Beginning of the End for Roe v Wade?

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Oct 18, 2005
14,156
489
136
So you want other people to be forced to go through what I did? It's good to know you want other's to give up their faith in humanity as I have. I'm a sociopath and I have more consideration for my fellow man, although that could be just my desire to make people suffer at hands.
glenn1 falls into that vast category of people who are incapable of empathy in the abstract. Until he personally experiences something he doesn't understand it.
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,464
463
146
glenn1 falls into that vast category of people who are incapable of empathy in the abstract. Until he personally experiences something he doesn't understand it.
Vast category of people incapable of empathy? You could have just said conservative. ;)
 

DarthKyrie

Senior member
Jul 11, 2016
267
143
96
glenn1 falls into that vast category of people who are incapable of empathy in the abstract. Until he personally experiences something he doesn't understand it.
I was fortunate my mother was able to teach me about empathy at a young age. My older sister tried to kill me at least 3 times, that I know of. I had a babysitter that would beat the shit out of me when I was 3 years old too. With my desire to see the human race suffer in horrible ways at my hands, I am still astonished that there are people that openly which for their fellow humans to suffer and they have the gall to call themselves, Christian and Conservative. The only thing they want to conserve is the way of life from the 15th century with all the modern amenities.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
So you want other people to be forced to go through what I did? It's good to know you want other's to give up their faith in humanity as I have. I'm a sociopath and I have more consideration for my fellow man, although that could be just my desire to make people suffer at hands.
I did go through something like you did, it doesn't change the basic nature of the procedures involved. Just like because I'm a military veteran that doesn't give me some special enlightened status that allows to have extra moral weight when opining whether a particular conflict is "good" or "bad," likewise having to face such a choice of several equally unpalatable options late in a pregnancy all of which result in your baby being dead is not like a badge of honor I get to wield to give me extra moral cred to say abortion is "good" or "bad." It just means one has first hand experience in having had a medical professional described the methods, needing to weigh their pros and cons and make a "choice", and having to on top of that address questions you never even considered like "what do you want to do with the products of conception" (meaning the dead baby, do you want us to provide it to you so you can have a funeral).
 
Feb 23, 2005
16,973
189
106
I think you are one confused bunny.

You've stated that abortion is murder in any trimester, you've likened it to slitting the throat of a todder, you've also said that you're OK with abortions just not third trimester abortions, sometimes abortion is OK in 'exceptional situations' (without saying what those are), and:



Just in case it isn't obvious to you, "murder" is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being".

Tip: Unless you think abortion should be illegal in every circumstance, don't liken abortion in general to an illegal act. It's like going into a topic about the law on self-defence and saying that self-defence should be illegal in all circumstances but you're OK with it in exceptional circumstances.
I was pretty clear that my opposing views are personal vs what I think the law should be, yes?

In my opinion, exceptions would be rape or incest, in the case of third trimester if the mothers life is in danger.

As for murder I guess it's in intent. I should have said taking a life.
 
May 19, 2011
12,093
240
126
I was pretty clear that my opposing views are personal vs what I think the law should be, yes?

In my opinion, exceptions would be rape or incest, in the case of third trimester if the mothers life is in danger.

As for murder I guess it's in intent. I should have said taking a life.
Apart from the internal politics of lawmakers compromising between what they personally believe is right and what is feasibly going to achieve a majority vote, there is no actual difference between the two things you're attempting to separate; the law is based on what is considered to be right and wrong by those involved in deciding it.

Furthermore to everyone else here you've been conflating those two things that most people would regard as inseparable in a purely hypothetical discussion, and during the course of this topic you've been using absolutist terms (such as 'murder in any trimester') for most of the thread. The use of absolutist terms and extremely evocative wording indicates an extreme and uncompromising position with no implied exceptions.

I also find it especially bizarre that you would go through the entire thread talking about it being the intentional killing of a child in such evocative and absolutist terms and then say "you know what, women who have been raped should be allowed to abort", because for all your rhetoric, you're then (to put things in your perspective) OK with killing an entirely innocent and healthy child (which is debatable at best in the other exception scenarios you put forward). There are plenty of similar examples of when bringing a child into the world is similarly less-than-ideal to when a woman has been raped, but somehow I don't think you're generally fine with 'killing children' because the circumstances are 'less than ideal', as this notion would logically stray far from what many pro-choice advocates would regard as OK, and as more medical advances are made, the muddier the topic becomes.

I also have no idea whether you believe that a foetus should be considered as having human rights from the moment of conception. On one hand you've regularly said "it's murder in any trimester" (which suggests that you do think it's a human with rights from day 1), on the other hand you've mentioned trimesters in an exception scenario and whether the baby can survive outside the womb (which suggests that you believe it's not a human with rights from day 1). Considering that when a foetus should be regarded as having such rights is often the "no man's land" of abortion discussions, with pro-lifers believing that a bundle of cells is the same as a healthy post-birth human, and pro-choice advocates believing that it's a question of foetal development and our scientific understanding of it that draws the line, your apparent fence-sitting position makes understanding your position that much more of a muddy affair.
 
Mar 11, 2004
17,758
280
126
Apart from the internal politics of lawmakers compromising between what they personally believe is right and what is feasibly going to achieve a majority vote, there is no actual difference between the two things you're attempting to separate; the law is based on what is considered to be right and wrong by those involved in deciding it.

Furthermore to everyone else here you've been conflating those two things that most people would regard as inseparable in a purely hypothetical discussion, and during the course of this topic you've been using absolutist terms (such as 'murder in any trimester') for most of the thread. The use of absolutist terms and extremely evocative wording indicates an extreme and uncompromising position with no implied exceptions.

I also find it especially bizarre that you would go through the entire thread talking about it being the intentional killing of a child in such evocative and absolutist terms and then say "you know what, women who have been raped should be allowed to abort", because for all your rhetoric, you're then (to put things in your perspective) OK with killing an entirely innocent and healthy child (which is debatable at best in the other exception scenarios you put forward). There are plenty of similar examples of when bringing a child into the world is similarly less-than-ideal to when a woman has been raped, but somehow I don't think you're generally fine with 'killing children' because the circumstances are 'less than ideal', as this notion would logically stray far from what many pro-choice advocates would regard as OK, and as more medical advances are made, the muddier the topic becomes.

I also have no idea whether you believe that a foetus should be considered as having human rights from the moment of conception. On one hand you've regularly said "it's murder in any trimester" (which suggests that you do think it's a human with rights from day 1), on the other hand you've mentioned trimesters in an exception scenario and whether the baby can survive outside the womb (which suggests that you believe it's not a human with rights from day 1). Considering that when a foetus should be regarded as having such rights is often the "no man's land" of abortion discussions, with pro-lifers believing that a bundle of cells is the same as a healthy post-birth human, and pro-choice advocates believing that it's a question of foetal development and our scientific understanding of it that draws the line, your apparent fence-sitting position makes understanding your position that much more of a muddy affair.
Its really not that complex. What I mean is, the simplest and correct answer is, he's full of shit and was the entire time.
 
Jul 12, 2006
92,907
1,250
136
So people who did not own slaves had no say in the slavery issue?

Not your body, not your problem; not your slave, not your problem?

Are you a jew? Then dont worry about jews being sent to the camps.

Who speaks for those who can not speak for themselves?
why are you talking about slavery now? Were you dropped on a pile of bricks when you were 1 or something?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS