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

Peter Heck video - "The Sound of Abortion"

#51kts123Posted 1/30/2013 12:10:31 PM
I dunno, I'd rather you call me a misogynist than a genocidal baby killer. I feel one carries a little more weight than the other. I've known misogynists. My father's a misogynist. I've never met someone who gets pleasure from killing babies, but I imagine such a person would be noticeably less pleasant.


Hey now, I feel ya. But take a look at this (I snagged this from the Politics board.)

"pro-'lifers' are scum who only pretend to care about abortion as an excuse to punish women who fail in their duty as docile obedient babymakers"

Both sides manage to piss pretty good, if you ask me. I think this contest is a neck and neck race!
#52JonWood007Posted 1/30/2013 12:11:50 PM
What everyone else said. The thing about pro lifers, is they try to shove these convictions down everyone else's throat. I understand the pro life argument, I respect it to a degree, I just don't like pro lifers trying to tell everyone else how to live. Heck the reason I've been so combative in this topic is that fact, and the fact that you're belittling people with different views than you.

The thing about pro choice is just that, you're for CHOICE. We're for the OPTION to be available. A lot of pro choicers dont even like abortion, they just accept it as a necessary evil.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#53kts123Posted 1/30/2013 2:56:38 PM(edited)
^ If it's just a collection of cells, why would it be called an "evil" at all?

Once you establish that it is, in fact, a baby, then you abandon all moral grounds to ending that life outside the grounds applied to any other child. If it is not permissible to kill a child because it is the product of rape or incest, then by induction it is not right to kill it inside the womb either. A child's age or physical locality (be it a school, nursery, or womb) should not cause it to forfeit its right to life. The only way you can morally justify abortion, is to establish that it is in fact not a living child. This may be done by establishing it as a collection of cells. But if this position is taken, then by no means is it an "evil" at all. It becomes nothing more than severely overpriced birth control.
#54Faust_8Posted 1/30/2013 3:22:09 PM
You're looking far too closely into a simple turn of phrase.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#55JonWood007Posted 1/30/2013 3:29:44 PM(edited)
^ If it's just a collection of cells, why would it be called an "evil" at all?


Once you establish that it is, in fact, a baby, then you abandon all moral grounds to ending that life outside the grounds applied to any other child. If it is not permissible to kill a child because it is the product of rape or incest, then by induction it is not right to kill it inside the womb either. A child's age or physical locality (be it a school, nursery, or womb) should not cause it to forfeit its right to life. The only way you can morally justify abortion, is to establish that it is in fact not a living child. This may be done by establishing it as a collection of cells. But if this position is taken, then by no means is it an "evil" at all. It becomes nothing more than severely overpriced birth control.


Because some see the fetus as life, just not to the extent necessary to warrant taking away a woman's right to do what she wants with her body. "Evil" in a sense is a cliche, it's an undesirable outcome, although I wouldn't consider it "evil" in a strong sense, and in the sense you're trying to twist my words into.

You see, the abortion issue is a balance between two priorities, the life of the fetus, and the rights of the mother. Early on, a case can be made that the mother's rights preferable to the fetus's rights. After all, early on in the pregnancy, the fetus can't think, it can't feel pain. It's not even aware it's alive. Killing it under such circumstances is not really much of an issue. Now, as the fetus begins to develop more and more, it begins to feel pain, it begins to become more self aware to a degree, and it is even viable outside of the womb. At this point, abortion should be cut off except for emergency situations. But before that, while a fetus is "alive" it's not a self aware life, it's not a sentient life, and no harm is done in killing it. Under such circumstances it's clear to me other factors take priority here.

Not only that, but I'm just pointing out the diversity in pro choice views. A lot of pro choice people actually don't like abortion. I used to know this chick who basically screamed me down with the abortion debate when I was pro life, but when she had an accident, she ended up keeping the kid.

There are tons of reasons to be pro choice. As I mentioned above, what about the legal context? What about regulating abortion leading to all kinds of undesirable circumstances in which an abortion should be allowed but isn;t? I don't think government should be involved with regulating abortion for the most part, because I feel like it is incapable of doing so in a logical manner. The fact that we have so many stupid bills popping up in the last few years demonstrates this, as well as the comments of several lawmakers who obviously have no clue how human reproduction actually works (see: Todd Akin).
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#56kts123Posted 1/30/2013 4:09:52 PM(edited)
"Evil" in a sense is a cliche, it's an undesirable outcome, although I wouldn't consider it "evil" in a strong sense, and in the sense you're trying to twist my words into.


I could see concerns about it being best to avoid to dodge the risk of "abortion regret." Or, for financial reasons. But I cannot see how anything about an abortion would be bad or undesirable outside of fiscal concerns, or concerns for the mental health of the mother. I do not see how the fetus itself should even come into the picture unless it is more than "a bunch of cells."

Now given that you yourself seem to be implying concern of some sort for the fetus -- is this or is this not a moral issue? Why is there concern for the fetus at all? And if it is for the fetus, that does strongly imply a moral dilemma. This implication, as far as I have seen, stands whenever pro-choice folk use the word "necessary evil." I have yet to hear anyone say that it is "undesirable" out of anything but some kind of fleeting concern for the fetus itself.
#57kts123Posted 1/30/2013 4:15:00 PM
Also as far as the government passing laws, I'm not a legislator or a politician so I won't discuss its legality. I will say however, if you acknowledge something as a child, morally it is wrong to kill it. The law is not in the game of enforcing morals, though, so its legality is still a different issue.
#58OwnmerjiPosted 1/30/2013 4:39:03 PM
From: Suibom | #037
lasthero posted...


Good. For. You.


I know, right?!

Responsibility is awesome.

Here's hoping the rest of society catches the fever.


Having an abortion IS responsibility. Having children you can't afford or want is not responsible. Bringing more children into this world is not responsible.
#59JonWood007Posted 1/30/2013 5:13:56 PM(edited)
I could see concerns about it being best to avoid to dodge the risk of "abortion regret." Or, for financial reasons. But I cannot see how anything about an abortion would be bad or undesirable outside of fiscal concerns, or concerns for the mental health of the mother. I do not see how the fetus itself should even come into the picture unless it is more than "a bunch of cells."

Now given that you yourself seem to be implying concern of some sort for the fetus -- is this or is this not a moral issue? Why is there concern for the fetus at all? And if it is for the fetus, that does strongly imply a moral dilemma. This implication, as far as I have seen, stands whenever pro-choice folk use the word "necessary evil." I have yet to hear anyone say that it is "undesirable" out of anything but some kind of fleeting concern for the fetus itself.


You seem to be trying to deal in absolutes.

First of all, the pro choice community is not united. Some see it as a clump of cells, and some just want to get rid of it, no questions asked. No qualms, no anything. Talking to some of the gals who have had abortions over at r/childfree, I don't think there's any guilt that is naturally associated with the act, it's mostly a social mechanism of abortion being looked down upon that make people feel guilty.

Now, some people do feel guilty, but you see, a nonsentient, parasitic, being that feels no pain should not be afforded the same rights as you and me. Fetuses are often not seen as full human beings, but as human beings "under construction". While "under construction", they're seen as lesser organisms. Some make them akin to a parasite, because they are occupying your body and sucking up your nutrients.

Just saying. You seem to be implying an all or nothing stance on this. Either the fetus should be treated as a full human being with personhood rights, or it should be treated as if it were an inanimate object. I think the truth is somewhere in between.

The thing is, whatever rights it should have are less valuable than the mother's. That's my justification here. The life of a being that literally is incapable of thinking or being aware or conscious or feeling of pain in its current form is not as valuable as whatever concerns the mother has. It's a balance between two priorities. Early on, the balance favors the mother, but as the fetus becomes more developed, it begins to favor the fetus in the third trimester.

Or, if you're gonna try to force my hand, maybe I should retract my statement and just consider it a clump of cells, up to you. You see, I don't respond well to all or nothing propositions. I'll likely take the opposite stance than what you're trying to get from me.

Also as far as the government passing laws, I'm not a legislator or a politician so I won't discuss its legality. I will say however, if you acknowledge something as a child, morally it is wrong to kill it. The law is not in the game of enforcing morals, though, so its legality is still a different issue.


So can we say that choice should be a legal option in a society such as ours? Regardless of whether you agree with the morality of such choice, if you accept that it's important to have, that's enough. I think that people should be able to come to whatever conclusions they want about a touchy issue like this, I just don't like trying to make everyone abide by one's moral convictions on the issue, especially since religion is a very powerful factor here.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#60mikmalotPosted 1/30/2013 5:11:41 PM
Patriotwolf posted...
I find most people who are pro choice to have a psychological bias. What I mean by that is that for them, the unborn fetus is not tangible. In other words, people who are pro choice have no emotional connection. They will be all up in arms when they see one of those aspca commercials, but seem to drop the ball on abortion because they think they know when life begins


Funny, I think the same thing about people who call themselves "pro-life" (which is a joke).

ANd for the record, I loathe aspca and christian children's fund commercials because they're emotionally manipulative.
---
Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he wants another. "I think not," he says and vanishes in a puff of logic.