Options

ITT the abortions of strawmen

1246718

Posts

  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    And before it starts, can we please not compare taxation with mandatory organ donation? They're not even remotely similar, so please please please don't start that shit in here.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    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.

    And that's great and all, but someone has to draw the line. In the civilized world this someone is the government, who has the sole right to determine what is and is not just. And we're talking about the government doing so. So that argument is kinda moot.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    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.

    This is why we have a justice system. Right now, our judicial system has come to the conclusion that abortion is okay. I disagree with this, but I accept their ruling because, for the most part, I believe in the system, for all its flaws. Which is why you won't see me bombing any abortion clinics. You will, however, see me arguing against it as I am right now, because that is how the system works.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA 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.

    yeah, that's not ok. Giving these morons any power is sheer lunacy.
    Chris Aubert, a Houston lawyer, felt only indifference in 1985 when a girlfriend told him she was pregnant and planned on an abortion. When she asked if he wanted to come to the clinic, he said he couldn’t; he played softball on Saturdays. He stuck a check for $200 in her door and never talked to her again.
    Aubert, 50, was equally untroubled when another girlfriend had an abortion in 1991. “It was a complete irrelevancy,” he said. But years later, Aubert felt a rising sense of unease. He and his wife were cooing at an ultrasound of their first baby when it struck him — “from the depths of my belly,” he said — that abortion was wrong.
    Aubert has since converted to Catholicism. He and his wife have five children, and they sometimes protest in front of abortion clinics. Every now and then, though, Aubert wonders: What if his first girlfriend had not aborted? How would his life look different?
    He might have endured a loveless marriage and, perhaps, a sad divorce. He might have been saddled with child support as he tried to build his legal practice. He might never have met his wife. Their children — Christine, Kyle, Roch, Paul, Vance — might not exist.
    “I wouldn’t have the blessings I have now,” Aubert said. So in a way, he said, the two abortions may have cleared his path to future happiness.
    “That’s an intellectual debate I have with myself,” he said. “I struggle with it.”
    In the end, Aubert says his moral objection to abortion always wins. If he could go back in time, he would try to save the babies.
    But would his long-ago girlfriends agree? Or might they also consider the abortions a choice that set them on a better path?
    Aubert looks startled. “I never really thought about it for the woman,” he says slowly.
    I never really thought about it for the woman



    I never really thought about it for the woman




    yeah. just about sums it up.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    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.

    This is why we have a justice system. Right now, our judicial system has come to the conclusion that abortion is okay. I disagree with this, but I accept their ruling because, for the most part, I believe in the system, for all its flaws. Which is why you won't see me bombing any abortion clinics.
    How about this: there's a whole bunch of undesirable externalities that going along with banning abortion, so keeping it legal is really the lesser of two evils, if you like.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    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.

    This is why we have a justice system. Right now, our judicial system has come to the conclusion that abortion is okay. I disagree with this, but I accept their ruling because, for the most part, I believe in the system, for all its flaws. Which is why you won't see me bombing any abortion clinics.
    How about this: there's a whole bunch of undesirable externalities that going along with banning abortion, so keeping it legal is really the lesser of two evils, if you like.

    I've never been a big fan of taking the path of least resistance. Taming the greater evil may be very difficult, but if it can be done, I don't see that as worse than laying down for the lesser one.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    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.

    This is why we have a justice system. Right now, our judicial system has come to the conclusion that abortion is okay. I disagree with this, but I accept their ruling because, for the most part, I believe in the system, for all its flaws. Which is why you won't see me bombing any abortion clinics.
    How about this: there's a whole bunch of undesirable externalities that going along with banning abortion, so keeping it legal is really the lesser of two evils, if you like.

    The road to hell...

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Yeah, those are the sorts of fucked up situations I referred to in the first post.

    And yeah, I think I can agree I'm uncomfortable with letting any person control the bodily functions of another person, so add that on to the list of reasons, too.

    Tarantio on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    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.

    This is why we have a justice system. Right now, our judicial system has come to the conclusion that abortion is okay. I disagree with this, but I accept their ruling because, for the most part, I believe in the system, for all its flaws. Which is why you won't see me bombing any abortion clinics.
    How about this: there's a whole bunch of undesirable externalities that going along with banning abortion, so keeping it legal is really the lesser of two evils, if you like.

    The road to hell...

    ...is paved with lowered poverty rates, lower infant and maternal mortality, higher standard of living among poor families...?


    edit: gof damn bottom paging rar

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    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.

    This is why we have a justice system. Right now, our judicial system has come to the conclusion that abortion is okay. I disagree with this, but I accept their ruling because, for the most part, I believe in the system, for all its flaws. Which is why you won't see me bombing any abortion clinics.
    How about this: there's a whole bunch of undesirable externalities that going along with banning abortion, so keeping it legal is really the lesser of two evils, if you like.

    I've never been a big fan of taking the path of least resistance. Taming the greater evil may be very difficult, but if it can be done, I don't see that as worse than laying down for the lesser one.
    Well you see I've got this plan where we'll disperse an artificial nanite into the upper atmosphere that will slowly be uptaken by the entire human population. By entering a trance like the state, people will then be able to adjust their fertility and perform other diagnostics on their bodily functions. By applying specialized bindings to the protein coat of ovum, even when fertility is active in both partners the system will wait on an official ok before allowing fetal development to commence, and the zygote will be stored in a state of suspended animation by re-attaching to the surface of the ovary.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Well you see I've got this plan where we'll disperse an artificial nanite into the upper atmosphere that will slowly be uptaken by the entire human population. By entering a trance like the state, people will then be able to adjust their fertility and perform other diagnostics on their bodily functions. By applying specialized bindings to the protein coat of ovum, even when fertility is active in both partners the system will wait on an official ok before allowing fetal development to commence, and the zygote will be stored in a state of suspended animation by re-attaching to the surface of the ovary.

    :^:

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    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.

    This is why we have a justice system. Right now, our judicial system has come to the conclusion that abortion is okay. I disagree with this, but I accept their ruling because, for the most part, I believe in the system, for all its flaws. Which is why you won't see me bombing any abortion clinics.
    How about this: there's a whole bunch of undesirable externalities that going along with banning abortion, so keeping it legal is really the lesser of two evils, if you like.

    The road to hell...

    ...is paved with lowered poverty rates, lower infant and maternal mortality, higher standard of living among poor families...?

    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    I've never been a big fan of taking the path of least resistance. Taming the greater evil may be very difficult, but if it can be done, I don't see that as worse than laying down for the lesser one.
    Too bad the people who want to ban abortion are also the same people who want to eliminate the social safety net, otherwise you might have something*.
    *: You still wouldn't have anything.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    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.

    This is why we have a justice system. Right now, our judicial system has come to the conclusion that abortion is okay. I disagree with this, but I accept their ruling because, for the most part, I believe in the system, for all its flaws. Which is why you won't see me bombing any abortion clinics.
    How about this: there's a whole bunch of undesirable externalities that going along with banning abortion, so keeping it legal is really the lesser of two evils, if you like.

    The road to hell...

    ...is paved with lowered poverty rates, lower infant and maternal mortality, higher standard of living among poor families...?

    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You can justify an awful lot by selectively redefining terms and contexts.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You say that like the alternative is somehow better.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    I've never been a big fan of taking the path of least resistance. Taming the greater evil may be very difficult, but if it can be done, I don't see that as worse than laying down for the lesser one.
    Too bad the people who want to ban abortion are also the same people who want to eliminate the social safety net, otherwise you might have something*.
    *: You still wouldn't have anything.

    I am not any of those people.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    I've never been a big fan of taking the path of least resistance. Taming the greater evil may be very difficult, but if it can be done, I don't see that as worse than laying down for the lesser one.
    Too bad the people who want to ban abortion are also the same people who want to eliminate the social safety net, otherwise you might have something*.
    *: You still wouldn't have anything.

    I am not any of those people.
    So you don't want to ban abortion? Nifty.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »

    The road to hell...

    ...is paved with lowered poverty rates, lower infant and maternal mortality, higher standard of living among poor families...?


    edit: gof damn bottom paging rar

    That particular argument tends to bother me, in that it's reminiscent of eugenics. It's all true, of course- but I don't feel comfortable at all saying that abortion should be legal, in part, because poor people would reproduce less.

    This isn't an attack- those are several of the actual benefits to society from this law. Perhaps it's just an idea to keep in mind.

    It also calls to (my) mind the idea of terminating pregnancies for genetic disorders... or certain mutations... or being imperfect in any way. Maybe I've watched too much science fiction, but I wouldn't want legislators to forget that some terrible things could come of initially good ideas.

    Tarantio on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    I've never been a big fan of taking the path of least resistance. Taming the greater evil may be very difficult, but if it can be done, I don't see that as worse than laying down for the lesser one.
    Too bad the people who want to ban abortion are also the same people who want to eliminate the social safety net, otherwise you might have something*.
    *: You still wouldn't have anything.

    I am not any of those people.
    So you don't want to ban abortion? Nifty.

    Cute.

    I said "I'm not any of those people" not "I have absolutely nothing in common with those people".

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You say that like the alternative is somehow better.
    I say that like "killing people for utilitarian reasons is pretty much never a good thing."

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    Bloods EndBloods End Blade of Tyshalle Punch dimensionRegistered 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 because contrary to the apparent opinion of many pro-lifers, women aren't actually heartless deceptive harpies.

    Goddammit, now I'm going to have to find a new reason for why I'm alone every friday night.

    Bloods End on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You say that like the alternative is somehow better.

    Didn't you know, it doesn't matter if we completely ignore bodily integrity and cause vast numbers of women to die from the unsafe abortions they would rather have legally and safely? And all those social benefits...who needs lower crime, better health, and greater upward mobility? Pfft. That's all crazy-talk.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    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.

    This is why we have a justice system. Right now, our judicial system has come to the conclusion that abortion is okay. I disagree with this, but I accept their ruling because, for the most part, I believe in the system, for all its flaws. Which is why you won't see me bombing any abortion clinics.
    How about this: there's a whole bunch of undesirable externalities that going along with banning abortion, so keeping it legal is really the lesser of two evils, if you like.

    I've never been a big fan of taking the path of least resistance. Taming the greater evil may be very difficult, but if it can be done, I don't see that as worse than laying down for the lesser one.
    Well you see I've got this plan where we'll disperse an artificial nanite into the upper atmosphere that will slowly be uptaken by the entire human population. By entering a trance like the state, people will then be able to adjust their fertility and perform other diagnostics on their bodily functions. By applying specialized bindings to the protein coat of ovum, even when fertility is active in both partners the system will wait on an official ok before allowing fetal development to commence, and the zygote will be stored in a state of suspended animation by re-attaching to the surface of the ovary.

    Still would not be good enough for some because"only God should open or close the womb". Just warning you.

    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
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You say that like the alternative is somehow better.
    I say that like "killing people for utilitarian reasons is pretty much never a good thing."
    Utility is not necessarily material gain.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You say that like the alternative is somehow better.
    I say that like "killing people for utilitarian reasons is pretty much never a good thing."
    So zygotes are people now? Hoo boy.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Tarantio wrote: »
    That particular argument tends to bother me, in that it's reminiscent of eugenics. It's all true, of course- but I don't feel comfortable at all saying that abortion should be legal, in part, because poor people would reproduce less.

    This isn't an attack- those are several of the actual benefits to society from this law. Perhaps it's just an idea to keep in mind.

    It also calls to (my) mind the idea of terminating pregnancies for genetic disorders... or certain mutations... or being imperfect in any way. Maybe I've watched too much science fiction, but I wouldn't want legislators to forget that some terrible things could come of initially good ideas.

    The thing is, it's not that poor people should reproduce less. It's that everyone has a right to decide when they do and when they don't want to be pregnant. The pro-choice movement also has a big focus on supporting mothers and children, because the "keeping the pregnancy" should be as free a choice as the alternative.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You say that like the alternative is somehow better.

    Didn't you know, it doesn't matter if we completely ignore bodily integrity and cause vast numbers of women to die from the unsafe abortions they would rather have legally and safely? And all those social benefits...who needs lower crime, better health, and greater upward mobility? Pfft. That's all crazy-talk.

    If we killed all the old people, taxes and health insurance would be lower. Can we do that? I'm cool with lower taxes.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You say that like the alternative is somehow better.

    Didn't you know, it doesn't matter if we completely ignore bodily integrity and cause vast numbers of women to die from the unsafe abortions they would rather have legally and safely? And all those social benefits...who needs lower crime, better health, and greater upward mobility? Pfft. That's all crazy-talk.

    Don't you think it would be more productive to respond to the opposition's argument, rather than an imaginary argument?

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You say that like the alternative is somehow better.

    Didn't you know, it doesn't matter if we completely ignore bodily integrity and cause vast numbers of women to die from the unsafe abortions they would rather have legally and safely? And all those social benefits...who needs lower crime, better health, and greater upward mobility? Pfft. That's all crazy-talk.

    If we killed all the old people, taxes and health insurance would be lower. Can we do that? I'm cool with lower taxes.

    If the old people had to be hooked up to someone else's body to live? Yes, those people can unhook them.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You say that like the alternative is somehow better.

    Didn't you know, it doesn't matter if we completely ignore bodily integrity and cause vast numbers of women to die from the unsafe abortions they would rather have legally and safely? And all those social benefits...who needs lower crime, better health, and greater upward mobility? Pfft. That's all crazy-talk.

    If we killed all the old people, taxes and health insurance would be lower. Can we do that? I'm cool with lower taxes.

    If the old people had to be hooked up to someone else's body to live? Yes, those people can unhook them.

    Not if the old people hosts created the circumstances by which the old people must live off of them.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Tarantio wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »

    The road to hell...

    ...is paved with lowered poverty rates, lower infant and maternal mortality, higher standard of living among poor families...?


    edit: gof damn bottom paging rar

    That particular argument tends to bother me, in that it's reminiscent of eugenics. It's all true, of course- but I don't feel comfortable at all saying that abortion should be legal, in part, because poor people would reproduce less.

    This isn't an attack- those are several of the actual benefits to society from this law. Perhaps it's just an idea to keep in mind.

    It also calls to (my) mind the idea of terminating pregnancies for genetic disorders... or certain mutations... or being imperfect in any way. Maybe I've watched too much science fiction, but I wouldn't want legislators to forget that some terrible things could come of initially good ideas.

    I think you're looking at it in the wrong way. Historically and practically, abortion law determines access to abortion only for poor women, for coloured women, for rural women, groups like that. White, well-off, empowered, whatever - those women have always had the time and money to get what they want safely regardless of legality. A weekend in Mexico or Canada isn't hard to come by for them. Concurrent with this fact, abortion is frequently necessary to preserve the health and/or life of a woman; also one of the chief reasons abortion is sought is due to economic constraints and also a very large proportion of abortion-seeking women are already mothers. When you look at these facts collectively, it becomes fairly plain that banning abortion disproportionately endangers the health and the often already shaky economic status of minority women and their families. Oh, and b) minority women don't receive adequate support from society.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    We can stop the metaphor there guys

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You say that like the alternative is somehow better.

    Didn't you know, it doesn't matter if we completely ignore bodily integrity and cause vast numbers of women to die from the unsafe abortions they would rather have legally and safely? And all those social benefits...who needs lower crime, better health, and greater upward mobility? Pfft. That's all crazy-talk.

    Don't you think it would be more productive to respond to the opposition's argument, rather than an imaginary argument?
    Thing is, that is the result of what you're advocating, whether you realize it or not. He's well within his rights to lambast you for that.

    I swear, this is just like the Ron Paul thread.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You say that like the alternative is somehow better.

    Didn't you know, it doesn't matter if we completely ignore bodily integrity and cause vast numbers of women to die from the unsafe abortions they would rather have legally and safely? And all those social benefits...who needs lower crime, better health, and greater upward mobility? Pfft. That's all crazy-talk.

    Don't you think it would be more productive to respond to the opposition's argument, rather than an imaginary argument?
    Thing is, that is the result of what you're advocating, whether you realize it or not. He's well within his rights to lambast you for that.

    Not really, no, I'm advocating that, barring simply allowing legal and "safe" abortions, we do what we can to prevent unsafe abortions and that we seek the improvement of society through other means.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »

    I think you're looking at it in the wrong way. Historically and practically, abortion law determines access to abortion only for poor women, for coloured women, for rural women, groups like that. White, well-off, empowered, whatever - those women have always had the time and money to get what they want safely regardless of legality. A weekend in Mexico or Canada isn't hard to come by for them. Concurrent with this fact, abortion is frequently necessary to preserve the health and/or life of a woman; also one of the chief reasons abortion is sought is due to economic constraints and also a very large proportion of abortion-seeking women are already mothers. When you look at these facts collectively, it becomes fairly plain that banning abortion disproportionately endangers the health and the often already shaky economic status of minority women and their families. Oh, and b) minority women don't receive adequate support from society.

    Yeah, I can agree with everything there.

    That sort of wording just seems to fill my head with apocalyptic visions, I guess. Carry on.

    Tarantio on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    I'm advocating that, barring simply allowing legal and "safe" abortions, we do what we can to prevent unsafe abortions and that we seek the improvement of society through other means.
    Such as...?

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You say that like the alternative is somehow better.

    Didn't you know, it doesn't matter if we completely ignore bodily integrity and cause vast numbers of women to die from the unsafe abortions they would rather have legally and safely? And all those social benefits...who needs lower crime, better health, and greater upward mobility? Pfft. That's all crazy-talk.

    Don't you think it would be more productive to respond to the opposition's argument, rather than an imaginary argument?

    That is the argument, though: whether bodily integrity and the right of a woman to choose how she will use her own body (which leads to lots and lots of other benefits, mentioned above) should be legally protected. The anti-abortioners say it should not, and then often pretend that outlawing abortion would have no negative effects, or that those negative effects are somehow not important.

    Basically, the choices are:
    Outlawing abortion, which gives you lots of death from back-alley abortions and pregnancy complications, plus the problems caused by people having to have kids they don't want, plus completely ignoring bodily integrity in a way that the U.S. government does not in any other case. However, people get to feel better about clumps of cells.
    or
    Keeping abortion, which allows abortions to be done safely, provides a whole host of social benefits that come from people only having kids they want to have, and preserving bodily integrity. However, some people might feel bad about clumps of cells in other people.

    Given the choice, I'll take the second one.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    I'm advocating that, barring simply allowing legal and "safe" abortions, we do what we can to prevent unsafe abortions and that we seek the improvement of society through other means.
    Such as...?

    That's not the subject of this debate. Really it should be a given that I am not in favour of deliberately allowing society to stagnate simply because I oppose one means of benefiting it.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    You can justify an awful lot of exceptionally horrible stuff with utilitarianism.
    You say that like the alternative is somehow better.

    Didn't you know, it doesn't matter if we completely ignore bodily integrity and cause vast numbers of women to die from the unsafe abortions they would rather have legally and safely? And all those social benefits...who needs lower crime, better health, and greater upward mobility? Pfft. That's all crazy-talk.

    If we killed all the old people, taxes and health insurance would be lower. Can we do that? I'm cool with lower taxes.

    If the old people had to be hooked up to someone else's body to live? Yes, those people can unhook them.

    Not if the old people hosts created the circumstances by which the old people must live off of them.

    Nope! If I break into your house and shoot you in the kidney, you have no right to force me to donate a kidney to you, even if you're going to die without one. That's bodily integrity, and it's enshrined above the right to go on living in U.S. law.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    I'm advocating that, barring simply allowing legal and "safe" abortions, we do what we can to prevent unsafe abortions and that we seek the improvement of society through other means.
    Such as...?

    That's not the subject of this debate. Really it should be a given that I am not in favour of deliberately allowing society to stagnate simply because I oppose one means of benefiting it.
    Society isn't going to stagnate because women suddenly gain full reproductive rights. Last time I checked, most westernized countries were still popping out plenty of healthy white babies.

    Hacksaw on
Sign In or Register to comment.