Open minded pro-choicer does a nice thing for pro-lifers.

[hal2kilo]

Huh? If you think those are the arguments you are being intentionally obtuse.

It's the Prof. What's new?

 

[Daedalus685]

Stop the presses!!

This just in: "Stressed people sometimes say Stupid things when confronted!"

In other news, I'm more likely to get in a car accident if I stay up for 72 hours and people are not always nice well behaved perfections.



I don't understand the point of this news... I was threatened by a fellow at a previous job for informing his kids of certain rules... later found out his wife took off on him a few days earlier... People say stupid things at times when they are upset, and while we face the consequences of it when we do, it is really not a big deal or surprising.

 

[Atreus21]

Actually, in the case of a 16 year old, abortion really is the best solution.

These people are in fact religious nuts. They believe so strongly in their primitive mystic belief system that they try to ram it down other people's throats. Our nation would be a lot better off if they would relocate to some other country and create Jesusland, an Iranian-like Christian theocracy. They don't belong in a modern nation while advocating the kind of philosophy that hinders innovation and societal development.

I suspect that most of these cretins were indoctrinated with this fairy-tale belief system since birth and lack the mental reasoning ability needed to question their primitive mystic belief systems.

And you, who believe that no conceivably reasonable people could possibly oppose your idea, are bigoted.

 

[Daedalus685]

And you, who believe that no conceivably reasonable people could possibly oppose your idea, are bigoted.

Disagreement towards a self determined trait does not constitute bigoted. Blind hate is required. Perhaps close minded in some cases... but certainly not bigoted.

 

[zsdersw]

Open minded pro-choicer does a nice thing for pro-lifers.

When it comes to abortion there are very few open minds.. on either side.

Thread title FAIL.

 

[Atreus21]

Disagreement towards a self determined trait does not constitute bigoted. Blind hate is required. Perhaps close minded in some cases... but certainly not bigoted.

Bigotry is being unable to imagine how you could possibly be wrong. This is clearly that.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

And you, who believe that no conceivably reasonable people could possibly oppose your idea, are bigoted.

Against people who oppose legal abortion? Yes, I'm "bigoted" against them.

Bigotry is being unable to imagine how you could possibly be wrong. This is clearly that.

I have yet to read a good argument explaining why abortion should be illegal that does not ultimately reference a supernatural being.

 

[shira]

Bigotry is being unable to imagine how you could possibly be wrong. This is clearly that.

I think this is the definition of arrogance, not bigotry. Bigotry often goes hand and hand with arrogance, but not always. And there are plenty of arrogant people who aren't bigots.

 

[Atreus21]

Against people who oppose legal abortion? Yes, I'm "bigoted" against them.



I have yet to read a good argument explaining why abortion should be illegal that does not ultimately reference a supernatural being.

Do you oppose partial-birth abortion?

 

[bfdd]

No what WhipperSnapper said definitely makes him a bigot against these kinds of religious people. Argue it all you want, but WhipperSnapper is a bigot by definition.

 

[shira]

Against people who oppose legal abortion? Yes, I'm "bigoted" against them.



I have yet to read a good argument explaining why abortion should be illegal that does not ultimately reference a supernatural being.

I believe there can be a principled opposition to abortion without invoking the supernatural, but - like you - I haven't encountered such a position yet.

 

[shira]

Do you oppose partial-birth abortion?

May I answer this?

I believe late-second-trimester (and later) abortions can rarely be justified. But "rarely" isn't the same as "never."

Do you believe that a woman in the second term whose life is in severe jeopardy because of her pregnancy should be forced to die to carry her fetus to viability?

 

[nick1985]

Let people live their fucking lives. Big brother doesn't need to be involved with people's vaginas.

 

[werepossum]

I believe there can be a principled opposition to abortion without invoking the supernatural, but - like you - I haven't encountered such a position yet.

I'm not sure why any reference to G-d is necessary in discussing abortion. If a woman can decide that a genetically unique and viable individual (baby) would be inconvenient and thus has the right to kill it, should she not have a similar right to kill her husband should she decide he is inconvenient? Either humans are inherently worthy of life, or they are not. (The point is arguable before the baby is viable outside of the womb, as only the mother can nurture it which is seldom true of an air breather. Just as a mother cannot be compelled to give up a kidney or part of her liver to save the life of her child, neither would I compel her to keep an unwanted baby that would not survive induced labor.)

In any case I am perfectly open-minded about abortion. I think it is probably murder, but I'm also glad the mother isn't making more people like her. So I may be the only person passing the abortion clinic with neither a smile nor a frown.

 

[nick1985]

I

In any case I am perfectly open-minded about abortion. I think it is probably murder, but I'm also glad the mother isn't making more people like her. So I may be the only person passing the abortion clinic with neither a smile nor a frown.

Thats pretty mean to say. There are lots of good people that end up in a bad situation and do not have much of a choice. You disagree with their choice, but do not degrade them for it.

 

[Red Dawn]

I am confused....

What's new?

 

[nick1985]

What's new?

You being into SCAT is pretty new, or is it?

 

[Tom]

I'm not sure why any reference to G-d is necessary in discussing abortion. If a woman can decide that a genetically unique and viable individual (baby) would be inconvenient and thus has the right to kill it, should she not have a similar right to kill her husband should she decide he is inconvenient? Either humans are inherently worthy of life, or they are not. (The point is arguable before the baby is viable outside of the womb, as only the mother can nurture it which is seldom true of an air breather. Just as a mother cannot be compelled to give up a kidney or part of her liver to save the life of her child, neither would I compel her to keep an unwanted baby that would not survive induced labor.)

In any case I am perfectly open-minded about abortion. I think it is probably murder, but I'm also glad the mother isn't making more people like her. So I may be the only person passing the abortion clinic with neither a smile nor a frown.

I assume you support mandatory kidney donation ? After all it's just an incovenience to give one up.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Should be protections from religious nuts who shout and yell at you and call you names

Made me think of the racist (most religious) trash in that yelled at black children trying to go to school in Topeka, Kansas Amerikkka in the 50s

Yep, the first ammendment should only apply to people who agree with your POV.

And for the record, I'm on the pro life side but have never protested or called anyone getting an abortion (or who has had one) a murderer; nor do I approve of that behavior.

 

[werepossum]

Thats pretty mean to say. There are lots of good people that end up in a bad situation and do not have much of a choice. You disagree with their choice, but do not degrade them for it.

True, and cheerfully retracted.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not sure why any reference to G-d is necessary in discussing abortion. If a woman can decide that a genetically unique and viable individual (baby) would be inconvenient and thus has the right to kill it, should she not have a similar right to kill her husband should she decide he is inconvenient? Either humans are inherently worthy of life, or they are not. (The point is arguable before the baby is viable outside of the womb, as only the mother can nurture it which is seldom true of an air breather. Just as a mother cannot be compelled to give up a kidney or part of her liver to save the life of her child, neither would I compel her to keep an unwanted baby that would not survive induced labor.)
SNIP

I assume you support mandatory kidney donation ? After all it's just an incovenience to give one up.

Reading - it really IS fundamental. Spell check isn't bad either.

 

[shira]

I'm not sure why any reference to G-d is necessary in discussing abortion. If a woman can decide that a genetically unique and viable individual (baby) would be inconvenient and thus has the right to kill it, should she not have a similar right to kill her husband should she decide he is inconvenient? Either humans are inherently worthy of life, or they are not. (The point is arguable before the baby is viable outside of the womb, as only the mother can nurture it which is seldom true of an air breather. Just as a mother cannot be compelled to give up a kidney or part of her liver to save the life of her child, neither would I compel her to keep an unwanted baby that would not survive induced labor.)

In any case I am perfectly open-minded about abortion. I think it is probably murder, but I'm also glad the mother isn't making more people like her. So I may be the only person passing the abortion clinic with neither a smile nor a frown.

From Wiki:

Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week. Everything in between is a "grey area".

and

United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.

So, I think it would be fair to estimate that fewer than 1% of abortions are performed post-viability. And I hazard a guess that only a TINY fraction of that 1% is performed as a "convenience" to the woman.

Now:

Do you think that the "pro-life" crowd has no problem with the [approximately] 99.9+% of abortions that occur PRE-viability or are necessary to save the life of the mother?

Do you think it's accurate to refer to a pre-viability fetus as a "baby?"

Please document the arguments of ANY main-stream pro-choice group that advocates unrestricted post-viability abortions.

Given all of the above, is it intellectually honest to focus on these extreme cases as being representative of abortions in general?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Do you think it's accurate to refer to a pre-viability fetus as a "baby?"

Some might say it would be accurate to refer to it as human life.

 

[shira]

Some might say it would be accurate to refer to it as human life.

And I agree with that usage. A human zygote and a human fetus are human lives. But they're not persons. If you want to protect the lives of innocent people, you won't get an argument from me. But equating zygotes and fetuses with innocent people is madness.

 

[Tom]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
Quote:
Originally Posted by werepossum
I'm not sure why any reference to G-d is necessary in discussing abortion. If a woman can decide that a genetically unique and viable individual (baby) would be inconvenient and thus has the right to kill it, should she not have a similar right to kill her husband should she decide he is inconvenient? Either humans are inherently worthy of life, or they are not. (The point is arguable before the baby is viable outside of the womb, as only the mother can nurture it which is seldom true of an air breather. Just as a mother cannot be compelled to give up a kidney or part of her liver to save the life of her child, neither would I compel her to keep an unwanted baby that would not survive induced labor.)
SNIP

I assume you support mandatory kidney donation ? After all it's just an incovenience to give one up.

Reading - it really IS fundamental. Spell check isn't bad either.
__________________

You should try reading what I wrote, I said nothing about giving up your kidney to save a baby, why shouldn't it be mandatory for you to give up a kidney to save ANY life ?

That's the foundation of your reasoning for why the governemnt should have the power to force a woman to give birth.