerland who allow it only in the first trimester under certain conditions.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Also the Guttmacher Institute are pretty much the go-to for that kind of question.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    oh, ok. Interesting question. I mean, technically they're illegal unless you threaten to off yourself here, but in practice they're easier to access and medicare pays.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Also, I don't think you're at all correct about US abortion law being the most liberal. Especially not at the state level. Enforced waiting periods, mandatory 'counselling' contracted out to fundies, excessive regulation placed on the physical form of facilities where abortions are provided in order to red-tape them out of existence, etc etc build up to paint a rather less liberal picture in practice than in theory. And then there's the PBA ban and the global gag rule...

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Also, I don't think you're at all correct about US abortion law being the most liberal. Especially not at the state level. Enforced waiting periods, mandatory 'counselling' contracted out to fundies, excessive regulation placed on the physical form of facilities where abortions are provided in order to red-tape them out of existence, etc etc build up to paint a rather less liberal picture in practice than in theory. And then there's the PBA ban and the global gag rule...

    Yeah, I've heard that something like 32% of women don't have access to an abortion clinic in their county.

    I don't know how well that stacks up into real access, because it seems like this is one of those things you'd be willing to drive three or four hours for.

    So the proposed comparison could be bogged down in the circumstantial details. I might still look into it later, even if the results have to be taken with a grain of salt.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    87% of counties don't have a clinic, which roughly translates to 2/3rds of american women not having one nearby. Or remotely nearby, there's only one in Mississippi. And being willing to drive that far doesn't translate into being able to. No car or no access to one screws the poor and the young, and the addition of waiting periods stuffs them further and adds into the 'screwed' category those employed in jobs where they can't take the time off without being fired, as well as women with other children to watch and no-one to look after them while they're gone. The effect of those regulations is to drive the expense to the woman up, so they often wind up having to have later-term abortions after they've saved enough money. Which of course is problematic for those who think the age of the fetus matters a lot.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.