Time To Unmask John McCain's Record

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Robor
Gotta love the men in this thread who are in favor of laws that would force their moral outlook on women. :roll:

Why? Lots of non-parents tell parents they can't discipline Junior with cigarette burns, non-drinkers tell drinkers they can't drive drunk, non-bankers tell bankers they can't falsify security records, and on and on and on. Law is nothing more than morality codified. Are you in favor of no laws?

Uhmm, laws are a lot different then codified morality. The reason why it is important to have murder be illegal isn't so a sky beardo doesn't get mad at us, it is because society would be unable to function if we were all going around killing one another. The reason you can't cheat on your taxes isn't because lying is wrong, it's because then the government couldn't function because nobody would pay them. And so on...

So can't abortion be outlawed as the taking of the life of another? Just a version of murder, really. "Sky beardo" would have nothing to do with it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Robor
Gotta love the men in this thread who are in favor of laws that would force their moral outlook on women. :roll:

Why? Lots of non-parents tell parents they can't discipline Junior with cigarette burns, non-drinkers tell drinkers they can't drive drunk, non-bankers tell bankers they can't falsify security records, and on and on and on. Law is nothing more than morality codified. Are you in favor of no laws?

Uhmm, laws are a lot different then codified morality. The reason why it is important to have murder be illegal isn't so a sky beardo doesn't get mad at us, it is because society would be unable to function if we were all going around killing one another. The reason you can't cheat on your taxes isn't because lying is wrong, it's because then the government couldn't function because nobody would pay them. And so on...

So can't abortion be outlawed as the taking of the life of another? Just a version of murder, really. "Sky beardo" would have nothing to do with it.

Not if you read my rationale for the outlawing of murder. (by the way, does that mean we agree that law is not just codified morality?) I've actually had this discussion before. Simply put, having someone terminate their pregnancy does not damage society in the same way as your neighbor coming over and bashing your head in with an axe does. Others in your neighborhood do not withdraw from social and economic activity to fortify their houses if you have an abortion, they very well might if murder was legal. This is why there is a specific societal interest in keeping murder illegal, but that same interest is far more difficult to put forth outside of a moral context for abortion.

Sure I feel sad for the baby that's going to get vacuumed. I've thought about this a lot however, and if it comes down to protecting an unconscious pile of cells in someone's uterus against protecting the rights of Americans to do with their bodies as they wish, I'll come down on the side of the latter every time.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87
Give me a break. This isnt a sex issue, but a life issue. That is like saying women shouldnt have a say in creating laws against murder if a murder is committed by a man.

Calling it reproductive rights is putting a shine on a turd, that turd being abortion.

Perhaps, but Blackangst still has it 180 degrees backwards when he suggests the debate is really pro-abortion vs. pro-life. Like so many people, while I personally dislike abortion, I nonetheless support each woman's right to make her own choices. I am therefore NOT pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice.

Similarly, the phrase "pro-life" is in most cases a misnomer since there is no general agenda to promote life -- anti-war, anti-capital punishment, feed the hungry, free health care (or even free prenatal care), etc. -- but rather a focus on stopping abortions. Therefore, it is more accurate to frame that position as anti-abortion. It always struck me as a bit strange that they hide from that label, preferring instead to mask their true agenda behind the "pro-life" euphemism. Are they ashamed to oppose abortion or just pro-deception?

Thats pretty much what I said...so how am I 180 degrees backwards?

I think it has something to do with the part when you said calling it the "Right to Choose" was NOT calling it what it is, whereas I'm saying "Right to Choose" is exactly what it is. That 180 degrees backwards.

Oh. Semantics. NP

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I have to ask internet tough guy blackanst1 a question..

"Anyway. I dont even know why this is an issue. A presidents view on abortion has ZERO bearing on ANYTHING. It has about as much effect as what flavor of ice cream he prefers."

Even you aren't that naive, are you?

Realistic is a better word. Im open to explanation though if you can provide one.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: blackangst1
A presidents view on abortion has ZERO bearing on ANYTHING. It has about as much effect as what flavor of ice cream he prefers.

QFT :thumbsup:

I guess you guys missed that little "how a bill becomes a law" thing. :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...ictims_of_Violence_Act

uh...he SIGNED the law....had Graham not written it, and eventually gotten 136 co-sponsors, he wouldnt have...right? Sooooo...how could a president enact a law without a congress person writing and getting backing for it? Tell us oh wise one.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Robor
Gotta love the men in this thread who are in favor of laws that would force their moral outlook on women. :roll:

Why? Lots of non-parents tell parents they can't discipline Junior with cigarette burns, non-drinkers tell drinkers they can't drive drunk, non-bankers tell bankers they can't falsify security records, and on and on and on. Law is nothing more than morality codified. Are you in favor of no laws?

Uhmm, laws are a lot different then codified morality. The reason why it is important to have murder be illegal isn't so a sky beardo doesn't get mad at us, it is because society would be unable to function if we were all going around killing one another. The reason you can't cheat on your taxes isn't because lying is wrong, it's because then the government couldn't function because nobody would pay them. And so on...

So can't abortion be outlawed as the taking of the life of another? Just a version of murder, really. "Sky beardo" would have nothing to do with it.

Not if you read my rationale for the outlawing of murder. (by the way, does that mean we agree that law is not just codified morality?) I've actually had this discussion before. Simply put, having someone terminate their pregnancy does not damage society in the same way as your neighbor coming over and bashing your head in with an axe does. Others in your neighborhood do not withdraw from social and economic activity to fortify their houses if you have an abortion, they very well might if murder was legal. This is why there is a specific societal interest in keeping murder illegal, but that same interest is far more difficult to put forth outside of a moral context for abortion.

Sure I feel sad for the baby that's going to get vacuumed. I've thought about this a lot however, and if it comes down to protecting an unconscious pile of cells in someone's uterus against protecting the rights of Americans to do with their bodies as they wish, I'll come down on the side of the latter every time.

Using your argument, killing a newborn does not damage society either. In fact it helps society. Less resources used.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Not if you read my rationale for the outlawing of murder. (by the way, does that mean we agree that law is not just codified morality?)

No, but that's a sidetrack for now.

I've actually had this discussion before. Simply put, having someone terminate their pregnancy does not damage society in the same way as your neighbor coming over and bashing your head in with an axe does. Others in your neighborhood do not withdraw from social and economic activity to fortify their houses if you have an abortion, they very well might if murder was legal. This is why there is a specific societal interest in keeping murder illegal, but that same interest is far more difficult to put forth outside of a moral context for abortion.

Surely you can do better than a vague standard ("damages society"?) and a mostly irrelevent one ("social and economic activity"?) in drawing the line between those actions which society may prohibit by law and those which society has no right to prohibit, even if some of their members find it immoral (drinking and gambling being two examples). By the "withdraw from economic activity" standard, we should ban booze. Few drunks are productive citizens. And we probably never should've outlawed slavery. It really messed up the economy of the South.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Is this thread supposed to be taken serious? McCain not 100% pro-abortion?
What a surprise.

I'm shocked I tell you, SHOCKED!



















OK, I'm not.

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"Unmask John McCain's Record" - because he was hiding it?

No, silly. It had a MASK on, so people couldn't tell it was HIS record! I personally didn't SEE the mask, but I assume a zoro-eque type.

And FWIW, I think they will have a VERY hard time outlawing abortion regardless. I hope to god they can't get it done, but I am ok with someone who supports not killing babies.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Not if you read my rationale for the outlawing of murder. (by the way, does that mean we agree that law is not just codified morality?) I've actually had this discussion before. Simply put, having someone terminate their pregnancy does not damage society in the same way as your neighbor coming over and bashing your head in with an axe does. Others in your neighborhood do not withdraw from social and economic activity to fortify their houses if you have an abortion, they very well might if murder was legal. This is why there is a specific societal interest in keeping murder illegal, but that same interest is far more difficult to put forth outside of a moral context for abortion.

Sure I feel sad for the baby that's going to get vacuumed. I've thought about this a lot however, and if it comes down to protecting an unconscious pile of cells in someone's uterus against protecting the rights of Americans to do with their bodies as they wish, I'll come down on the side of the latter every time.

Using your argument, killing a newborn does not damage society either. In fact it helps society. Less resources used.

That's not true at all. Our society requires new members to continue our social and economic system. Newborns might consume resources, but people are net resource producers. That's beside the point though. If killing babies out in society were legal, think about how that would change how things function. It would be pretty serious, and I doubt in a positive way. This has not been shown to be true of abortion. (abortion being legal or illegal has shown little effect on the number of annual abortions, and I have seen no convincing argument that such legalization has caused some sort of other societal decay)

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Dude chill the fuck out. It was sarcastic.

It doesn't even make sense in a sarcastic sense. Let's try to look at the context of this thread: people who would vote for Hillary will vote for McCain. Then look at my post: "They are idiots." Who do you think "They" is referring to? Could it be the people who would vote for McCain since Hillary isn't going to get the nomination? :roll:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: blackangst1
A presidents view on abortion has ZERO bearing on ANYTHING. It has about as much effect as what flavor of ice cream he prefers.

QFT :thumbsup:

I guess you guys missed that little "how a bill becomes a law" thing. :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...ictims_of_Violence_Act

uh...he SIGNED the law....had Graham not written it, and eventually gotten 136 co-sponsors, he wouldnt have...right? Sooooo...how could a president enact a law without a congress person writing and getting backing for it? Tell us oh wise one.

"I forbid" telling you.

Your proclaimed ignorance of any executive involvement in enacting pro-life or pro-choice legislation is mind numbing.

ZERO bearing on ANYTHING? If he vetoed it then it wouldn't be law. See how that works?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Not if you read my rationale for the outlawing of murder. (by the way, does that mean we agree that law is not just codified morality?)

No, but that's a sidetrack for now.

I've actually had this discussion before. Simply put, having someone terminate their pregnancy does not damage society in the same way as your neighbor coming over and bashing your head in with an axe does. Others in your neighborhood do not withdraw from social and economic activity to fortify their houses if you have an abortion, they very well might if murder was legal. This is why there is a specific societal interest in keeping murder illegal, but that same interest is far more difficult to put forth outside of a moral context for abortion.

Surely you can do better than a vague standard ("damages society"?) and a mostly irrelevent one ("social and economic activity"?) in drawing the line between those actions which society may prohibit by law and those which society has no right to prohibit, even if some of their members find it immoral (drinking and gambling being two examples). By the "withdraw from economic activity" standard, we should ban booze. Few drunks are productive citizens. And we probably never should've outlawed slavery. It really messed up the economy of the South.

"Damages society" is vague because of the huge number of potential consequences of legal murder. I thought they were so obvious and so numerous that they would not require explanation.

What do you mean social and economic activity is 'mostly irrelevant'? It's pretty much the basis for all of our laws. Now you are attempting to take my argument to an illogical extreme to discredit it. Certainly you can do better. If your only standard is "If something has a negative impact on society it should be banned" then you could make your case, but in the real world we examine all the facets of an issue. Alcohol has pluses and minuses, society has determined that the positives of having fun, the positives of the billions of dollars in revenue the industry creates, etc. outweigh the bad parts of people being drunks, etc. Not to mention the explosion of organized crime the last ban brought. This is why some things are bad and legal, and some things are bad and illegal.

In the case of murder any benefits are difficult to discern, but the negatives are large and readily visible. The case of abortion is not nearly so clear. This is why murder is illegal, and abortion is legal.

 

[NeoV]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I have to ask internet tough guy blackanst1 a question..

"Anyway. I dont even know why this is an issue. A presidents view on abortion has ZERO bearing on ANYTHING. It has about as much effect as what flavor of ice cream he prefers."

Even you aren't that naive, are you?



Realistic is a better word. Im open to explanation though if you can provide one.


Hmm...how can the President's views on something have bearing on anything?

You mean like Bush's stance on Stem Cell research? You mean like appointing a judge to the Supreme Court - or are you going to deny the court has any power over abortion laws too?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tab
As for the baby killer comment I would like to think you're more mature than that.

WTF is wrong with the people in this forum recently? Are all of the posts I'm reading somehow magically not appearing for anyone else? No one can place anything in context anymore. :roll:

I guess everyone whom supports abortion is a baby killer... :roll:

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Who are you to tell a man he has to pay child support "just because a rubber broke, the pill failed, etc."? Doesn't the woman have the abortion option? So if she elects not to use it, why should the man have to pay for 18+ years?

I don't have a problem with men refusing to pay child support. Women have all the choice in the current state of affairs - which is wrong.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tab
I guess everyone whom supports abortion is a baby killer... :roll:

I guess everyone whose online handle is Tab struggles with literacy. You have absolutely no idea what I said. You took one sentence out of context. Epic fail.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tab
I guess everyone whom supports abortion is a baby killer... :roll:

I guess everyone whose online handle is Tab struggles with literacy. You have absolutely no idea what I said. You took one sentence out of context. Epic fail.

Oh really...

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Thats right. Because wanting to not kill a fetus is just plain stupid.

Wow, you really are an idiot, aren't you? I've probably posted more threads in opposition to abortion than anyone else in this entire forum. Now you take something I said completely out of context to make me look like a baby killer. Now either go work on your reading comprehension or DIAF.

Ck, explain to me what that's suppose to mean. You're not implying that us pro-choicers are baby killers... Right? :roll:

 

[Fern]

Time To Unmask John McCain's Record

His Shocking Record On Reproductive Rights

LOLz @ the thread title.

You make it sound like he's voting to outlaw sex and procreation, or maybe voting for forced sterilization.

Fern.