This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Peter Heck video - "The Sound of Abortion"

#11CdrRoguePosted 1/30/2013 3:23:58 AM
Curse those evil people who look at issues objectively and scientifically rather than through a theistic lens!
#12OwnmerjiPosted 1/30/2013 3:28:07 AM
From: Suibom | #010
The video was only counting American lives lost.


Fetuses/zygotes are not lives so there were no lives lost.

happen to find pro-choicer's as disgusting and convenient.


Denying women's rights is disgusting.

How many aborted fetuses would you be willing to take in instead of them being aborted? I bet 0.
#13darklaoPosted 1/30/2013 4:09:16 AM
If the state interferes to force a woman to bring a child to term, it should, at a minimum, guarantee her free medical care, payment for her time and risk, and a good home and education for the child until its majority. As a basic principle, the government should be willing to pay for the consequences of its legislation, and provide benefit for the woman in exchange for the freedom it removes from her.

If pro-lifers were willing to make this happen, they'd easily be able to convince a majority to ban abortion. But pro-lifers want to take away a woman's right to self-determination AND force her to pay her own medical costs as a result AND undertake all risk AND be a parent for 20 years with attendant loss of time and money for education and advancement AND call her a dirty whore. Also they want to do this to teenagers and incest and rape victims, too.

So, you know, if you actually want the government to cover the cost of banning abortion, we could talk. There are a lot of people who think that the woman's right is absolutely compelling, but a lot of people who think a trade-off in the interest of the fetus would be acceptable. But if you aren't putting your government's money where your government's mouth is, well, good luck with that.
---
[agitprop]
come and play come and play forget about the movement
#14Suibom(Topic Creator)Posted 1/30/2013 4:24:40 AM
Why should the government be forced to pay for their irresponsibility?

95-98% of abortions have nothing to do with the mother's health, incest or rape.
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14
#15darklaoPosted 1/30/2013 5:25:21 AM
That is the response I never fail to get from you people.

Life is so important!

But wait, money!
---
[agitprop]
come and play come and play forget about the movement
#16Hustle KongPosted 1/30/2013 5:45:07 AM
As a basic principle, the government should be willing to pay for the consequences of its legislation, and provide benefit for the woman in exchange for the freedom it removes from her.


While I am pro-choice, I find this to be a little silly. It's not like we don't know what the consequence of sex can be.

If I choose to engage in risky behavior, should I expect the government to pay for it?

I would rather we work to change the culture of instant gratification, and maybe that would help people act more responsibly.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#17WhereDidItGoPosted 1/30/2013 6:41:05 AM
CdrRogue posted...
Curse those evil people who look at issues objectively and scientifically rather than through a theistic lens!


This is a huge misconception about the pro-life stance. I was pro-life long before I ever accepted any religion and some of the best arguments I've seen against abortion never introduce religious belief. If anything, most discussions I've seen on abortion has science fall more in favor of the pro-life stance, and it's the pro-choice side that become more and more dogmatic.
---
"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason." - G.K. Chesterton
#18cyclonekrusePosted 1/30/2013 6:46:21 AM
From: Faust_8 | #009
Or maybe we find it more emotionally distressing to take away reproductive rights and demote women to walking uteri

I think this discussion would benefit from people toning down the provocative language. Restricting abortion is not equivalent to demoting women to walking uteri. Suggesting it is just muddies the conversation. The same goes for calling abortion a "Holocaust." Even if a pro-lifer thinks it's accurate, all the word serves to do is evoke an emotional response by calling up the disgust and sadness we feel about what happened to Jewish people in WW2.

than it is it to terminate non-sentient dividing cells.

It's also not so correct to say this. Even if we grant that some abortions "only" terminate a small clump of undifferentiated cells, not all abortions happen like that. Some happen much later in the pregnancy where the above characterization doesn't really hold. Or maybe it does hold. After all, when humans become "sentient" is somewhat of an open question. It might not be until well after birth. If that's the case, you'll have to defend why it's okay to terminate a full-term fetus but not okay to terminate an infant (since traveling the birth canal doesn't affect something becoming sentient).

We don't lack feeling about it. Many of us aren't even sure we could get an abortion ourselves. But we know it's wrong to deny that right.

I think furries are weird, that doesn't stop me from saying they should be free to do it. I don't like the idea of abortion either, but it's not something you can just take away and pretend everything will be fine.

I don't think everything will be fine if we restrict abortion. Some women will suffer, we'll have more kids that parents cannot afford, we'll have more kids born into poverty, and, eventually, crime will probably increase. However, we can combat those things in other ways without resorting to abortion. A big one is better sex education and cheaply available (if not freely available) contraception.

I also don't take a restriction of someone's actions lightly. I too find furries to be strange but wouldn't dream of preventing their ability to do...whatever. It's just when one person's actions affect another person's life that restrictions become necessary. So what this boils down to is the question of when personhood begins. And also the implications of that if personhood begins pre-birth.

Also, animals can suffer. Animals can feel pain and loss and fear. Early fetuses cannot. So you can't equate the two or point out a hypocrisy, there is none.

I'm not sure if there is such a good contrast there. Sure animals can feel pain and such but we routinely put them down without much remorse.

Larger point: If we want to have a reasonable discussion about abortion, we need to quit with the unnecessary emotional appeals. Also, we need to stop guessing at the other side's motives. Neither side is monolithic in their reasoning. Treating them as if they are and painting with an overbroad brush doesn't help anything.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#19lastheroPosted 1/30/2013 6:57:20 AM


And of course we have differing ideas on human life.


Again, the only difference is that we have different ideas on what human life actually is. Until you and people like you stop thinking that makes the pro-choice side 'disgusting', we're never going to have a reasonable discussion about it. I find it very hard to talk with people who think I condone 'holocausts'.
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#20Dathrowed1Posted 1/30/2013 7:11:25 AM
lasthero posted...
Until you and people like you stop thinking that makes the pro-choice side 'disgusting', we're never going to have a reasonable discussion about it.


The same attitude is reciprocated by the pro-choice side.
---
sig