Options

ITT the abortions of strawmen

1235718

Posts

  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    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.

    You'd be irrefutably right if this were a court case.

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

    You'd be irrefutably right if this were a court case.

    This thread started out being about legalisation, not morals. This has been pointed out several times since. Knock it off.

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

    ...What?

    I don't think you understood my post. It was implied that, because I don't think the social benefits of abortion are worth the actual abortions, I want society to stagnate. My previous post was saying that this is a ridiculous assumption.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    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.

    ...What?

    I don't think you understood my post. It was implied that, because I don't think the social benefits of abortion are worth the actual abortions, I want society to stagnate. My previous post was saying that this is a ridiculous assumption.
    So you're willing to bring civilization to a stand-still because you have a grudge with women who want full control of their bodies? Niiiiice.

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

    You'd be irrefutably right if this were a court case.

    And when we're talking about the legality of abortion, it is.

    If you're just talking about morality, yes, it would be nice of me to give you a kidney. It might even be the Right Thing to Do, in some cases. But what if, say, a big, innocent, sad-eyed orphan also needed my kidney, and I wanted to give it to them instead of you? What if my mom needed the kidney? Then it might be the Right Thing to Do to let you die and give my kidney to sometone else. Either way, it's not a matter the government needs to legislate; I can give my kidneys to whoever wants them, or let both of them rot inside me if I die. Bodily integrity!

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're willing to bring civilization to a stand-still because you have a grudge with women who want full control of their bodies? Niiiiice.

    That seems to be the popular interpretation of my argument amongst retards, yes.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    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?

    What's your argument?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're willing to bring civilization to a stand-still because you have a grudge with women who want full control of their bodies? Niiiiice.

    That seems to be the popular interpretation of my argument amongst retards, yes.
    No no, I get it: you consider zygotes to be people. The thing is, I don't, and for the purposes of the law, they're not.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're willing to bring civilization to a stand-still because you have a grudge with women who want full control of their bodies? Niiiiice.

    That seems to be the popular interpretation of my argument amongst retards, yes.
    No no, I get it: you consider zygotes to be people. The thing is, I don't, and for the purposes of the law, they're not.

    Oh, and it doesn't matter if they are. People don't have the rights you want to give zygotes.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    So you're willing to bring civilization to a stand-still because you have a grudge with women who want full control of their bodies? Niiiiice.

    That seems to be the popular interpretation of my argument amongst retards, yes.
    No no, I get it: you consider zygotes to be people. The thing is, I don't, and for the purposes of the law, they're not.

    Oh, and it doesn't matter if they are. People don't have the rights you want to give zygotes.
    This is true. I don't want to worry about zygotes swinging the next election in the Republicans' favor.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla 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?

    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.

    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months. Mother decides she does not want another child, can she be forced to carry to term then or straight to a D&E. I am not going to attack you or even respond, I just want to know your opinion. Yes, I know this is a very rare scenario, less than 5% of abortions I would assume.

    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
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months. Mother decides she does not want another child, can she be forced to carry to term then or straight to a D&E. I am not going to attack you or even respond, I just want to know your opinion. Yes, I know this is a very rare scenario, less than 5% of abortions I would assume.
    That never, ever happens. Late term abortions are medically neccessary. Google anencephaly for a clue.

    and the fact that you think it could makes me seriously doubt that you're the female you claim to be, by the way :|

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Elki wrote: »
    What's your argument?

    Given the extent to which we are capable of controlling birth pre-conception, abortion should be illegal except in cases of forced impregnation (contraceptive sabotage or rape) and for pregnancies which would threaten the mother's health.

    Abortion grants certain social benefits. These are achievable by other means.

    Outlawing abortion would increase the number of unsafe abortions. Law enforcement and education systems would, then, have to adapt to meet this danger.

    Many people do not consider a zygote a person. I do. This is a subjective thing, I do not consider my stance on it more valid than anyone else's. There's no point in arguing this.

    Yes, the thread is about the legality of abortion. Laws change. My stance on its legality is: It is legal, and I believe it should not be.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months.
    She's the one that has to push it through her vagina. If she doesn't want to go through with that, that's her choice. It's still her body.

    Of course, hypotheticals divorced from context like this one can only tell you so much.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months. Mother decides she does not want another child, can she be forced to carry to term then or straight to a D&E. I am not going to attack you or even respond, I just want to know your opinion. Yes, I know this is a very rare scenario, less than 5% of abortions I would assume.
    That never, ever happens. Late term abortions are medically neccessary. Google anencephaly for a clue.

    In reality not really, see Dr. Tiller. All you have to say is I don't want this baby anymore, I am suicidal.

    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
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months. Mother decides she does not want another child, can she be forced to carry to term then or straight to a D&E. I am not going to attack you or even respond, I just want to know your opinion. Yes, I know this is a very rare scenario, less than 5% of abortions I would assume.
    That never, ever happens. Late term abortions are medically neccessary. Google anencephaly for a clue.

    In reality not really, see Dr. Tiller. All you have to say is I don't want this baby anymore, I am suicidal.

    Oh right, mental health doesn't matter for women. Also, that's not how it works. you have to actually be suicidal. You're pretty good with the propaganda though.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »

    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months. Mother decides she does not want another child, can she be forced to carry to term then or straight to a D&E. I am not going to attack you or even respond, I just want to know your opinion. Yes, I know this is a very rare scenario, less than 5% of abortions I would assume.

    It's probably much less than .5%, actually, just so you know. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester; abortions for no other reason than the woman's choice in the last trimester are so rare as to be practically nonexistant, and our hypothetical woman would find it nearly impossible to find a doctor to do it.

    Bodily integrity means that she has the right to discontinue the pregnancy. However, as the fetus at this point is probably viable if a bit premature (presuming that it's healthy), I think legally she should be induced, give birth, and immediately sever her rights. At that point, the fetus is big enough that it would be safer for the woman to deliver it intact, at which point it is no longer dependent on her for bodily support and can be cared for by the hospital until it is adopted.

    Edit: Although an intact delivery (this is what is generally villified as a partial-birth abortion, by the way, and was generally done when the fetus was highly deformed or dead) is by far the safest method of aborting a late-term pregnancy, if the woman and her doctor agree on a different form of abortion as best for her, that should be legal as well, even if it does not allow for the survival of the fetus.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months.
    She's the one that has to push it through her vagina. If she doesn't want to go through with that, that's her choice. It's still her body.

    Of course, hypotheticals divorced from context like this one can only tell you so much.

    I know I said I wouldn't respond, but thank you for the honest answer.

    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
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    What's your argument?

    Given the extent to which we are capable of controlling birth pre-conception, abortion should be illegal except in cases of forced impregnation (contraceptive sabotage or rape) and for pregnancies which would threaten the mother's health.

    Abortion grants certain social benefits. These are achievable by other means.

    Outlawing abortion would increase the number of unsafe abortions. Law enforcement and education systems would, then, have to adapt to meet this danger.

    Many people do not consider a zygote a person. I do. This is a subjective thing, I do not consider my stance on it more valid than anyone else's. There's no point in arguing this.

    Yes, the thread is about the legality of abortion. Laws change. My stance on its legality is: It is legal, and I believe it should not be.

    A) So you also think people should be forced to donate organs?

    B) How do you expect to achieve the social benefits of women choosing when to have children by any other means? Short of the sci-fi birth control mentioned earlier in the thread.

    C) Law enforcement and education failed miserably when abortion was illegal; what makes you think this would be any different?

    D) The zygote being a person is an utter non-issue.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months. Mother decides she does not want another child, can she be forced to carry to term then or straight to a D&E. I am not going to attack you or even respond, I just want to know your opinion. Yes, I know this is a very rare scenario, less than 5% of abortions I would assume.
    That never, ever happens. Late term abortions are medically neccessary. Google anencephaly for a clue.

    In reality not really, see Dr. Tiller. All you have to say is I don't want this baby anymore, I am suicidal.

    Oh right, mental health doesn't matter for women. Also, that's not how it works. you have to actually be suicidal. You're pretty good with the propaganda though.

    To be considered suicidal and lose your legal rights, 72 hr hold, Legal 2000 out here in NV, you only have to say you have a plan to kill yourself and describe that plan. That is fact.

    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
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »

    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months. Mother decides she does not want another child, can she be forced to carry to term then or straight to a D&E. I am not going to attack you or even respond, I just want to know your opinion. Yes, I know this is a very rare scenario, less than 5% of abortions I would assume.

    It's probably much less than .5%, actually, just so you know. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester; abortions for no other reason than the woman's choice in the last trimester are so rare as to be practically nonexistant, and our hypothetical woman would find it nearly impossible to find a doctor to do it.

    Actually I named the doctor who would, he even has a website that provides info for out of state and international clients.

    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
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    What's your argument?

    Given the extent to which we are capable of controlling birth pre-conception, abortion should be illegal except in cases of forced impregnation (contraceptive sabotage or rape) and for pregnancies which would threaten the mother's health.

    The extent to which we are capable to controlling conception is limited, and subject to human error. Even if it wasn't, that by itself is not a reason to outlaw the procedure.
    Church wrote: »
    Abortion grants certain social benefits. These are achievable by other means.

    Elaborate.
    Church wrote: »
    Outlawing abortion would increase the number of unsafe abortions. Law enforcement and education systems would, then, have to adapt to meet this danger.
    Never happened before, and there is no reason to assume it would.
    Church wrote: »
    Many people do not consider a zygote a person. I do. This is a subjective thing, I do not consider my stance on it more valid than anyone else's. There's no point in arguing this.
    Yes, there is. We know at which stage zygotes are capable of what, and we can safely assume it comes nothing close to personhood.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Oh, and that "declare yourself suicidal" also means you're almost certainly going to be institutionalized while the state figures out if you're actually a risk to yourself. Good luck keeping a job or caring for other children while you're locked up.

    Not to mention the ridiculous strain it would put on the already-overtaxed mental healthcare system. Sheesh.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    A) Not the same thing. If you want to make a thread about that, go ahead.

    B) Social benefits of women choosing when to have their children? Gee, I dunno, by letting women continue to choose when they have children like we already do, but just not letting them abort? Are there that many women whose primary form of birth control is abortion? I was under the impression that the number was something like none, or close to it.

    C) Human adaptability. We are not doomed to repeat all past mistakes.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Elki wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Many people do not consider a zygote a person. I do. This is a subjective thing, I do not consider my stance on it more valid than anyone else's. There's no point in arguing this.
    Yes, there is. We know at which stage zygotes are capable of what, and we can safely assume it comes nothing close to personhood.

    I realise that. But even though I know a zygote has no cognizant thought, along with many other things, I still consider it a person.

    As for whether unsafe abortions can be controlled: I don't think past failures are proof that the task is impossible.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    A) Not the same thing. If you want to make a thread about that, go ahead.

    B) Gee, I dunno, by letting women continue to choose when they have children like we already do, but just not letting them abort? Are there that many women whose primary form of birth control is abortion? I was under the impression that the number was something like none, or close to it.

    C) Human adaptability. We are not doomed to repeat all past mistakes.

    A) Yes, it's the same thing. You're forcing people to use their bodily resources to keep other people alive. It's the same. damn. thing.

    B) You're ignoring all the women who abort after birth control failed, or because their circumstances changed and they're no longer able to support a child, or who are unable to get reliable birth control.

    C) You think we weren't trying to stop abortions previously? No, sorry. Women have been aborting unwanted pregnancies in various safe and unsafe ways for pretty much forever. Rich women will just leave the country, poor women will go to back-alley abortionists and die for it, just like they did pre-legal abortion.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Oh, and that "declare yourself suicidal" also means you're almost certainly going to be institutionalized while the state figures out if you're actually a risk to yourself. Good luck keeping a job or caring for other children while you're locked up.

    Not to mention the ridiculous strain it would put on the already-overtaxed mental healthcare system.
    Sheesh.

    Actually all you have to say is I am no longer thinking of killing myself, and they let you out. I am not joking, I have seen it MULTIPLE times. People come in still coughing from the life support in the ER and are discharged in 3 days, because they say they no longer have a plan to kill themselves.

    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
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    B) Social benefits of women choosing when to have their children? Gee, I dunno, by letting women continue to choose when they have children like we already do, but just not letting them abort? Are there that many women whose primary form of birth control is abortion? I was under the impression that the number was something like none, or close to it.

    O_o

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »

    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months. Mother decides she does not want another child, can she be forced to carry to term then or straight to a D&E. I am not going to attack you or even respond, I just want to know your opinion. Yes, I know this is a very rare scenario, less than 5% of abortions I would assume.

    It's probably much less than .5%, actually, just so you know. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester; abortions for no other reason than the woman's choice in the last trimester are so rare as to be practically nonexistant, and our hypothetical woman would find it nearly impossible to find a doctor to do it.

    Actually I named the doctor who would, he even has a website that provides info for out of state and international clients.

    Wow, a website. Also, the number is 0.17%

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    A) Not the same thing. If you want to make a thread about that, go ahead.

    B) Gee, I dunno, by letting women continue to choose when they have children like we already do, but just not letting them abort? Are there that many women whose primary form of birth control is abortion? I was under the impression that the number was something like none, or close to it.

    C) Human adaptability. We are not doomed to repeat all past mistakes.

    A) Yes, it's the same thing. You're forcing people to use their bodily resources to keep other people alive. It's the same. damn. thing.

    B) You're ignoring all the women who abort after birth control failed, or because their circumstances changed and they're no longer able to support a child, or who are unable to get reliable birth control.

    C) You think we weren't trying to stop abortions previously? No, sorry. Women have been aborting unwanted pregnancies in various safe and unsafe ways for pretty much forever. Rich women will just leave the country, poor women will go to back-alley abortionists and die for it, just like they did pre-legal abortion.

    A) No, it's not. A pregnant woman doesn't have to give up an organ to have a child. Yes it is difficult, and there are complications, but not the loss of an organ.

    B) Fair point. I will have to think about this.

    C) I didn't say no efforts were made. I'm saying that previous efforts were (obviously) insufficient and I think we can do better.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Many people do not consider a zygote a person. I do. This is a subjective thing, I do not consider my stance on it more valid than anyone else's. There's no point in arguing this.
    Yes, there is. We know at which stage zygotes are capable of what, and we can safely assume it comes nothing close to personhood.

    I realise that. But even though I know a zygote has no cognizant thought, along with many other things, I still consider it a person.

    Not compelling enough to make it illegal, I'm afraid.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Oh, and that "declare yourself suicidal" also means you're almost certainly going to be institutionalized while the state figures out if you're actually a risk to yourself. Good luck keeping a job or caring for other children while you're locked up.

    Not to mention the ridiculous strain it would put on the already-overtaxed mental healthcare system.
    Sheesh.

    Actually all you have to say is I am no longer thinking of killing myself, and they let you out. I am not joking, I have seen it MULTIPLE times. People come in still coughing from the life support in the ER and are discharged in 3 days, because they say they no longer have a plan to kill themselves.

    I wish! I have some actual experience with the system there, and no, if you say you're not thinking of killing yourself anymore, you still have to wait for a psychiatrist to certify you that way. Besides, how are you supposed to get an abortion if you're spending all the time between declaring yourself suicidal and deciding you're not anymore in a mental hospital?

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Elki wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Many people do not consider a zygote a person. I do. This is a subjective thing, I do not consider my stance on it more valid than anyone else's. There's no point in arguing this.
    Yes, there is. We know at which stage zygotes are capable of what, and we can safely assume it comes nothing close to personhood.

    I realise that. But even though I know a zygote has no cognizant thought, along with many other things, I still consider it a person.

    Not compelling enough to make it illegal, I'm afraid.

    Which is much of the reason it's legal.

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

    A) No, it's not. A pregnant woman doesn't have to give up an organ to have a child. Yes it is difficult, and there are complications, but not the loss of an organ.

    B) Fair point. I will have to think about this.

    C) I didn't say no efforts were made. I'm saying that previous efforts were (obviously) insufficient and I think we can do better.

    A) A pregnant woman has to give up her entire body to continue a pregnancy. The state can't even violate bodily integrity enough to force you to give blood, which is a far less invasive sort of thing than pregnancy.

    C) Perhaps we can do better. Perhaps not. Trying to stop something which women clearly want to do is quite hard; we can't even prevent jaywalking, which people clearly have less of an incentive to do than having abortions.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    B) Social benefits of women choosing when to have their children? Gee, I dunno, by letting women continue to choose when they have children like we already do, but just not letting them abort? Are there that many women whose primary form of birth control is abortion? I was under the impression that the number was something like none, or close to it.

    Abortion is a fallback. I'm not for taking it away and jeopardizing for the health of countless women for nonsensical reasons.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Making abortions illegal is the worst idea ever. Not because of the religious reasons, but because Law Enforcement have way more pressing issues to deal with than abortions, and deaths from bad self-abortions.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »

    A) No, it's not. A pregnant woman doesn't have to give up an organ to have a child. Yes it is difficult, and there are complications, but not the loss of an organ.

    B) Fair point. I will have to think about this.

    C) I didn't say no efforts were made. I'm saying that previous efforts were (obviously) insufficient and I think we can do better.

    A) A pregnant woman has to give up her entire body to continue a pregnancy. The state can't even violate bodily integrity enough to force you to give blood, which is a far less invasive sort of thing than pregnancy.

    C) Perhaps we can do better. Perhaps not. Trying to stop something which women clearly want to do is quite hard; we can't even prevent jaywalking, which people clearly have less of an incentive to do than having abortions.

    A) But she does not lose her body. It's still there. And regardless of how an unwanted pregnancy may happen, the state outlawing termination is not the same as forcing the pregnancy itself on a woman.

    C) If getting a successful clandestine abortion without dying was as easy as walking across the street without being hit by a car I'd have to concede that enforcing an abortion law would be hopeless. It's not.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    C) I didn't say no efforts were made. I'm saying that previous efforts were (obviously) insufficient and I think we can do better.

    I'd argue that this would be entirely too difficult, and require some terrible laws.

    Like the one proposed a few years ago that would require a woman to report the weight of the fetus in the event of a miscarriage.

    Pregnancies are not hard to come by. Neither are coat hangers. You can't stop a person from doing this sort of thing unless you watch their every move, and you can't discourage it unless you threaten them with jail terms. Bad ideas all around.

    Tarantio on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Elki wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    B) Social benefits of women choosing when to have their children? Gee, I dunno, by letting women continue to choose when they have children like we already do, but just not letting them abort? Are there that many women whose primary form of birth control is abortion? I was under the impression that the number was something like none, or close to it.

    Abortion is a fallback. I'm not for taking it away and jeopardizing for the health of countless women for nonsensical reasons.

    Neither am I.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Also, Church, that rape exception you made is bullshit. If you believe the zygote is a person, you'd still be against abortion even if it was forced. After all, the zygote is still a person that had nothing to do with the crime, right?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.