Again with this terrible analogy...
GOP hopeful: 'Rape thing' not cause for abortion
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
Again with this terrible analogy...
monchi-kun
Member
If you can't see the difference between a choice to abort an unwated life and the murder of someone has lived many years, has emotional connections with his or her fellow human being, and who's said connections would be deeply harmed by their death through homicide then I will have to start wondering if your hardcore stance is based on any kind or rational or reasonable thought. Be that as it may I have to respect your opinion but any kind of social policy based on this hardline stance that is unable to actually understand the nuance and complexity of the situation beyond one's personal belief is dangerous to society.
metalslimer
Member
Or masturbation for that matter. I find the whole I believe life begins at conception thing interesting since the only way people who take that stance defines life is taken straight from a religious source.
More conceptions - including zygotes - are naturally terminated by the body than humans. Over 70% of pregnancies. Know how many pregnancies we add to that? 1%.
It's like it's raining outside and you think you're doing a good job of keeping your crops dry with an umbrella.
You're also completely ignorant to the fact that a pregnancy is not safe, not reliable, and affects the woman forced to be a broodmare permanently. There are women out there that would die if forced to carry.
Team Filler
Member
Anybody who wants to pass anti-abortion legislation and says it isn't about religious beliefs are being disingenuous.
LaserBuddha
Member
A person isn't a substance or a string of genes. If so then I would be committing homicide all the same as abortion if I simply clipped my nails. Every jerk off session would be genocide.
No, a person is capable of conscience thought and is aware of it's own existence. This is the giant gaping hole in the logic of people like Seventy_X_Seven. They can tell me that this is "life" and should be protected, but can't tell me what's fundamentally different about this cluster of human cells that lends personhood to what is essentially an object. I mean I'm looking for a real tangible, practical difference. I'm looking for something other than "this particular wad of goo is the sacred goo because it is sacred". If we're really going to lend so much significance to something with no consciousness, I really don't see how you can possibly justify killing any sort of animal down to a fly.
No, a person is capable of conscience thought and is aware of it's own existence. This is the giant gaping hole in the logic of people like Seventy_X_Seven. They can tell me that this is "life" and should be protected, but can't tell me what's fundamentally different about this cluster of human cells that lends personhood to what is essentially an object. I mean I'm looking for a real tangible, practical difference. I'm looking for something other than "this particular wad of goo is the sacred goo because it is sacred". If we're really going to lend so much significance to something with no consciousness, I really don't see how you can possibly justify killing any sort of animal down to a fly.
The whole "life begins at conception" is so medieval it hurts. Medically there is nothing to establish personhood. Sure, potential to become a person exists, but logical ad absurdums of that fallacy have already been pointed out.
I just hope that anti-abortionists would woman/man up and say "it's my religion" and avoid the convoluted wordplay that starts these unconcludable threads.
It's disgusting that prominent politicians get away with downplaying rape and depriving women of the power to control their lives. In a modern society having or not having children is a personal choice, without having to fear being punished for being a victim of a crime or having contraception fail.
I just hope that anti-abortionists would woman/man up and say "it's my religion" and avoid the convoluted wordplay that starts these unconcludable threads.
It's disgusting that prominent politicians get away with downplaying rape and depriving women of the power to control their lives. In a modern society having or not having children is a personal choice, without having to fear being punished for being a victim of a crime or having contraception fail.
scar tissue
Banned
I'm not pro-life, but that's a silly reason why abortion should be legal.
"If we make this thing illegal, people will do it illegally"
Guess what, the same thing applies to every single illegal thing ever.
"If we make bank robberies illegal, people will rob banks illegally and they will hurt other people in the process. Better make bank robberies legal so they don't hurt anyone"
Nobody asked the mom if she wanted to have sex, either. That's what rape is. It's sex when one of the participants, usually female, doesn't want to participate.
scar tissue
Banned
metalslimer
Member
By this logic, anytime an organ donor is a match to another person they should be forced to give up part of their liver or a kidney if another person needs it. They shouldn't be able to deny that person life right?
It is, but the statistics put a large majority of the cases of it happening to females. That doesn't mean we should ignore male rape, but what he said was correct.
While I take your point, it doesn't generally lead to abortions, though, which is another major bullet point in this thread.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Pretty sure you completely missed the term "usually." Do male rape victims exist? Of course. But for the purpose of this thread and from documented cases, rape victims are usually female in a generalized sense.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
for some reason, i cant see guys like this saying "sorry honey, you're going to have to keep that baby that rapist put inside you" with their own daughters.
to be fair, the male rape to female rape ratio in which there is a pregnancy formed is astronomically one-sided.
to be fair, the male rape to female rape ratio in which there is a pregnancy formed is astronomically one-sided.
monchi-kun
Member
oh god here we go again with the bad analogies.
your terrible counter-argument fails to mention the key differences between legalization of abortion and legalization of bank robberies. One of them creates tangible harm to society hence it should be illegal. Guess which one is which so you can redeem yourself.
Still, at least you delivered your analogy (as bad as it was) a lot classier than someone else on this thread...who had the exact same line of reasoning but got banned for delivering it in a douchebag kind of way.
There's a huge difference between abortion and bank robbery, I'm sure you see it.
A better comparison would be likening an abortion ban to an alcohol ban. People are still going to get it illegally, and the ban would just make things worse.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Please point out where my statement ignored or pretended male rape doesn't exist. More women than men get raped. Even including prisons, and even accounting for unreported. Men have the physical advantage and the cultural environment to make it easier.
You did this in the last thread. This is about women being raped, resulting in pregnancies.
Team Filler
Member
Why is male rape even coming up in the subject of pregnancies caused by rape?
monchi-kun
Member
Maybe they won't notice. Libya, Labia...sounds very similar and you know what the GOP thinks of teh vaginas
Oh, it's been seen over and over again that anti-abortionists just think of it as a non-option until they're in a situation where they need to consider it.
Team Filler
Member
That's where goblins come from, right?
AnathemicOne
Banned
Sorry, but as bad as that is, there's another kind of rape I'm far more concerned about:
What the hell does this have to do with this thread's topic?
monchi-kun
Member
Sorry, but as bad as that is, there's another kind of rape I'm far more concerned about:
i feel bad for the art supplies that had to be used to create this.
I'm going to take a guess that this is the ultra-hardcore right's argument and a way to refocus the rape issue.
"You think the GOP and Rape is an issue? Well here's the REAL kind of rape that we need to address!!!"
You telling me the topic isn't about rape?
edit: oh, it's about abortion? Okay fine:
Better?
faceless007
Member
...wow.
heliconsoul
Member
Yep, yep indeed :-/
No, we are talking about a specific medical procedure, that people do when they don't have access to doctors, or want to keep it a secret.
Bank robbery isn't. Better example would be illegal drugs if you want to make a stupid point that ignores the fact that preventing a medical treatment wont prevent the reason the person needs the treatment, and will cause more danger for the mother. However, no one cares about the mothers rights.
edit.
Wow.
You telling me the topic isn't about rape?
edit: oh, it's about abortion? Okay fine:
Better?
Is that recent? My local paper carrier his political cartoons, but I've never seen that one. I'm guessing they had the common sense not to print it, but who knows anymore.
The guy is a real troll.
Im still waiting to hear that answer.
Not really, the cartoon is nonsensical. Survivors implies the fetuses would have matured to where they'd be viable outside the womb before abortion. Which they are almost never, and when they are they are aborted because of threat to the life of the mother. Which the GOP apparently condones. So... please continue being an idiot if you must.You telling me the topic isn't about rape?
edit: oh, it's about abortion? Okay fine:
Better?
Because each generation is trained to say so by the previous, usually by their "moral guardians" aka parents/religion.
“I really don’t believe in abortion,” Bieber tells Rolling Stone. “It’s like killing a baby?”
[How about abortion in cases of rape?]
“Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason.”
Agreed. There's a number of pitfalls in the way one has to construct a definition of life such that life begins at conception. (I didn't do a good job of pointing them earlier though.) It's simply flawed. Might as well stick to "I believe life begins at conception because religion says so".
Killing people is wrong, I'm pretty sure. But as a former Catholic, I'm used to the idea that everything I do will be wrong. Sometimes you have to do something wrong to prevent something else that's more wrong -- and so I accept that in the real world, sometimes society has an interest in violence. That's why we have a military -- Jesus doesn't say killing in self defense or to protect democracy or whatever isn't wrong, after all, we just decided to do it anyway. That's why our police have guns. And that's why abortion should be legal. Because there's such a thing as the lesser of two evils.
Dude Abides
Banned
Because scar tissue.
alexthekid
Member
Religions and crazy books aside, you see no moral reason what so ever that a fetus should be protected? I think that the whole argument from the opposing side is that is in fact an violent avt and should be considered a crime.
Can you not see that if you are arguing over the fact, if abortion is an act that can be supported morally or ethically, the argument about protecting the safety of the person doing the act isn´t gonna persuade anyone.
For a person thinking that it is indeed a heinous crime. It is like saying that we should have guns cause otherwise a guy murdering someone might cut himself on the blade of his sword. Now someone is gonna scream bad analogy, And I might get banned for it(If that is what Dantefox got banned for, I really want to know) and yes it isn´t the best, but an analogy doesn´t have to be two exactly the same situations. It is there to make you think in another way about the first situation, It has to have a point that can be transferred, but that is it.
Nice! that you are cheering on a ban on a fellow member for disagreeing with you. This will probably make this this an compelling argument.
I for one don´t want a ban on abortion, for me it basically comes down to how much I value a fetus. But atleast I think that it is a really interesting question that ought to be discussed, and you wan't achieve that but dogpiling a person and telling him that is analogies are bad when they in fact have a point that can be used in the first situation, and he even explains the point in the next post. Can´t we atleast try to understand and listen to each others positions as long as we aren´t trying to offend anyone?
Here in Sweden atleast it hasn´t been really discussed, since the biggest party in sweden during the time, didn't take the time so argue the issue further then. "It will happen anyway." Which indeed and Dantefox noted is an terrible argument.
Well, DanteFox's analogy was deeply offensive. This analogy is just bad.
The point of the argument is that there's a fundamentally false assumption here about the purpose of law. We don't make laws as some sort of advertisement -- we make them to create a society that works the way we think it should. If passing a law against murder wouldn't reduce the murder rate, but would increase the rate of bystanders being killed, then passing that law would be a bad idea -- not a bad idea even though murder is wrong, but a bad idea BECAUSE murder is wrong. In exactly the same way, if making abortion illegal has little effect on abortion rates but strong correlation with increased death from incorrectly performed abortion, then anybody who values the sanctity of life should oppose making abortion illegal. That's the pro-life option.
That's not true at all. I have friends who are non-theists who take that position based on the argument that it takes human interference to prevent an implanted, fertilized egg from developing into a human. It's not a position that I share, but it's also not thoroughly unreasonable.
Frankly, I think the fact that the debate still exists is because there simply is no obvious cut-off point where we can differentiate between living cells and an individual life.
And they're wrong.
It's not even about being offensive. It's about being ethical, logical, and fair.
metalslimer
Member
I hope they realize how many fertilized eggs self abort. It is completely unreasonable, and goes against every bit of science we have. Okay, so religiious views arent' the only way to argue this. Ignorance is also a good way.
Requiring implantation is a pretty sneaky attempt to get around the fact that a third of fertilized eggs fail to implant -- and it's also a nice way to say that morning after pills and IUDs are okay. So that's clever.
Of course, it's also a completely ridiculous position since apparently none of these friends have ever heard of miscarriages.
Dude Abides
Banned
- Status