Not only does this post barely make any sense, you're ignoring the previous post I made where I pointed out that women are denied a tube tying procedure because they're not married yet. You can get your balls clipped as a dude way, WAY more easier than a woman can get her tubes tied, and the excuses that doctors run them around with basically amount to "don't deny the potential non-existent man his own baby"
GOP set to adopt official abortion platform without exceptions for rape and incest
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
Not only does this post barely make any sense, you're ignoring the previous post I made where I pointed out that women are denied a tube tying procedure because they're not married yet. You can get your balls clipped as a dude way, WAY more easier than a woman can get her tubes tied, and the excuses that doctors run them around with basically amount to "don't deny the potential non-existent man his own baby"
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I'm not poetic enough to explain my views on life appropriately. I'm sure cultural norms play a part, but I try my best to question my own assumptions and come to my own conclusions.
Honestly I have a hard time believing that I'm being asked to explain why life is meaningful and special in the first place. Being alive is the only reason I am here to experience the world and form relationships. When I look into the eyes of my buddy's daughter I am filled with nothing short of awe and wonder and respect that we are capable of producing such unique personalities and lil agents of change. When she struggles to form words or navigate her environment I am floored by our ability to develop our own faculties.
If it wasn't for life we wouldn't be having this conversation, or any conversation. Life is truly a gift. But a gift that comes with some hard choices.
Man, how noble in reason, infinite in faculties, how like a God, etc etc yadda yadda.
Let's be real here though, it's not like you find all life to be meaningful and special
When life bothers you, do you not remove it if that is the only way to stop it from bothering you?
See:
Virii, bacterias, parasites, pests, bugs, etc.
I'm personally a semi-buddhist, vegetarian, but I don't think it's immoral to kill something that is hurting you. It's even less immoral when that thing can't even feel pain, or even think.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Damn dude, name change threw me for a loop
Dislikes atheists, science and women, makes strange pronouncements...
Ladies and gentlemen, the republican target audience.
Pollux
Member
I feel obligated to point out that evolution is hardly perfect. It's random; it's mindless; it's careless, heedless, callous.
It's less Yahweh and more the blind idiot god Azathoth.
Sarcasm works better when it's not so believable as an actual post :lol
Pollux
Member
Well, yeah.
That's when it's the best. But yea, back when I was zmoney there probably would have been less confusion as Technomancer just said.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Dat Poe's Law.
The worst thing is that after this thread that post is not even very outrageous in comparison.
The reason I asked you to explain why life is meaningful and special to you is because it aids communication to know why people believe things instead of just what they believe. Thank you for obliging me.
soul creator
Member
I actually watched The Campaign yesterday, and as absurd as that movie was, I was all "hmm, seems legit"
America. Jesus. Freedom
Pollux
Member
You fooled me pretty good
Name change and avatar change have been fucking with many a GAFers' head. But yea, while I'm pro-life (w/ exception for rape and incest) I still haven't decided on where I stand as far as legislating abortion. I do think that abortion is an intrinsic evil but it is infinitely more complex of a topic than other intrinsic evils, e.g. murder. So for now I just manage my conscience the best I can and vote for Obama b/c his policies do more to help the poor, the disenfranchised, the sick and the needy, the immigrant, and the country as a whole - than what I'm seeing from the Republicans. Luckily for me, it's not a sin to vote for a pro-life politician when you're voting for him IN SPITE of his pro-life stance because of the multitude of other stances he takes that fall in line with Catholic teaching. So, yeah.
I'm fine with abortion of all kinds, regardless of circumstance, being illegal, in say the Vatican where the Church IS the state; but not in the United States where there is a separation of Church and state, and there has always been a separation. I do think that churches should be allowed to protest abortion and lobby just as much as the next organization since they're doing it within the bounds of the law (but this is a debate for another thread).
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Well then no, I have not and cannot present you with a reason to hold the same value that I do.
What do you mean by "a reason to believe"? You either accept a fact or you're working off of your own definition. Whether you value the person or not is up to you (which represents the crux of the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate), but a fetus/embryo is, by definition, a person.
Well then if a fetus has human life, making it a human being, then it is also a person, meaning that it has the "right to its own flesh" which you mentioned earlier.
Like I said earlier: human life is made up of human DNA (from the combination of the sperm and egg) and a being of human life is, obviously, a human being. And in the simplest of terms, a human being is considered a person.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
Do you deny this?
I only said it is irrelevant because it is only one component of a person. It is not necessary to have all to be considered a person.
NullPointer
Member
You're welcome. And on second thought its a great question to ponder.
I have been known to swat flies ;PLet's be real here though, it's not like you find all life to be meaningful and special
When life bothers you, do you not remove it if that is the only way to stop it from bothering you?
See:
Virii, bacterias, parasites, pests, bugs, etc.
I'm personally a semi-buddhist, vegetarian, but I don't think it's immoral to kill something that is hurting you. It's even less immoral when that thing can't even feel pain, or even think.
And yes, life comes with conflict, and sometimes that conflict is answered with bloodshed. I'm under no willful illusions about the various natures of man and power. You have to make choices and sometimes those choices lead to deaths. You just try to make the best choices you can and minimize the loss of life necessary.
You continue to assert this definition without giving me any reasons to believe that it is relevant or correct.
Again, you've given me no reasons to believe that a human being is necessarily a person.
I've already said that I don't contest this.
Why should I consider all human beings to necessarily be persons?
You haven't answered my question. You've shown me an example of where a biological definition of person has been used; you haven't given me a single reason why I should agree with such a definition.
What reasons support a biological definition of personhood?
As an aside, the more politically savvy pro-life proponents are well aware of the potency of definitions similar to the ones that I use; the desire to leverage their persuasive power is one of the motivations behind legislation requiring the viewing of ultrasounds, etc.
Then you were badly off point, because your claim was that newborn infants were excluded by my definition. The fact that they are included is completely relevant as a rebuttal to your objection.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Your so-called simplest terms of defining a collection of DNA cells as a person may yet be closer to a 'potential' of a person, than an actual person. Am I reading it correct or not?
Most women would choose to carry to term. However, you are placing a 'potential of a person' in higher importance than an actual, existing person. In essence, your stance in the matter will strip away a woman's ability to decide.
Yes?
NullPointer
Member
You guys are getting lost in the weeds here.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
My buddy is in a casket because he got sick and didn't have insurance.
He tried to tough it out, it'd get better. It always gets better, right? Not this time. By the time he was forced to go to the hospital, it was too late. Had to go on an iron lung and later, into the fucking ground. A little preventative care would have gone a long way, but that is Marxist communist socialism. So forgive me if I'm a little skeptical when the GOP start talking about all the value they place on the sanctity of life. A man in his 20's is dead in the richest country in the world because he didn't have access to health care. Sanctity of life.
His stance boils down this this:
"I consider human beings to have the full rights and privileges that a human is endowed with in the United States of America at conception. Therefor, I feel that abortion is murder as you are ending the life of a human being. Since it is premeditated, it should be illegal and considered akin to the first degree murder of a child. In addition, while it is inside of a woman's body the human being's right to life is more important than the woman's right to do what she wills with her body as reproduction happens during an act that requires consent of both parties and partaking in this act is an unspoken agreement in any and all potential consequence that act could cause, especially pregnancy.
As rape isn't an act of consent, I consider that woman not consenting to getting pregnant. While I feel that the act of abortion is of the same morality as raping somebody, as the woman did not consent to the potential pregnancy she may have an abortion. In all other circumstances, as the two individuals by having sex agreed to a pregnancy, abortion would be considered a premeditated murder on a human being endowed with the rights that all persons enjoy."
So yes, to him the potential person's right, from conception, to do whatever it will do to the mother throughout its development, consequences be damned, is more important than the mother's right to do whatever she wants to her own body for that nine months. Because:
A. Sex is consent for pregnancy
B. Babies come from the uterus
No consideration for how that logic makes miscarriages manslaughter and no care for the consequences that mindset would have towards back alley and self performed abortions except to say that they should just have the kid. In his defense, however, he does believe in universal health care. So, that should help with the uptick in pregnant mothers needing care. Not everything afterwards or the additional food required when pregnant, mind you, but the medical bills.
bafflewaffle
Member
harson told me he was a rape baby. I dont think he should die, he should live. It is not his fault he is a rape baby.
NullPointer
Member
Just mean that even if you guys come up with an answer to your DNA related dilemma, the question of rights would still stand.
It's not withing people's control to have sex without potentially getting pregnant. But you are telling them they must deal with the consequences of their actions. I am doing the exact same thing.
Why should one have to use the internals of their body to deal with the consequences of their actions in one case, but not the other? You still have yet to explain that, you continue to try and pick apart small parts of what I'm arguing and forgetting the whole. Please answer the question, and I'll even conveniently highlight it for you so you don't forget.
It's something to think about, okay, I thought it originally was a hole in my argument? But using your example, a woman wouldn't be able to carry 50 babies without dying, some of the 50 children inside of her would have to die in order to save the mother and some of the children. Some of the 50 people that got injured/poisoned/whatever in your example would have to die too, if all of them needed new internals from a single person to survive.
This in no way invalidates my argument and you're not really making any sense here.
You are forcing a woman to use the internals of her body to sustain the life of another in a situation that she caused. I am asking men and women to use the internals of their bodies to sustain the life of another in situations that they cause. It's not exactly rocket science, dude.
If you think women shouldn't be able to have abortions then you believe fetuses actually have more rights than other people and once born lose those rights (being able to use other people's organs without their consent). Why does a fetus have MORE rights than a birthed person?
Deified Data
Banned
A handy infographic. I don't believe the fetus has rights, but even if it did the right of its adult mother must always come first.
crackhead_bob
Member
My deepest condolences for your loss, however, you do realize that in RepublicanLand, that life begins at conception and ends at birth, do you not? I suppose if your friend had suffered a severe stroke and was left in a persistent vegetative state like Terri Schiavo, then his life status could be retroactively reinstated, but then it would also have to be photo-op worthy in order to warrant any altruistic concern on the part of the fetus groupies in America. They love the fetus but hate the child.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Of course, I too avoid to kill if it can be helped, but I do kill plenty of plants in my bloodthirst. Even when it comes to life, I think we tend to group some "forms" of life above other forms of life.
Do you really care about the bacteria you kill when you wash your hands for an example?
Or about the weed (as in plant weed) you remove from your garden?
See, here I've kinda had to rationalize that some types of life are worth more than others, and the definitive criteria I've (and I think many other vegetarians and non-vegetarians) managed to settle on is sentence. Plants and other non-animals (and even some animals) that lack sentience are killed pretty much without regard, and it's on a general level that one might worry about them (deforestation, negative ecological impact on plants, land erosion, extinction of plant/tree species).
You can kinda see where else I've applied this type of reasoning
A fetus lack sentience for quite some time
NullPointer
Member
None of those other forms of life become humans. That's really the difference, and its a pretty huge difference.You can kinda see where else I've applied this type of reasoning
A fetus lack sentience for quite some time
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Then you set value based on potential, not on what's in front of you.
That's cool, there is no one objective view when it comes to morality.
crackhead_bob
Member
Squiddybiscuit,
In terms of age demographics, which women have taken a keen notice in the wake of Akin's comments? I ask this because the gallup poll claims that a growing number of younger women are now opposed to abortion today than they were in the 1970's. If that were the case, then I find it puzzling that the GOP is trying to keep all this shit on the down low.
It makes no sense that the GOP establishment is anxious to throw Akin under the bus when their recently minted party platform of 2012 pretty much shares much of his same sentiment. They don't believe that any rape is ever legitimate to justify a need for abortion. But they could never come out and say that, so Akin uses the term "legitimate rape" in order to sound more reasonable, and in the meantime initiate standards that make it as inconvenient and difficult to obtain a legal abortion as possible. This really reminds me of when John McCain did his infamous air quotes when he was asked if he'd allow for abortions for health exceptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N_UfQVuvXo&feature=related
That pretty much sums up in a nutshell what republicans believe as it relates to women's health. It's pretty much the perfect companion quote to Akin's sentiments as they relate to the question of rape.
In terms of age demographics, which women have taken a keen notice in the wake of Akin's comments? I ask this because the gallup poll claims that a growing number of younger women are now opposed to abortion today than they were in the 1970's. If that were the case, then I find it puzzling that the GOP is trying to keep all this shit on the down low.
It makes no sense that the GOP establishment is anxious to throw Akin under the bus when their recently minted party platform of 2012 pretty much shares much of his same sentiment. They don't believe that any rape is ever legitimate to justify a need for abortion. But they could never come out and say that, so Akin uses the term "legitimate rape" in order to sound more reasonable, and in the meantime initiate standards that make it as inconvenient and difficult to obtain a legal abortion as possible. This really reminds me of when John McCain did his infamous air quotes when he was asked if he'd allow for abortions for health exceptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N_UfQVuvXo&feature=related
That pretty much sums up in a nutshell what republicans believe as it relates to women's health. It's pretty much the perfect companion quote to Akin's sentiments as they relate to the question of rape.
Oh my god
What am I reading
Edit: Oh that was sarcasm. Haaaha. With some of the GOP posts I've read in here that was actually believable. Whoops.
NullPointer
Member
[oops]
gutter_trash
Banned
best healthcare system in the world?
#37 USA
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadia...zations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/
#37 USA
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadia...zations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/
We're also below a significant chunk of the world when it comes to infant mortality and death during birth.
America sucks at having babies.
Pollux
Member
Muahahhaha. Got another one!!! Hook, line, and fucking sinker.
theignoramus
Member
this documentary on anti abortion activists is awkward as fuck. These kids have this eerie look in their eye and it's unsettling. like they've been brainwashed.
The abortion war
The abortion war
SquiddyCracker
Banned
See, I want abortion to be legal on moral and general, financial, grounds, but that doesn't mean that I want to force people into having abortions. The problem with the opposite stance, the one you hold (which I respect, you are fully entitled to hold it), is that there is that people will be forced to not have abortions.
That, to me, kinda suggests that one position is inherently a better compromise than the other. I am still interested in finding common solutions that are wanted by both pro-lifers and pro-choicers, such as the government making sure that birth control is easily accessible and completely free, as well as good sex-education from an early age.
I mean, if the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, isn't it better to do it via the above method instead of attempting to unsuccessfully do it by implementing an abortion ban?
soul creator
Member
The difficulty with a lot of these discussions is that those "goals" aren't always what both sides are arguing for. Sure, it would be convenient and healthier if we all had shared goals, and were just disagreeing on the methods to accomplish them. As you imply, if conservatives truly cared primarily about reducing abortions, and "preserving human lives" they would look at the evidence, see that abortion bans don't accomplish that, and move on to something else.
Unfortunately, as evidenced by certain points people make, the primary goal seems to usually be dealing out some type of punishment or retribution, not actually solving the problem they claim to care about. And I'd argue that a lot of typical US conservative viewpoints tend to be motivated by that impulse.
So no, abortion bans (and abstinence education, and limited birth control access) don't actually save more lives...but that'll teach people who have have sex for enjoyment and not procreation!. The death penalty doesn't actually reduce crime rates, and it'd probably be cheaper to invest in education and other social programs rather than more prisons...but criminals should suffer for what they did!. Expanded gay rights has not led to any downfalls of society in any place it's been legalized...but damnit, they should be punished for putting their penis in a butt!. Sure, wiretapping, drone attacks, and other effects of middle eastern occupations don't actually make us "safer", but someone's got to die for what happened on 9/11! And there's gotta be some terrorists hanging around there somewhere!
Brian Griffin
Member
The fuck? I'm only a couple minutes in where the leader dude is talking about people having "Their money stolen, their baby killed, and their lives destroyed." He makes it sound like we are forcing women into getting abortions and charging them for it. Awkward indeed.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Well, I certainly hope that there is a significant part of the pro-life (and other, similar movements) who actually care about the results, else I don't see how one can ever attempt to (at least partially) resolve the abortion debate in a way that most people will accept.
"Each person represent over one million children who have been killed since the legalization of abortion"
Yeah, these people are sadly ignorant of the history of abortion, thinking that the abortions are somehow increased or caused by it becoming legal. That is just plain work, I think it's actually the opposite, that we've had less abortions since the legalization of abortions.
It is kinda puzzling, yeah.
It seems like it's mostly older women who are objecting against Akin, because they remember what it was like when abortion was illegal, and probably personally or otherwise knew women who had died or gotten seriously hurt as a result of abortion being illegal - which is something that younger women are sadly ignorant of.
EDIT3: Just posted my impressions of the video in a new thread.
Not gonna lie, I read that and my eye twitched a little. Too believable.
Forgot about this thread.
Anyway....
Reason? It's a definition. Either you agree with it or you're divorcing yourself from reality. A human being is a person.
Because it's defined that way
human being
 
noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.
Like I said before: a human being is defined as being a person.
Hysterectomy? Vasectomy? These are guaranteed ways to have sex and not have a baby.
Having a baby without passing along a hereditary disease? Now that's a real head scratcher......
Besides, there are some genetic disorders that 1) that cannot be cured by harvesting organs (like color blindness) and 2) do not cause deadly situations...like color blindness. In ALL cases, a fetus is using the mother to survive. Such is not the case with all hereditary diseases.
BECAUSE THE TWO ARE INCOMPARABLE (falsely equated)
How? Do I have to go through it AGAIN?
1) Because "using the internals" of her body is the ONLY way to sustain the life of the baby. Organ harvesting from one individual is NOT the only way to help keep a person alive. We don't do it because, unlike the mother, there are other methods to keep people alive (thanks to modern-day technology).
Then you went: "What if it's a the only option (shortage of donors, etc)?"
Give me a plausible scenario where helping to SAVE THE LIFE of an individual (in this instance) would not kill the donor. Like you said:
1. You're using your body to save some one who is in immediate "mortal danger" (like the mother is "saving" the fetus)
2. It's the only option (like how the mother is the only option)
3. Nobody dies* (just like how the mother doesn't die)
*the statistics have to match. If the person has a chance of dying then it has to be at a comparable rate of maternal deaths.
Provide an example and we'll go with it. If it's valid, of course. I'm trying to see even if this scenario even exists.
2) Under most circumstances (let me say that again....UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES), the mother's body goes back to normal (or what a doctor would consider normal or perfectly OK) after 9 months. This does not hold up for the scenario in which someone is helping to save someone's life with their own body. Again, if you believe it can happen, then provide an example.
1) That's not realistic
2) Even if it were, do you really think that it 50 people are going to let themselves DIE simply because one man doesn't have enough organs to go around?
The 50 babies don't have a choice. That is the important distinction that I think you keep missing.
Like I've continuously shown, it just isn't that simple.
EDIT: BTW, I haven't read beyond any of these posts yet.
Ummm....what? A miscarriage is not intentional. Nobody did anything to cause a miscarriage. By definition, a miscarriage is spontaneous. Your description of my argument highlighted the fact that I was all about INTENT. How you arrived at such a conclusion....I have no idea.
Anyway....
Reason? It's a definition. Either you agree with it or you're divorcing yourself from reality. A human being is a person.
Because it's defined that way
human being
 
noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.
Like I said before: a human being is defined as being a person.
Hysterectomy? Vasectomy? These are guaranteed ways to have sex and not have a baby.
Having a baby without passing along a hereditary disease? Now that's a real head scratcher......
Besides, there are some genetic disorders that 1) that cannot be cured by harvesting organs (like color blindness) and 2) do not cause deadly situations...like color blindness. In ALL cases, a fetus is using the mother to survive. Such is not the case with all hereditary diseases.
BECAUSE THE TWO ARE INCOMPARABLE (falsely equated)
How? Do I have to go through it AGAIN?
1) Because "using the internals" of her body is the ONLY way to sustain the life of the baby. Organ harvesting from one individual is NOT the only way to help keep a person alive. We don't do it because, unlike the mother, there are other methods to keep people alive (thanks to modern-day technology).
Then you went: "What if it's a the only option (shortage of donors, etc)?"
Give me a plausible scenario where helping to SAVE THE LIFE of an individual (in this instance) would not kill the donor. Like you said:
1. You're using your body to save some one who is in immediate "mortal danger" (like the mother is "saving" the fetus)
2. It's the only option (like how the mother is the only option)
3. Nobody dies* (just like how the mother doesn't die)
*the statistics have to match. If the person has a chance of dying then it has to be at a comparable rate of maternal deaths.
Provide an example and we'll go with it. If it's valid, of course. I'm trying to see even if this scenario even exists.
2) Under most circumstances (let me say that again....UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES), the mother's body goes back to normal (or what a doctor would consider normal or perfectly OK) after 9 months. This does not hold up for the scenario in which someone is helping to save someone's life with their own body. Again, if you believe it can happen, then provide an example.
1) That's not realistic
2) Even if it were, do you really think that it 50 people are going to let themselves DIE simply because one man doesn't have enough organs to go around?
The 50 babies don't have a choice. That is the important distinction that I think you keep missing.
Like I've continuously shown, it just isn't that simple.
EDIT: BTW, I haven't read beyond any of these posts yet.
Ummm....what? A miscarriage is not intentional. Nobody did anything to cause a miscarriage. By definition, a miscarriage is spontaneous. Your description of my argument highlighted the fact that I was all about INTENT. How you arrived at such a conclusion....I have no idea.
- Status