Options

ITT the abortions of strawmen

1356718

Posts

  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    If Obama or Hillary wins, and get 2 justices in, it is over for the next 20 years.
    ...What? I somehow doubt either of the two would appoint anyone with conservative-leaning views to any of the hypothetical open seats.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Do you even understand the concept of Starry Decisis? Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned, barring the inexplicable appointment of 9 rabidly "pro-life" justices to the bench.
    No, I don't think I am understanding it in the way you would like. The whole neo nazi jew metaphor was a bit much, don't you think?
    What does that silly analogy that wasn't even in the post you're quoting have to do with his argument?
    I am a prolife woman, I therefore am suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, and have been equated with a jew who joins the neo nazi party. All I am trying to point out is that in this specific election cycle for president , that the prolife issue will still bring out the "evangelical voter". If Obama or Hillary wins, and get 2 justices in, it is over for the next 20 years. Why do peolpe here need to insult me to disprove that argument?
    The reason the Evangelical movement is indelibly linked to pro-life candidates is because they've been manipulated by the Republican party into thinking that the only issues that matter are: 1) Getting rid of a bunch of cells/saving a woman's life is murder; 2) Gays are the biggest threat to the American way of life; 3) Tax cuts are what Jesus would want.

    They allow themselves to be easily manipulated because of their hostility towards education, and their anti-intellectualism. So, the movement is mostly people who are willfully choosing to be stupid. That's not insulting, that's just plain objective fact.

    And yeah, they're probably going to turn out in force for Huckabee.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    If Obama or Hillary wins, and get 2 justices in, it is over for the next 20 years.
    ...What? I somehow doubt either of the two would appoint anyone with conservative-leaning views to any of the hypothetical open seats.

    Exactly they would appoint prochoice canidates, the abortion fight in the courts would be over for 20 years because the swing votes would be for striking down any challenges to RvW.

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'd argue that he who fails to acknowledge that a sizable portion of the people who would like to see abortion outlawed include a health exception are in fact the retarded ones.
    Logically inconsistent, sure, but I'd love to see you argue that caring about women's health is 'retarded'.

    It's like you're not reading what I'm writing!

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    If Obama or Hillary wins, and get 2 justices in, it is over for the next 20 years.
    ...What? I somehow doubt either of the two would appoint anyone with conservative-leaning views to any of the hypothetical open seats.

    Psst, I think she(?) meant that it would be over for the "pro lifers".
    I still haven't heard any compelling argument for a conservative president being able to, once he has to nominate a judge, to nominate someone who is pro abortion and not get tons and tons and tons of shit for it. Like the abortion people are cheering at their table and then he reads up some name that won't vote for abortion and they'll choke and get up the torches and hay forks.

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    D'oh, misread that.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'd argue that he who fails to acknowledge that a sizable portion of the people who would like to see abortion outlawed include a health exception are in fact the retarded ones.
    Logically inconsistent, sure, but I'd love to see you argue that caring about women's health is 'retarded'.

    It's like you're not reading what I'm writing!

    She doesn't need to. Even if you are in favour of outlawing abortion and including a health exception, you are a fundie that thinks it should be illegal to terminate a pregnancy that threatens a woman's life.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Unless the Republicans hold a supermajority of Congress a pro-life candidate will not get through confirmation, period, fullstop, kthxbai.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'd argue that he who fails to acknowledge that a sizable portion of the people who would like to see abortion outlawed include a health exception are in fact the retarded ones.
    Logically inconsistent, sure, but I'd love to see you argue that caring about women's health is 'retarded'.

    It's like you're not reading what I'm writing!

    She doesn't need to. Even if you are in favour of outlawing abortion and including a health exception, you are a fundie that thinks it should be illegal to terminate a pregnancy that threatens a woman's life.
    Is there anyone who believes abortion should be outlawed in all cases except health who isn't a fundie?

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'd argue that he who fails to acknowledge that a sizable portion of the people who would like to see abortion outlawed include a health exception are in fact the retarded ones.
    Logically inconsistent, sure, but I'd love to see you argue that caring about women's health is 'retarded'.

    It's like you're not reading what I'm writing!

    She doesn't need to. Even if you are in favour of outlawing abortion and including a health exception, you are a fundie that thinks it should be illegal to terminate a pregnancy that threatens a woman's life.
    Is there anyone who believes abortion should be outlawed in all cases except health who isn't a fundie?

    That would apply to me if you also threw in pregnancy by rape.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Unless the Republicans hold a supermajority of Congress a pro-life candidate will not get through confirmation, period, fullstop, kthxbai.
    See also: Starry Decisis. Why the fuck is that so hard for people to understand?

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    I'd argue that they who fail to acknowledge that a sizable portion of the people who would like to see abortion outlawed include a health exception are in fact the retarded ones.

    Except the vast majority of deaths would come from people who would not be able to get a health exception and, without access to safe methods of legal abortion, turn to unsafe practices. There's a reason people like to talk about coathangers and back-alley abortions, and that reason is, before abortion was legal, many many many women died trying to stop being pregnant. So, really, the least despicable motivation assignable to anti-abortioners is that they care about potential people far more than they care about actual people.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'd argue that he who fails to acknowledge that a sizable portion of the people who would like to see abortion outlawed include a health exception are in fact the retarded ones.
    Logically inconsistent, sure, but I'd love to see you argue that caring about women's health is 'retarded'.

    It's like you're not reading what I'm writing!

    She doesn't need to. Even if you are in favour of outlawing abortion and including a health exception, you are a fundie that thinks it should be illegal to terminate a pregnancy that threatens a woman's life.
    Is there anyone who believes abortion should be outlawed in all cases except health who isn't a fundie?

    That would apply to me if you also threw in pregnancy by rape.
    So you're a secular pro-choicer? Mind if I ask what, exactly, is your reasoning?

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're a secular pro-lifer? Mind if I ask what, exactly, is your reasoning?

    Fixed.

    Simply lower standards for what should be considered human.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Do you even understand the concept of Starry Decisis? Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned, barring the inexplicable appointment of 9 rabidly "pro-life" justices to the bench.
    No, I don't think I am understanding it in the way you would like. The whole neo nazi jew metaphor was a bit much, don't you think?
    What does that silly analogy that wasn't even in the post you're quoting have to do with his argument?
    I am a prolife woman, I therefore am suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, and have been equated with a jew who joins the neo nazi party. All I am trying to point out is that in this specific election cycle for president , that the prolife issue will still bring out the "evangelical voter". If Obama or Hillary wins, and get 2 justices in, it is over for the next 20 years. Why do peolpe here need to insult me to disprove that argument?
    The reason the Evangelical movement is indelibly linked to pro-life candidates is because they've been manipulated by the Republican party into thinking that the only issues that matter are: 1) Getting rid of a bunch of cells/saving a woman's life is murder; 2) Gays are the biggest threat to the American way of life; 3) Tax cuts are what Jesus would want.

    They allow themselves to be easily manipulated because of their hostility towards education, and their anti-intellectualism. So, the movement is mostly people who are willfully choosing to be stupid. That's not insulting, that's just plain objective fact.

    And yeah, they're probably going to turn out in force for Huckabee.

    See you put the word mostly in there, and that may be true, because MOST people prolife or prochoice do willful chose to be stupid, I don't think I am one of them, so i'm not insulted. Yeah, the obsession with "the gays are worse than terrorists" is ridiculous.

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'd argue that he who fails to acknowledge that a sizable portion of the people who would like to see abortion outlawed include a health exception are in fact the retarded ones.
    Logically inconsistent, sure, but I'd love to see you argue that caring about women's health is 'retarded'.

    It's like you're not reading what I'm writing!

    She doesn't need to. Even if you are in favour of outlawing abortion and including a health exception, you are a fundie that thinks it should be illegal to terminate a pregnancy that threatens a woman's life.
    Is there anyone who believes abortion should be outlawed in all cases except health who isn't a fundie?

    That would apply to me if you also threw in pregnancy by rape.

    Highfives!

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're a secular pro-choicer? Mind if I ask what, exactly, is your reasoning?

    Simply lower standards for what should be considered human.

    yeah, women don't count. Otherwise you'd be letting them make their own damned decisions.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're a secular pro-choicer? Mind if I ask what, exactly, is your reasoning?

    Simply lower standards for what should be considered human.

    It doesn't matter if you consider a fetus human, or a person (which is what I suspect you mean; nobody argues that fetuses aren't human). That doesn't really have any bearing on whether abortion should be legal.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're a secular pro-choicer? Mind if I ask what, exactly, is your reasoning?

    Simply lower standards for what should be considered human.

    yeah, women don't count. Otherwise you'd be letting them make their own damned decisions.
    Why are you voicing your opinion instead of freshening my drink, woman?

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're a secular pro-choicer? Mind if I ask what, exactly, is your reasoning?

    Simply lower standards for what should be considered human.

    yeah, women don't count. Otherwise you'd be letting them make their own damned decisions.

    Nice strawman. For the sake of simplicity I'll respond as if it were an actual argument.

    Women, just like men, are perfectly free to make their own decisions as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's human rights. I am of the opinion that a zygote is human, thus terminating it without just cause is infringing on its human right to live.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're a secular pro-choicer? Mind if I ask what, exactly, is your reasoning?

    Simply lower standards for what should be considered human.

    yeah, women don't count. Otherwise you'd be letting them make their own damned decisions.

    Nice strawman. For the sake of simplicity I'll respond as if it were an actual argument.

    Women, just like men, are perfectly free to make their own decisions as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's human rights. I am of the opinion that a zygote is human, thus terminating it without just cause is infringing on its human right to live.

    And forcing a woman to sustain it with her own body is infringing on her right to bodily integrity.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're a secular pro-choicer? Mind if I ask what, exactly, is your reasoning?

    Simply lower standards for what should be considered human.

    yeah, women don't count. Otherwise you'd be letting them make their own damned decisions.

    Nice strawman. For the sake of simplicity I'll respond as if it were an actual argument.

    Women, just like men, are perfectly free to make their own decisions as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's human rights. I am of the opinion that a zygote is human, thus terminating it without just cause is infringing on its human right to live.

    And forcing a woman to sustain it with her own body is infringing on her right to bodily integrity.

    Ignoring the fact that a woman has the right to not get pregnant, because apparently you don't want to recognise that, I'll just say that this is a right which has a lower priority than another person's right to live.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're a secular pro-choicer? Mind if I ask what, exactly, is your reasoning?

    Simply lower standards for what should be considered human.

    yeah, women don't count. Otherwise you'd be letting them make their own damned decisions.

    Nice strawman. For the sake of simplicity I'll respond as if it were an actual argument.

    Women, just like men, are perfectly free to make their own decisions as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's human rights. I am of the opinion that a zygote is human, thus terminating it without just cause is infringing on its human right to live.
    Without cause? I think you'll find most women have a reason in mind when they go through with the procedure. In fact, it may surprise you to learn that most of the time the reason is "I don't want another child."

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're a secular pro-choicer? Mind if I ask what, exactly, is your reasoning?

    Simply lower standards for what should be considered human.

    yeah, women don't count. Otherwise you'd be letting them make their own damned decisions.

    Nice strawman. For the sake of simplicity I'll respond as if it were an actual argument.

    Women, just like men, are perfectly free to make their own decisions as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's human rights. I am of the opinion that a zygote is human, thus terminating it without just cause is infringing on its human right to live.
    Without cause? I think you'll find most women have a reason in mind when they go through with the procedure. In fact, it may surprise you to learn that most of the time the reason is "I don't want another child."

    The keyword is "just".

    "Having this child will kill both of us" is a just cause. "I don't want another child" is not.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're a secular pro-choicer? Mind if I ask what, exactly, is your reasoning?

    Simply lower standards for what should be considered human.

    yeah, women don't count. Otherwise you'd be letting them make their own damned decisions.

    Nice strawman. For the sake of simplicity I'll respond as if it were an actual argument.

    Women, just like men, are perfectly free to make their own decisions as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's human rights. I am of the opinion that a zygote is human, thus terminating it without just cause is infringing on its human right to live.

    And forcing a woman to sustain it with her own body is infringing on her right to bodily integrity.

    Ignoring the fact that a woman has the right to not get pregnant, because apparently you don't want to recognise that, I'll just say that this is a right which has a lower priority than another person's right to live.

    Actually, no. The U.S. government in particular prioritizes the right to bodily integrity over the right to live. There was a case fairly recently where a man tried to force his cousin to donate an organ to save his life; this violated the cousin's bodily integrity, so the man did not get the organ and (I believe) died.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're a secular pro-choicer? Mind if I ask what, exactly, is your reasoning?

    Simply lower standards for what should be considered human.

    yeah, women don't count. Otherwise you'd be letting them make their own damned decisions.

    Nice strawman. For the sake of simplicity I'll respond as if it were an actual argument.

    Women, just like men, are perfectly free to make their own decisions as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's human rights. I am of the opinion that a zygote is human, thus terminating it without just cause is infringing on its human right to live.

    And forcing a woman to sustain it with her own body is infringing on her right to bodily integrity.

    Ignoring the fact that a woman has the right to not get pregnant, because apparently you don't want to recognise that, I'll just say that this is a right which has a lower priority than another person's right to live.

    You know women can choose to be pregnant much like one can choose to jump off a bridge. But sometimes these things just happen.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    It's taken me a while to figure out my own stance on abortion, and I guess I'm still not entirely sure of the specifics.

    Of course, it'd be best if no one ever needed one, but the world isn't perfect.

    When used to preserve the health of the mother, it essentially comes down to the mother's decision, with help of doctors and counselors. It'd be nice to include the father's input in the fate of his potential child, but too many fucked up situations would arise from that.

    When it comes to personal reasons... it's less pleasant to contemplate, of course. A total ban is only necessary when one equates zygote with a person- not my personal stance. Besides the benefit of fewer children without adequate care, the prevention of back-alley abortions should be reason enough to keep the procedure available in the relatively safe environs of clinics.

    The problem for me is figuring out when in development to set the cutoff for non-medically motivated abortions. Of course the distinction between 1 day before both and 1 day after is negligible, but it's tough to say where to put it past that, or whether such a thing needs to be put into law. One would generally trust most doctors to not do anything bad for the health of their patients, but not all. Ideally, I'd like to put it at the point of sentience, but the definition for that is so vague that could even be argued to be weeks after birth. I'm under the impression that the vast majority of abortions occur before significant cognitive function, which I think I can come to terms with.

    In cases of rape... I would never want a child put into this world who's mother had such a good reason to not love. Not sure if the hypothetical limit on cognitive function before termination should be any different, though.

    I think I'm gonna go look at pictures of unicorns now.

    Tarantio on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're a secular pro-choicer? Mind if I ask what, exactly, is your reasoning?

    Simply lower standards for what should be considered human.

    yeah, women don't count. Otherwise you'd be letting them make their own damned decisions.

    Nice strawman. For the sake of simplicity I'll respond as if it were an actual argument.

    Women, just like men, are perfectly free to make their own decisions as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's human rights. I am of the opinion that a zygote is human, thus terminating it without just cause is infringing on its human right to live.

    Nonsensical. The argument concerning abortion legality is primarily about whether one body is legally obliged to physically support another body when they demand it. So unless you want to hand over a kidney to the first person who needs it, your position is not consistent. Moral arguments should not be conflated with legal ones. You're entitled to act on your own morals, but not to inflict them on people who do not share them.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Tarantio wrote: »
    When used to preserve the health of the mother, it essentially comes down to the mother's decision, with help of doctors and counselors. It'd be nice to include the father's input in the fate of his potential child, but too many fucked up situations would arise from that.
    This is pretty silly; in the vast majority of cases the woman willingly includes the father in the debate. This is because contrary to the apparent opinion of many pro-lifers, women aren't actually heartless deceptive harpies.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    So unless you want to hand over a kidney to the first person who needs it, your position is not consistent.

    Seems reasonable. If someone will die without a kidney transplant, and I can live with one, I don't see why I shouldn't donate it.

    As far as mixing morality with legality goes, I disagree. I want the laws of my nation to reflect my values. Given my position that a person is a person from its conception, I don't think there's anything unreasonable about mine.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    The keyword is "just".
    Yeah, too bad you didn't use that in your original statement.

    And lets not forget that what is "just" is a case of beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's not an immutable universal truth.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    So unless you want to hand over a kidney to the first person who needs it, your position is not consistent.

    Seems reasonable. If someone will die without a kidney transplant, and I can live with one, I don't see why I shouldn't donate it.

    So do that, but you still don't get to pass laws mandating that everyone else has to.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    So unless you want to hand over a kidney to the first person who needs it, your position is not consistent.

    Seems reasonable. If someone will die without a kidney transplant, and I can live with one, I don't see why I shouldn't donate it.
    You're not going to be donating it.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    So unless you want to hand over a kidney to the first person who needs it, your position is not consistent.

    Seems reasonable. If someone will die without a kidney transplant, and I can live with one, I don't see why I shouldn't donate it.

    So do that, but you still don't get to pass laws mandating that everyone else has to.
    This is the reason being an organ donor isn't compulsory, and why parents can't be forced to give up an organ for their child who is in need of a transplant, and vice versa.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The keyword is "just".
    Yeah, too bad you didn't use that in your original statement.

    I thought I might have forgotten to when I saw your post, but no, it's there. Read it again.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Tarantio wrote: »
    When used to preserve the health of the mother, it essentially comes down to the mother's decision, with help of doctors and counselors. It'd be nice to include the father's input in the fate of his potential child, but too many fucked up situations would arise from that.
    This is pretty silly; in the vast majority of cases the woman willingly includes the father in the debate. This is because contrary to the apparent opinion of many pro-lifers, women aren't actually heartless deceptive harpies.

    Oh, I agree that most involve the father.

    I was attempting to say that it might be nice to require consent of father, just so a person wouldn't have to see their potential child terminated against his will- but that this would never work, because such legal requirements would of course lead to back alley abortions in the worst of cases, not really helping anyone.

    Tarantio on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The keyword is "just".
    Yeah, too bad you didn't use that in your original statement.

    I thought I might have forgotten to when I saw your post, but no, it's there. Read it again.
    Still doesn't change the fact that "what is just" is relative to the individual. One man's just cause is another man's campaign of terror.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    So unless you want to hand over a kidney to the first person who needs it, your position is not consistent.

    Seems reasonable. If someone will die without a kidney transplant, and I can live with one, I don't see why I shouldn't donate it.

    As far as mixing morality with legality goes, I disagree. I want the laws of my nation to reflect my values. Given my position that a person is a person from its conception, I don't think there's anything unreasonable about mine.

    Do you want to pass laws mandating organ donation, though? As if, if someone is a suitable donor for someone else that needs an organ, the state can force them to give up their own body parts?

    You might want to look at this http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/judpol/mcfall.html, particularly the part which says "For a society, which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concept of jurisprudence."

    Edited because I fail at tags.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Tarantio wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Tarantio wrote: »
    When used to preserve the health of the mother, it essentially comes down to the mother's decision, with help of doctors and counselors. It'd be nice to include the father's input in the fate of his potential child, but too many fucked up situations would arise from that.
    This is pretty silly; in the vast majority of cases the woman willingly includes the father in the debate. This is because contrary to the apparent opinion of many pro-lifers, women aren't actually heartless deceptive harpies.

    Oh, I agree that most involve the father.

    I was attempting to say that it might be nice to require consent of father, just so a person wouldn't have to see their potential child terminated against his will- but that this would never work, because such legal requirements would of course lead to back alley abortions in the worst of cases, not really helping anyone.

    No, we should never require the consent of the father because it is not his body which is going to be bearing the child.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    AndorienAndorien Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    So unless you want to hand over a kidney to the first person who needs it, your position is not consistent.

    Seems reasonable. If someone will die without a kidney transplant, and I can live with one, I don't see why I shouldn't donate it.

    Great, good for you. Doesn't mean you get to pass laws forcing everyone else too.

    Hell, conservatives like to bitch about the welfare state, you'd think they'd be fine with abortion :P

    Andorien on
Sign In or Register to comment.