Avatar image for spareheadone
#651 Edited by SpareHeadOne (6072 posts) - - Show Bio

@lan_fan:

Yeah sorry.

People should be allowed to be born so they can suffer, slave, cure cancer then die.

Avatar image for lan_fan
#652 Posted by Lan_Fan (13069 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for snoppy_momo
#653 Edited by Snoppy_MoMo (768 posts) - - Show Bio

What ppl don't realize is babies cost a lot you have to buy certain food for them to eat, powder, diapers all this baby stuff is just to much and to the young parents out there like high school and college students they don't have time to worry about a child at that age your selfish and suppost to have fun not end up poor and taking care of something that needs attention and cared for cuz it can't do sh it for itself

Avatar image for spareheadone
#654 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6072 posts) - - Show Bio

@lan_fan:

You are correct yet again...

People should be allowed to be born so they can suffer, slave, cure cancer then go through a lot of other shit and then die.

Avatar image for rl4
#655 Posted by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4:

Because they don't care about the life of someone once they're born

What? I'm literally dumbfounded by this statement. I don't even know how to reply to this.

Pro-lifers are perfectly content forcing a woman to give birth to a child she has no means to support and nurture. If they really care about life then they'd be offering to adopt the children of women considering abortions en masse. Because again, most women seeking abortions do so because they're either too young, or too impoverished to be able to safely raise a child.

Avatar image for edgelord666
#656 Posted by EdgeLord666 (351 posts) - - Show Bio

Keep the population down by any means.

Avatar image for ourmanuel
#657 Posted by ourmanuel (11325 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for i_like_swords
#658 Posted by i_like_swords (26196 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4 said:
@idodoodieduties said:

@rl4:

Because they don't care about the life of someone once they're born

What? I'm literally dumbfounded by this statement. I don't even know how to reply to this.

Pro-lifers are perfectly content forcing a woman to give birth to a child she has no means to support and nurture. If they really care about life then they'd be offering to adopt the children of women considering abortions en masse. Because again, most women seeking abortions do so because they're either too young, or too impoverished to be able to safely raise a child.

I don't follow. Why is giving birth such a big deal if the woman can, as you just pointed out, hand her baby off to someone actually capable of looking after it? She doesn't need the means to support and nurture her child. Lucky her right?

Besides, nobody is forcing her to do anything. She decided to get pregnant, then she forces a piece of metal inside her to kill and extract her unborn baby. Let's just make sure we are using the correct terminology first of all.

Avatar image for edgelord666
#659 Posted by EdgeLord666 (351 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for rl4
#660 Posted by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4 said:
@idodoodieduties said:

@rl4:

Because they don't care about the life of someone once they're born

What? I'm literally dumbfounded by this statement. I don't even know how to reply to this.

Pro-lifers are perfectly content forcing a woman to give birth to a child she has no means to support and nurture. If they really care about life then they'd be offering to adopt the children of women considering abortions en masse. Because again, most women seeking abortions do so because they're either too young, or too impoverished to be able to safely raise a child.

I don't follow. Why is giving birth such a big deal if the woman can, as you just pointed out, hand her baby off to someone actually capable of looking after it? She doesn't need the means to support and nurture her child. Lucky her right?

Besides, nobody is forcing her to do anything. She decided to get pregnant, then she forces a piece of metal inside her to kill and extract her unborn baby. Let's just make sure we are using the correct terminology first of all.

I'm assuming you're not adopted nor are you a foster child. America's foster program is a joke. Why should children be subject to live a dim and bleak existence, no child should ever have to live feeling unloved, unwanted.

Besides, nobody is forcing her to do anything. She decided to get pregnant, then she forces a piece of metal inside her to kill and extract her unborn baby. Let's just make sure we are using the correct terminology first of all.

Wow. That's among the most disgusting, ignorant, and repugnant things I've read on this site. There's no wonder the comic-book misogynist stereotype exists.

Avatar image for megafanflash
#661 Posted by Megafanflash (776 posts) - - Show Bio

"I am finding it really hard to choose a side on abortions. On one hand I am all for killing babies, but on the other I don't like giving women a choice"

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#662 Edited by i_like_swords (26196 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm assuming you're not adopted nor are you a foster child. America's foster program is a joke. Why should children be subject to live a dim and bleak existence, no child should ever have to live feeling unloved, unwanted.

Could use the same logic to justify killing babies. Well, I guess that's what we're doing right?

@rl4 said:

Besides, nobody is forcing her to do anything. She decided to get pregnant, then she forces a piece of metal inside her to kill and extract her unborn baby. Let's just make sure we are using the correct terminology first of all.

Wow. That's among the most disgusting, ignorant, and repugnant things I've read on this site. There's no wonder the comic-book misogynist stereotype exists.

How do women get pregnant? Do they get hit with a magical impregnating beam of misogyny like someone said earlier, or do they agree to have sex knowing full well it could make them pregnant?

Does the egg magically fertilise itself and force the mother to give birth to it? Is it the whole world's fault and not the woman's for getting pregnant? Pro tip getting upset isn't an argument.

Avatar image for rl4
#663 Posted by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords:

I’m not arguing with you, you sound a bit defensive, wonder why... I’m am however shocked by the total lack of self awareness you’re putting on display here. Take care.

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#664 Posted by i_like_swords (26196 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4 said:

@i_like_swords:

I’m not arguing with you, you sound a bit defensive, wonder why... I’m am however shocked by the total lack of self awareness you’re putting on display here. Take care.

Lol concession accepted.

Avatar image for farkam
#665 Posted by Farkam (12025 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro, with some rules (forcible or statutory rape, deadly to the mother and some such).

Avatar image for rl4
#666 Posted by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords:

Concession to what exactly? It’s hard to tell if you’re trolling or not.

Avatar image for xzone
#667 Posted by xZone (10334 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4: We are forcing her? Are you saying I’m the one who forced her to have sex? I don’t think so

Avatar image for xzone
#668 Posted by xZone (10334 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro life. At minimum when the baby has a heart beat it’s a human life

Avatar image for rl4
#669 Posted by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

@xzone:

We are forcing her?

If your stance is that Abortion ought to be illegal, and women shouldn't have control over their reproductive health, then yes, by default, you're in favor of forced birthing.

Are you saying I’m the one who forced her to have sex? I don’t think so

I should hope not. That would make you a rapist.

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#670 Posted by i_like_swords (26196 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4 said:

@i_like_swords:

Concession to what exactly? It’s hard to tell if you’re trolling or not.

Instead of taking a sentence or two to respond to my point you just ad hominem'd. Telltale sign of someone lacking an argument.

Avatar image for xzone
#671 Posted by xZone (10334 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4: You have this backwards. She has the choice to not have sex...

With sex, there is a risk that you may become pregnant, the women knows that before hand, so it’s her fault she’s in this situation. None of that even matters because it’s a life vs your feelings, and I care more about the human life.

Avatar image for rl4
#672 Posted by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

@xzone:

You have this backwards. She has the choice to not have sex...

In an ideal world. In the real world, people get raped.

With sex, there is a risk that you may become pregnant, the women knows that before hand,

Not all women know that, especially in impoverished countries where sex education is virtually non-existent, or the Bible-Belt, where its taboo to education young adults, That's why there are so many pregnant teens. Not because they're looking to raise families, but because they either have no acess to contraception or education to make informed decisions about their bodies.

so it’s her fault she’s in this situation.

Victim blaming.

None of that even matters because it’s a life vs your feelings, and I care more about the human life.

That's way oversimplified. It's a burgeoning life against the mature life of a mother, my feelings are irrelevant here, and I don't appreciate the notion that you can handwave an argument away like that. Pregnancy adds a significant health risk and challenge to a woman. If a woman is unwilling to undergo such a risk, why should the life of a non-sentient being take precedent over her own? The answer is that it shouldn't.

@i_like_swords

Instead of taking a sentence or two to respond to my point you just ad hominem'd. Telltale sign of someone lacking an argument.

Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole?

Could use the same logic to justify killing babies. Well, I guess that's what we're doing right?

Not a point being made here.

How do women get pregnant?

We all know how, you're still not making a point.

Do they get hit with a magical impregnating beam of misogyny like someone said earlier,

You're wasting text with nonsense here.

or do they agree to have sex knowing full well it could make them pregnant?

Not all women have the acess to high quality western education, and even then, there are women in the western world who don't know this. American's are famously ignorant.

Does the egg magically fertilise itself and force the mother to give birth to it?

It's not magic, it's a chemical and biological function, and yes, it does eventually force the mother to gestate and birth it, that's how nearly every species on Earth propagates.

Is it the whole world's fault and not the woman's for getting pregnant?

You're still not making a point here.

Pro tip getting upset isn't an argument.

You've repeated this line twice now, I promise you, I'm not in an argument, and I'm not upset with you. I do get the feeling you're only trying to antagonize me though, which makes me wonder....i_like_swords, exactly how old are you? I don't mean it as a slant against you, it's just that I remember being a teenager, being emotionally immature, and acting antagonizing while condescending in arguments, and the way you've been presenting yourself just seems indicative of youth...? I understand if you don't want to answer though, age can be a sensitive topic on the internet, though it might help me understand where you're coming from.

you just ad hominem'd

I said,

  • ".. I’m am however shocked by the total lack of self awareness you’re putting on display here..."
  • "...That's among the most disgusting, ignorant, and repugnant things I've read on this site...."

I'm sure that's what you're referring to. Unfortunately, you're not using 'ad hominem' right, as neither of these are personal attacks. The first listed is a criticism of what rhetoric you've used, and the second was a criticism of your rhetoric in comparison to other detestable gems found on this site. It would have been an ad hominem has I instead said YOU were repugnant, or that YOU lack self-awareness, yet I've done neither, I've only attribute those critiques to your (and I'm being very generous here) "points." The closest I came to an ad hominem was insinuating that you might be trolling.

So, i_like_swords, if we're keeping score in this conversation, so far you've made 5 non-points, and you've shown you don't really understand what an ad hominem is. Here's a link to a helpful website that can teach you about ad hominems and other logical fallacies so you can avoid using them in the future.

Link

Hopefully now you can understand why my interest in holding a serious conversation with you is at an all-time low. It's a combination of intentional antagonism, disrespectfulness, and clumsy debating.

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#673 Edited by i_like_swords (26196 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4:

Not all women have the acess to high quality western education, and even then, there are women in the western world who don't know this. American's are famously ignorant.

You're saying the reason most women in the western world get knocked up and need an abortion is because they aren't taught that sex makes them pregnant? Wat? 90% of Americans complete high school meaning even if we assume they have negligent parents, 90% of them complete sex ed at school, and of the 10% who drop out of high school, we can assume most of them complete sex ed because it's taught at a pretty young age.

So no, your point is absolutely ridiculous here. The overwhelming majority of American women know how the birds and bees procreate. So to get back to the original point, you said "Pro-lifers are perfectly content forcing a woman to give birth to a child"

Your refutation to this being that "Americans are ignorant" is not only stupid because it's not true, but because ignorance has never been a good excuse for carrying out an immoral act. The act itself is still of moral concern regardless of how the perpetrator feels about it. If I shoot someone with an AK-47 but was under the impression it would only tickle them, and they die, guess what? They're just as dead as if I knew what I was doing. You can however forgive ignorance, so if you can provide some statistics proving that the average woman who gets an abortion does so because she wasn't taught basic sex ed, feel free to prove it.

And even then, once the woman knows she is carrying a life, if she decides to kill it, that's still on her. The baby is not the aggressor and has not forced her to do anything, she has brought the pregnancy upon herself.

It's not magic, it's a chemical and biological function, and yes, it does eventually force the mother to gestate and birth it, that's how nearly every species on Earth propagates.

A function that requires a woman to invite a man into her vagina first.

You've repeated this line twice now, I promise you, I'm not in an argument, and I'm not upset with you. I do get the feeling you're only trying to antagonize me though, which makes me wonder....i_like_swords, exactly how old are you? I don't mean it as a slant against you, it's just that I remember being a teenager, being emotionally immature, and acting antagonizing while condescending in arguments, and the way you've been presenting yourself just seems indicative of youth...? I understand if you don't want to answer though, age can be a sensitive topic on the internet, though it might help me understand where you're coming from.

You spend a hell of a lot of time talking about shit besides the point and making the debate about me, and it's obvious why: your arguments belong in a trash compactor along with your flimsy moral framework. That you are someone who does this but, based on your post, aren't exactly a spring chicken should be of grave concern to you. I don't know how you get to having grey hairs but still lack the wisdom to put together a coherent argument and not resort to logical fallacies within two retorts.

I said,

  • ".. I’m am however shocked by the total lack of self awareness you’re putting on display here..."
  • "...That's among the most disgusting, ignorant, and repugnant things I've read on this site...."

I'm sure that's what you're referring to.

"You sound defensive, I'm not arguing with you." - me being defensive has nothing to do with the debate and isn't an excuse for you to dodge the point.

So, i_like_swords, if we're keeping score in this conversation, so far you've made 5 non-points, and you've shown you don't really understand what an ad hominem is. Here's a link to a helpful website that can teach you about ad hominems and other logical fallacies so you can avoid using them in the future.

Link

Hopefully now you can understand why my interest in holding a serious conversation with you is at an all-time low. It's a combination of intentional antagonism, disrespectfulness, and clumsy debating.

Yeah, I'm really going to lose sleep over some man-child who can't debate properly condescending to me on the internet.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b9c488ed7f76
#674 Edited by deactivated-5b9c488ed7f76 (10909 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-life, but one exclusion would be rape cases, then I am pro-choice all the way.

Avatar image for rl4
#675 Posted by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords:

You're saying the reason most women in the western world get knocked up and need an abortion is because they aren't taught that sex makes them pregnant?

I'm saying it's a factor.

Wat? 90% of Americans complete high school meaning even if we assume they have negligent parents, 90% of them complete sex ed at school,

American sex education is generally very bad, especially in Republican/Bible-belt states, where religious influence on the education system interferes with academia.

and of the 10% who drop out of high school, we can assume most of them complete sex ed because it's taught at a pretty young age.

Closer to 15%, and no, I'd not be willing to make that leap of faith, nor would I be willing to assume the above wouldn't apply either way.

So no, your point is absolutely ridiculous here. The overwhelming majority of American women know how the birds and bees procreate.

The *majority* not all.

So to get back to the original point, you said "Pro-lifers are perfectly content forcing a woman to give birth to a child" Your refutation to this being that "Americans are ignorant" is not only stupid because it's not true,

So you're happy to "get to the point" as it would be, and immediately derail yourself to something wholly unrelated to the statement you set out to address.

but because ignorance has never been a good excuse for carrying out an immoral act.

It's immoral in your opinion swords. In my opinion, it's immoral to value the life of a non-sentient being over that of a sentient one. If all you've got is a difference of opinion about it, then we've little to discuss.

"It's bad because it's bad." could very well be your argument here.

The act itself is still of moral concern regardless of how the perpetrator feels about it.

False. swords, take any criminology class and the first thing you'll learn are the two elements of a crime. Mens Reas, and Mens Actus. Together they are the guilty mind, and the guilty action. Without one, a crime in it's truest sense has not occured. They are the reason MANSLAUGHTER carries a different sentence than MURDER. While both might have been guilty actions, only the murder was done with the intention of performing a guilty action.

If I shoot someone with an AK-47 but was under the impression it would only tickle them, and they die, guess what? They're just as dead as if I knew what I was doing.

And you'd be guilty of negligent manslaughter instead of premeditated murder, which in America means the difference between a prison sentence, and the state taking your life.

You can however forgive ignorance, so if you can provide some statistics proving that the average woman who gets an abortion does so because she wasn't taught basic sex ed, feel free to prove it.

Welcome to the United States of Stupidity.SourceAdditional ReadingBookworm Tier.

  • 24 States and the District of columbia require sex education be taught in America.
  • 27 states and the District of Columbia mandate that, when provided, sex and HIV education programs meet certain general requirements.
  • 13 states require that the instruction be medically accurate.
  • 26 states and the District of Columbia require that the information be appropriate for the students' age.
  • 18 states and the District of Columbia require that information on contraception be provided.
  • 37 states require that information on abstinence be provided.
  • 27 states require that abstinence be stressed.
  • 10 states require that abstinence be covered.
  • 18 states require that instruction on the importance of engaging in sexual activity only within marriage be provided.
  • 12 states require discussion of sexual orientation.
  • 3 states require only negative information on sexual orientation.
  • 13 states require the inclusion of information on the negative outcomes of teen sex and pregnancy.
  • 28 states and the District of Columbia require the provision of information about skills for healthy sexuality (including avoiding coerced sex), healthy decision making and family communication when sex education is taught.
  • 25 states and the District of Columbia require that sex education include information about skills for avoiding coerced sex.
  • 22 states require that sex education include information on making healthy decisions around sexuality.
  • 11 states require that sex education include instruction on how to talk to family members, especially parents, about sex.

Education, or a lack thereof presents one of the biggest hurdles in reducing unwanted pregnancy. The American education system, to no surprise, is seriously fragmented, and lacks the sort of quality and uniformity you're pretending it has.

A function that requires a woman to invite a man into her vagina first.

Except of course in cases of rape, sexual assault, or coercive sex. And even here' you're victim blaming.

You spend a hell of a lot of time talking about shit besides the point and making the debate about me,

I've actually been spending most of my time on topic.

and it's obvious why: your arguments belong in a trash compactor along with your flimsy moral framework.

Now forgive the assumption, but that certainly reads like you're getting overly emotional, and the last part about my "flimsy moral framework" is a textbook ad hominem.

That you are someone who does this but, based on your post, aren't exactly a spring chicken should be of grave concern to you.

I'm 21 years of age. I think I'm doing all right for myself, thanks.

I don't know how you get to having grey hairs but still lack the wisdom to put together a coherent argument and not resort to logical fallacies within two retorts.

Okay, I'm seriously concerned again as to whether or not you're just trolling. You obviously have heard of an ad hominem, and logical fallacies, yet you accuse me of them in place of debating, all the while making them yourself. It's as I've said before, your comments on this thread are showing a concerning lack of self-awareness.

"You sound defensive, I'm not arguing with you." - me being defensive has nothing to do with the debate and isn't an excuse for you to dodge the point.

I wrote that to dismiss you. Your post read as uninterested in actual debate, and you seem to have ignored the fact that the "points" i'm hypothetically dodging had been completely dismissed as non sequiturs. Non sequiturs mind you, that you've chosen not to defend now, rather to grieve that they've been dismissed for what they are, non-points.

Yeah, I'm really going to lose sleep over some man-child who can't debate properly condescending to me on the internet.

As above, I hope the irony of accusing someone about making a personal attack logical fallacy, and then proceeding to do it yourself by calling me a man-child. (Which strangely enough contradicts yourself earlier in this post about you theorizing that I'm a grey-haired old man.)

Is this really the best you've got when it comes to debating i_like_swords? This isn't just disappointing, (Because my expectations were already quite low), this is concerning. I'm no psychiatrist, but you don't sound very well adjusted, and your reaction to being challenged screams of an emotional immaturity. Hope things are going well for you.

Avatar image for greysentinel365
#676 Posted by Greysentinel365 (6164 posts) - - Show Bio

If these women don't want to have the baby, they will figure out a way to not have it. Best to give them a safe option.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#677 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6072 posts) - - Show Bio

I couldn't kill a foetus for a rape victim.

I don't know if I could kill a foetus at all.

I think that I am pro "choice" as long as I don't have to make the choice or kill the embryo.

I think that if I refuse to do it myself then maybe I should be pro life.

Avatar image for xzone
#678 Posted by xZone (10334 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4: I stopped reading after you said the reason for so many pregnant teens was cause of the Bible Belt. I’m sorry, but that just made me laugh. Perhaps if I have more time I’ll respond to the rest, but that was pure Gold

Avatar image for rl4
#679 Posted by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

@xzone said:

@rl4: I stopped reading after you said the reason for so many pregnant teens was cause of the Bible Belt. I’m sorry, but that just made me laugh. Perhaps if I have more time I’ll respond to the rest, but that was pure Gold

That's not only a poor excuse for dodging a point, but it downplays a serious issue going on in America. If you don't want to respond, that's fine, but have an honest answer for it.

Avatar image for xzone
#680 Posted by xZone (10334 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4: I could say the same to you. Do you really think that Christian teens are the ones creating this massive problem? Contributing? Maybe. But saying that’s the problem is simply wrong.

Avatar image for rl4
#681 Edited by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

@xzone said:

@rl4: I could say the same to you. Do you really think that Christian teens are the ones creating this massive problem? Contributing? Maybe. But saying that’s the problem is simply wrong.

The facts speak for themselves.

Trust me, I wish teen pregnancy was less prevalent than it is, and they have been going down in numbers in recent time, thanks to increased awareness, but there's no logic in pretending the zealously religious have no hand in making it, and keeping it a problem.

No Caption Provided

No Caption Provided
Avatar image for emperordmb
#682 Posted by Emperordmb (1987 posts) - - Show Bio

"I am finding it really hard to choose a side on abortions. On one hand I am all for killing babies, but on the other I don't like giving women a choice"

Congratulations sir, you've won the shitpost of the thread award.

Avatar image for lunacyde
#683 Edited by Lunacyde (28177 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: I agree that in general women are certainly not faultless in their pregnancy (exempting relatively rare cases like rape), but I would stipulate that being aware of risk does not mean you are seeking or necessarily "asking for" a negative consequence. Yes, we accept the inherent risk when engaging in any action, but accepting risk does not de facto mean that you deserve that risk. Even the most careful individual can be affected by circumstances outside of their control.

Death or severe bodily injury is an inherent risk in driving an automobile. Does that mean that every time you drive an automobile you are looking to die or be severely injured? Does it mean that you are inherently at fault if you die, or are severely injured? Does it mean that everyone who has died or been injured in an automobile accident deserves to have died or been injured? The statement you should not have sex unless you want to become pregnant is logically equal to the argument you should not drive unless you want to be killed or severely harmed in an automobile accident.

Moderator
Avatar image for i_like_swords
#684 Edited by i_like_swords (26196 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde: How is that not a false equivalency? If you drive you obey the rules of the road. If someone doesn't obey the rules of the road and crashes into you, that's akin to a woman being raped. She played by the rules but suffered the consequences of someone else's actions.

It's more like if I drive on the wrong side of the road, there's no guarantee I will hit someone but eventually it will happen. Just like the more unprotected sex you have the more likely you are to become pregnant. If you drive on the wrong side of the road, you are asking to get hit by a car.

Avatar image for lil_remains
#685 Edited by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords:

I guess I'll respond this old one, since the last ones stem from my refusal to answer this one (preservation of my brain cells)

Let's not change the goalposts here. To quote you from earlier: "Babies do have the ability to reproduce, it has not been fully developed. They will continue to develop this, without being parasitic to another human."

Yes. Babies are not biologically dependent. Which is the literal definition of "parasite"

par·a·siteˈperəˌsīt/noun

  1. an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense

I obviously meant it in a literal, not metaphorical sense, but whatever mental gymnastics you need to go through to make the difference between a fetus and baby non-existent is fine, i guess.

Fetus' also have the ability to reproduce once fully developed, and babies are also parasitical to human beings. There is no difference. So now you have changed the goalposts to "not biologically parasitical.

Between your fancy bolding and italics if you tried actually reading you'd see I'd never switched any goalposts. I stated biologically parasitic so you'd know it was literal, because you were trying to take it metaphorically to save your shitty points.

Even with these shifted goalposts, I must ask, what is the difference? If nobody wants to look after a baby, it will die. It's technically speaking a parasite, it requires something in return for nothing

Because it's a metaphorical and not a literal parasite. It can move, make noises, maintain homeostasis, etc, unlike what's possible in the first trimester. It is not dependant on a single organism for homeostasis.

So now you are saying a parasite is a living thing as long as it is not a physically attached parasite. It can be a parasite that will one day be able to reproduce, just not right now. But if it's a parasite that can't reproduce right now, just some time later on, it's a very important difference if there is an umbilical cord attached

Reductio ad-absurdum. Gotta love these logical fallacies needed to maintain your shitty argument on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

You have also said, however and I quote: "However fetuses are biologically dependent on women until a certain stage of maturity. Until then (early to mid second trimester) they are not living."

This is pretty distressing, because you just said if something is physically attached to the mother, it is not a living thing, and yet you have also said that a second trimester fetus is a living thing despite being attached to the mother.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you haven't actually thought about this issue very carefully, that you have picked a nice, fuzzy-sounding arbitrary cut off point for when killing a fetus is fine and when it isn't

Uh no, I chose this because this is

(A.) Where the youngest surviving preemies are born. Meaning some are able to maintain homeostasis outside of the womb at this point. (20 weeks along)

(B.) This is when the 'Quickening' happens. Embryos are lowered into the womb, and then this is when the fetus begins moving. This is also when the british law considers the fetus living as well.

So unfortunately for you, there's actual factual reasoning for these dates, and not just the fallacies your argument is built upon. Also, you can't kill which is not living.

and that your repeated attempts to bring the debate to a close with ad hominem (quoted below) are a thinly veiled attempt to mask the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and your arguments are terrible.

Yeah, your fallacies, strawmen and illustrate excellent debating skills.

You haven't yet made a single coherent argument and have employed numerous fallacies

Thanks for summing up your argument for me. Saved me some time.

Avatar image for lunacyde
#686 Edited by Lunacyde (28177 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords said:

@lunacyde: How is that not a false equivalency? If you drive you obey the rules of the road. If someone doesn't obey the rules of the road and crashes into you, that's akin to a woman being raped. She played by the rules but suffered the consequences of someone else's actions.

It's more like if I drive on the wrong side of the road, there's no guarantee I will hit someone but eventually it will happen. Just like the more unprotected sex you have the more likely you are to become pregnant. If you drive on the wrong side of the road, you are asking to get hit by a car.

You can obey all traffic laws and still be at risk. Both parties can obey all traffic laws and still be at risk. Your statement assumes that everyone who is involved in an accident was not complying with traffic laws, or a victim of someone else who was not complying. Two individuals can both take proper safety precautions (wear a seat belt, follow traffic laws, not be distracted or compromised by drugs) and still face risk. The exact same is true of sex.

Following laws and taking proper safety procedures can reduce risk, just as using protection and utilizing safe sex practices can reduce risk with sex. However, in neither case can we ultimately eliminate risk without abstaining from the activity completely. Obviously culpability exists on a spectrum based upon your own choices, but again my point stands that being pregnant is no more evidence that you "deserve" to be pregnant, than being killed in an automobile accident means you "deserved" to die or be severely injured. The only difference is that your values dictate that one of these choices is negative, while the other is not.

Moderator
Avatar image for universeichigo1
#687 Posted by universeichigo1 (1828 posts) - - Show Bio

People should be given a chance to live and not have it snatched from them.

Avatar image for jagernutt
#688 Posted by jagernutt (16328 posts) - - Show Bio

People should be given a chance to live and not have it snatched from them.

Avatar image for megafanflash
#689 Edited by Megafanflash (776 posts) - - Show Bio

@megafanflash said:

"I am finding it really hard to choose a side on abortions. On one hand I am all for killing babies, but on the other I don't like giving women a choice"

Congratulations sir, you've won the shitpost of the thread award.

Appreciated! My work here is done.

Avatar image for alphaq
#690 Posted by AlphaQ (6212 posts) - - Show Bio
Loading Video...

A lot more people would be "pro-life" if they researched what the procedure can be like.

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#691 Posted by i_like_swords (26196 posts) - - Show Bio

@alphaq: That was pretty harrowing.

The thing that annoys me is that regardless of where you stand on the issue, you can tell most "pro-choice" advocates have never faced up to the reality of what the procedure is. They have to live in a little bubble and trivialise the entire process along with a generous serving of back patting. Just ideological mouthpieces.

Avatar image for hypnos0929
#692 Posted by Hypnos0929 (6545 posts) - - Show Bio

For me it all depends on the reason a person or couple want to get one.

If it's because or rape, incest or someone is unable to support a child financially then I say go for it. If it's a woman doing it to hurt a guy, or she gets one every other month then I think she's irresponsible and cruel.

Personally if I had a girl get rid of my child I'd feel robbed of my chance to be a father. It would break my heart even if the reason was fear or financial instability, though I'd try to be understanding.

What I hate most about this topic is the "My body my choice" people because that baby shouldn't lose its future because it's involuntarily connected to you. I think those women are immediately bad mother's and should be unable to have any children! It's one thing to be afraid for the child, it's another thing to say you have the right to get rid of them. To me the only difference between the fail, handicapped elderly and fetus is one can beg you to let it live.

Avatar image for lan_fan
#693 Posted by Lan_Fan (13069 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for jagernutt
#694 Posted by jagernutt (16328 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for dernman
#695 Edited by Dernman (25971 posts) - - Show Bio

@alphaq said:
Loading Video...

A lot more people would be "pro-life" if they researched what the procedure can be like.

Geez I've always been on the fence but that makes me want to jump over.

Avatar image for buildhare
#696 Posted by buildhare (8649 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4 said:

It's funny how the "Pro-Life" people are really just "Pro-forced Birth" Because they don't care about the life of someone once they're born, and they're all too happy to ignore the fact that most people who get abortions do it because they're too young, and too poor to raise children the way they ought to be raised. It mostly stems from their backwards bronze-age religions from which they apparently get their morals. You know, the same philosophies that teach you how to properly treat your slaves. It's even funnier that these are apparently the "I want small government!" people yet they're perfectly willing to betray their morals when it comes to being able to signal how virtuous they are to their colleagues by declaring that their will should be imposed on someone else.

I'm pro choice.

Avatar image for alphaq
#697 Posted by AlphaQ (6212 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords said:

@alphaq: That was pretty harrowing.

The thing that annoys me is that regardless of where you stand on the issue, you can tell most "pro-choice" advocates have never faced up to the reality of what the procedure is. They have to live in a little bubble and trivialise the entire process along with a generous serving of back patting. Just ideological mouthpieces.

Definitely, it'd turn your stomach.

Yeah, and they have bizarre caricatures of what people who think differently to them believe. Although I kinda also suspect a lot of people just don't have the courage to say they're against abortions or really look into it, even.

@dernman Yeah, it's pretty shocking stuff.

Avatar image for alphaq
#698 Posted by AlphaQ (6212 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4 said:

It's funny how the "Pro-Life" people are really just "Pro-forced Birth" Because they don't care about the life of someone once they're born, and they're all too happy to ignore the fact that most people who get abortions do it because they're too young, and too poor to raise children the way they ought to be raised. It mostly stems from their backwards bronze-age religions from which they apparently get their morals. You know, the same philosophies that teach you how to properly treat your slaves. It's even funnier that these are apparently the "I want small government!" people yet they're perfectly willing to betray their morals when it comes to being able to signal how virtuous they are to their colleagues by declaring that their will should be imposed on someone else.

I'm pro choice.

You two seem to have a caricature of pro-lifers rather than some kind of philosophically grounded justification for abortion. I mean, would you guys support criminalizing abortion under some or all circumstances if the person or people proposing that were secular, had a private nature, were pro-adoption and were supporters of large government/social programmes?

Avatar image for ourmanuel
#699 Posted by ourmanuel (11325 posts) - - Show Bio

I don’t identify as either of them, but if you ask me, aborting a 12 week old fetus is pretty much murder. I can’t imagine what the doctors in those cases even feel when performing operations like that.

And they wonder why doctor suicide rates are so high

Avatar image for rl4
#700 Posted by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

@alphaq said:
@buildhare said:
@rl4 said:

It's funny how the "Pro-Life" people are really just "Pro-forced Birth" Because they don't care about the life of someone once they're born, and they're all too happy to ignore the fact that most people who get abortions do it because they're too young, and too poor to raise children the way they ought to be raised. It mostly stems from their backwards bronze-age religions from which they apparently get their morals. You know, the same philosophies that teach you how to properly treat your slaves. It's even funnier that these are apparently the "I want small government!" people yet they're perfectly willing to betray their morals when it comes to being able to signal how virtuous they are to their colleagues by declaring that their will should be imposed on someone else.

I'm pro choice.

You two seem to have a caricature of pro-lifers rather than some kind of philosophically grounded justification for abortion. I mean, would you guys support criminalizing abortion under some or all circumstances if the person or people proposing that were secular, had a private nature, were pro-adoption and were supporters of large government/social programmes?

I have a caricature in my head of the "Pro-Lifer/Forced_birther" Because it's an objectively real one that I see on a regular basis. There are seriously people who go out of their way, to protest ans shame scared young women who are making incredibly difficult decisions, and these are the same people who in rare instances commit acts of violence and terrorism against these women and the professionals who serve them.

If you want a philosophical basis for Abortion, here is: The value of a non-sentient life form does not hold a greater value than that of a fully sentient, self-actualized individual. Everything that lives is sentient to some degree, and It is amoral to assign a higher value to less sentient life over that of maximally sentient life. It's the same way firemen go ingot a burning building to grab people before they grab your pet tarantula. A tarantula is inherently less sentient, offers less utility, and by extension, is assigned a lower objective value than that of a human being.

would you guys support criminalizing abortion under some or all circumstances if the person or people proposing that were secular, had a private nature, were pro-adoption and were supporters of large government/social programmes?

I will never support outlawing medical practices to take away the autonomy and sovereignty of the human body. Religious or not, pro-adoption or not, big government or not. It should be the fundamental right of all people in the world to have secure acess to reproductive care, and the choice to reproduce or not. It just so happens that the majority of the religious people in the world (already the majority of people in the world) believe that their belief in a higher power somehow grants them providence to take away the inherent freedoms of women.