Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
pro abortion rights has nothing to do with contraceptives or sexual education. can you not tell that the majority of people who are anti-death (anti pro choice) are all in favour of using protection? doesnt that just prove that it isnt a pro-chocie stance? its soemthign that you have nothign to do with, btu tried to take under your wing and claim the glory for
and no, clearly almost every pro choicer here does not want to see it reduced, even saying that goes against the fundamental beleive of all pro choicers. and that is that 'abortion isnt bad.
your the one who agnostic soldier who doesnt understnad. based on the pro-choice belied (abortion isnt bad), so why would almost every pro choicer want to see the number of abortions reduced? if it is as you belief, why would you want to reduce the number? according to you its somehting legal and perfectly fine, so why reduce it?
pro choicers obviously dont believe in responsibility, because being responsible means taabking account for ones actions. and if you truly were "responsible" you would look after a the baby.
the idea of |having abortion ebcause its safer and then they dont ahve to go into a back alley" parralels to thsoe who support free needle programs. "its bad (giving needles and abortions) but its safer!!!!
and really? nto offering abortion doesnt reduce the amount of abortions preformed? the same way that making drugs illegal doesnt reduce drug use? if it was illegal, people would clearly think "hey i cant easily get an abortion or use it as birth control, maybe i should use a condom this time?
and yeah just to sum up agian the point i said because i believe its important. if pro choice people dotn think abortion is bad, why would they want to reduce it? no point reducing something that isnt harmful? a huge huge huge flaw in your logic there
It's questionable on whether even you know what your jabbering about.
For one, pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion, it means pro a woman's right to choose. The part with abortion means pro legalization of abortion. Supporting the legalization of abortion doesn't mean someone supports abortion. Abortion may be a bad thing, but prohibiting it doesn't solve the problem. Instead of banning everything that may be harmful or bad, it would be better to find the reason why people have abortions and fix the reason. For example, suicide is illegal, yet that hasn't stopped the tens of thousands of attempted suicides each year and the thousands that have been carried every year. Similarly, banning abortion won't stop or reduce the number of abortions that happen. As a correction, most women who get abortions used contraception when they had sex, it tends to not be a form of birth control, most of the time the woman has thought through whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Abortion will never go completely away, but people can drastically reduce it by giving access to proper sex education, contraception and the different options other than abortion such as adoption, in the scenio that the mother would be considering an abortion. Legalizing abortion would make it so that women decided to terminate their pregnancy, did so safely, rather than unsafer methods like going into the back alley where the cops wouldn't see them and doing it there. Analogously, prohibiting drugs hasn't reduced the number of drug users, it just makes them into areas where they won't be caught by police. A regulatory legalization of drugs would drastically lower the crime rate, make it harder for teens to get drugs because of a set age limit, the government would have a lot more money because of taxes, the use of drugs and needles would be regulated by the government so it wouldn't be as dangerous as using on the street, the profit of dealers would be far less and there would be much more room in the prisons. Pro choice means just that-choice. It means the choice to get an abortion, the choice to adopt or give your baby up for adoption, the choice for a woman to keep her baby, the choice for contraception, the choice for sex education. It doesn't mean forcing someone to follow someone else's beliefs. Pro choice doesn't mean compelling someone to get an abortion. While pro choice means a woman's right to choose, that doesn't mean most pro choicers consider abortion some ethereal act. Many do consider it a bad thing and want to reduce it, if a woman has thought through the matter and decided the best option is to terminate her pregnancy, then they may support her, that doesn't mean they are pro getting an abortion.
Last edited by agnostic soldier; 10-11-2008 at 04:26 PM..
So you would refuse to let a family member get on board a commercial airliner, because the risk that it will crash is >0%, and it would be irresponsible to allow them to board without at least two additional back-up systems to ensure their safety and survival. Do I understand that correctly? No, wait, even with two back-up systems, the risk is still >0%. YOu would need a million back up systems. Oh, it would still be >0%. How about a trillion back=up systems. Drat. Still >0%
Never mind, I just read your definitiion of pro-choice, and decided=ed to just set you on ignore.
It is pro-abortion. Pro-choice is supporting the option to use birth control prior to conception.
Supporting the legalization of abortion doesn't mean your pro abortion. Conservatives have spread the blatant lie, as is their nature, that if you support the legalization of abortion that means you support abortion. That's completely ridiculous, pro abortion means you want to compel someone to get an abortion, pro choice means you are pro elective abortion. Elective abortion means someone has the choice to terminate their pregnancy if need be, it doesn't mean someone has to get an abortion if they get pregnant.
Yes and no. As with any concept, when a party lacks an adequate term...
More from the fog machine. Simple facts: Innocence is a point on a spectrum. It is positioned relatively opposite from guilt. The spectrum itself presumes that there is agency and responsibility, the latter based upon an ability to discern and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. There is no such thing as a fetus that can meet any of the necessary tests. You use the word "innocent" to describe a fetus for its emotive value, not for its descriptive value. It is a deceit...an intellectually dishonest device. And no amount of prancing and parsing will change that fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
I think that nicely demonstrates a trait of leftists I've always been sensitive to: You just can’t tolerate acknowledging that you’re wrong without qualifications that deflect responsibility…
Leftist, schmeftist. You posted a citation. I critiqued it. That the link immediately above that critique was faulty has no bearing on the matter. The citation was yours, you knew it was yours, and you caved on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
Regarding the reference to Locke and childhood innocence, as I recall, there are at least three references to it. The one I’m thinking of is in the chapter “On Parental Powerâ€. It’s implied by the child’s inability to fend for themselves and the parent’s obligation to care for the child.
If you were aware of such diverse occurences of the concept of innocence within the Second Treatise, why did you not take care to be more specific in your original citation? At that, there is no discussion of PARENTAL power here, only that of PATERNAL power, a distinction that Locke goes to some lengths to make clear. At that, the idea of infantile innocence never does make an appearance here. Words such as ignorant and unequal are applied to the newborn, but the implication you suggest is nowhere to be found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
Please explain what makes it weak and/or dishonest.
See the definition of Straw Man. Rather than address a point, you invite a punching bag named Mr. Commie-Leftist-Socialist into the room and proceed to beat the stuffing out of him over characteristics that you yourself have ascribed to him. Four-year olds are scolded for such behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
Who else is more capable of establishing a value system we judge others by but ourselves? If we choose not to establish criteria from which to judge the world, then we leave a vacuum open for others to do so for us. Establishing this criteria is a responsibility of a free person.
And this responsibility of a free person is one that you immediately remove from any woman who would choose an abortion, what with it being so rare that one would ever thereafter "come back to the side of decency", as you so nobly chose to put it. You claim for yourself rights as an individual that you would specifically deny to another individual. This is the philosophy of slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
I think so. I’m human and have experienced my instinct as a man. I’ve witnessed what I believe to be maternal instinct. I’ve also witnessed the effect on women who’ve had abortions that lent to my conclusions about maternal instinct.
Would the depth of your understanding have been expanded any had you known a 16-year old who committed suicide within a month of delivery after having been forced by her parents to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? Would there have been room in all that competency and understanding of a woman's maternal instinct to accommodate an outcome such as that one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
I know, I know… Poor females can’t stay out of a position in which they get themselves pregnant.
No woman ever got herself pregnant. Only an essential chauvinist would ever use such wording. Meanwhile, there is sex for procreation, and there is sex for pleasure. Which do you deny to yourself? Which do you deny to women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
These females are not able to use suitable birth control.
Way to be not at all condescending or demeaning. You've got quite a pattern going here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
I guess, it’s our national responsibility to overlook the rights a child—fetus—should have in order to let the irresponsible female feel better…
Where does a fetus get any rights at all? What is the source of those? As your Mr. Locke points out, even at birth, an infant is newly found to be worthy only of a tiny subset of rights, the rest being vested in the parents as the child's trustee. It will be decades before a newborn can earn its full set of rights, the last being the right to serve as President, which does not attach until the age of 35. The conferring of rights is a process, not an event, and that process begins at zero. What if any grounds at all do you have for supposing that an 8-week old conceptus will have moved away from that initial level?
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
...while a child is being slaughtered more inhumanely than livestock.
Are you aware of any arguments for self-awareness in a pig? Are you aware of any for a fetus? Are you aware of the vast gulf of difference that lies between an experience of pain and a response to noxious stimulii? Are there any limits at all to the degrees of dishonesty that your arguments might sink to? Is there any foreseeable time when you will come to grips with the fact that no woman's decision in these matters is any business of yours at all?
I don't believe the government has any place in any abortion issue, but this is just vile.
What's vile are the various flavors of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. These are the moral equivalent of blowing up the only bridge between the black neighborhood and the polling place. The one and only purpose of such an act is to disrupt or frustrate the exercise of a right. The life of no fetus is medically capable of being protected prior to at least 22 weeks, by which time more than 99% of all abortions has already been performed. And what percentage of abortions actually performed is somehow "botched"? How close to 0.00% is it? There is simply nobody there for this law to save. Requiring extra medical personnel of any sort is simply an attempt to place undue and unnecessary obstacles and burdens upon another. Comtemptible...
If I leave my apartment at 11:00 pm to walk the three city blocks to the convenience store to pick up a quart of milk and am mugged on the way, is this an example of my having been irresponsibile?
It would certainly seem so, wouldn't it. I mean I knew there was some small chance of being mugged. I had even carried a titanium baton and a can of mace along with me for self-defense, but I was overpowered anyway. No reason to lash out in anger at the mugger, though. After all, I brought all this upon myself by leaving my apartment. I am the one who is to blame here. I showed a lack of responsibility...
but how can anyone look over the side affects that often follow? depression and suicidal tendencies are common. is this a positive effect? is this the effect of something that many people here claim "is perfectly ok"? of course not
It is said that there are those who know not and know not that they know not. These are words that would be worth your pondering.
Meanwhile, any honest person would know and report that awful outcomes are counted among both those who abort and those who either elect or are pressured or forced to carry to term. Though hardly low enough, those numbers fortunately are low, and are kept that way in significant part due to choice, wherein most of those most at risk may self-select out of what, for them, is the at-risk population. Your approach, of course, is one-size-fits-all demagoguery. I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to how many women alive today owe their continued existence to the fact of your view's not being any part of modern law...
I personally filed it under Babblings from the Fountain of Youth. Never read Griswold, never deconstructed the logic of Humanae Vitae, doesn't know where her people stand or where sane people stand. Just rants on and on as if having been over there and done all that. All hat, no cattle...all show, no substance...
So you would refuse to let a family member get on board a commercial airliner, because the risk that it will crash is >0%, and it would be irresponsible to allow them to board without at least two additional back-up systems to ensure their safety and survival. Do I understand that correctly?
No, you do not understand it correctly. Should I facilitate an act that results in injury to another, I accept a level of responsibility. I don't refuse to do something because undesired consequences occur. I accept responsibility for the undesired consequences.
To use your analogy, I accept my family member might die if I drive them to the airport and I live with the outcome without drastic action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
Supporting the legalization of abortion doesn't mean your pro abortion.
It sounds to me like you support a person getting an abortion or letting the child live. Sounds like the only thing that differentiates you from me is that you support the abortion side of the equation... hence, pro-abortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
More from the fog machine. Simple facts: Innocence is a point on a spectrum. It is positioned relatively opposite from guilt. The spectrum itself presumes that there is agency and responsibility, the latter based upon an ability to discern and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. There is no such thing as a fetus that can meet any of the necessary tests. You use the word "innocent" to describe a fetus for its emotive value, not for its descriptive value. It is a deceit...an intellectually dishonest device. And no amount of prancing and parsing will change that fact.
If you feel that way, fine. I prefer to side with Locke.
Quote:
Leftist, schmeftist. You posted a citation. I critiqued it. That the link immediately above that critique was faulty has no bearing on the matter. The citation was yours, you knew it was yours, and you caved on it.
We all make mistakes. I know it hurts when you first start doing it, but once you commit to exposing truth rather than satisfying your ego, admitting you were wrong is easy because it's no longer personal.
You posted the wrong link. I didn't care enough about your post to chase it down. I don't know who else does or doesn't cite Locke. I'll leave you to quoting correctly in the future and taking responsibility for your mistakes. Bueno?
Quote:
If you were aware of such diverse occurences of the concept of innocence within the Second Treatise, why did you not take care to be more specific in your original citation?
I was answering a light question lightly.
Quote:
At that, there is no discussion of PARENTAL power here, only that of PATERNAL power,
Yeah, you've got me there... Drink it up, brother... That's victory.
So what? Does my mis-stating it reveal something? An integral misunderstanding of the topic?
Quote:
... a distinction that Locke goes to some lengths to make clear. At that, the idea of infantile innocence never does make an appearance here. Words such as ignorant and unequal are applied to the newborn, but the implication you suggest is nowhere to be found.
If a child is ignorant, they are innocent.
Quote:
See the definition of Straw Man. Rather than address a point, you invite a punching bag named Mr. Commie-Leftist-Socialist into the room and proceed to beat the stuffing out of him over characteristics that you yourself have ascribed to him. Four-year olds are scolded for such behavior.
Isn't a straw man part of an argument? Since I had agreed with you and there was no longer an argument, doesn't that make this portion of the exchange irrelevant on your part?
Quote:
And this responsibility of a free person is one that you immediately remove from any woman who would choose an abortion,
A free person must abridge their liberty for the safety of themselves and others. No more than I have the right to kill my neighbor because his radio bothers my ears does a woman have the right to murder a child. These are reasonable limitations we put on our freedom.
Quote:
... [committing abortion] being so rare that one would ever thereafter "come back to the side of decency"...
It's a very rare person, IMO, who would kill a baby and then embrace a view of decency that would force them to acknowledge the evil they've committed. I think the person who commits abortion would fight with great fervor to keep the guilt at bay. Sadly for the next babies, denying their guilt means supporting more murder.
Quote:
as you so nobly chose to put it. You claim for yourself rights as an individual that you would specifically deny to another individual. This is the philosophy of slavery.
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
Quote:
Would the depth of your understanding have been expanded any had you known a 16-year old who committed suicide within a month of delivery after having been forced by her parents to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? Would there have been room in all that competency and understanding of a woman's maternal instinct to accommodate an outcome such as that one?
Again, I don't know what you're talking about. Are you suggesting that someone might justify the murder of millions of babies because a few kids killed themselves? Not me.
Quote:
No woman ever got herself pregnant.
Nature's burden.
Quote:
Way to be not at all condescending or demeaning. You've got quite a pattern going here.
I call it like I see it; not call it like someone else tells me to see it. I find life in reality to be far more rewarding to pretending things aren't how they are... and, interestingly enough, I don't have unrealistic expectations that people never seem to fill.
Quote:
Where does a fetus get any rights at all? What is the source of those? The conferring of rights is a process, not an event, and that process begins at zero. What if any grounds at all do you have for supposing that an 8-week old conceptus will have moved away from that initial level?
From the same stream that grants any right whatsoever.
Quote:
Is there any foreseeable time when you will come to grips with the fact that no woman's decision in these matters is any business of yours at all?
No. It is my business just as much as it was the worlds business that the Jews were being slaughtered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
If I leave my apartment at 11:00 pm to walk the three city blocks to the convenience store to pick up a quart of milk and am mugged on the way, is this an example of my having been irresponsibile?
Yes. You have to take some responsibility for your safety.
Quote:
No reason to lash out in anger at the mugger, though.
I don't know how you come to that conclusion.
Quote:
After all, I brought all this upon myself by leaving my apartment.
Not "all". You're just a party to it. You also have a responsibility to defend yourself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
