Support NeoGAF

[Blackface]

anti-abortion, much like the religion that accompanies it is stupid.

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

Shows, in clear detail, god does not think of an unborn child as a human, only the man.


Also the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25, clearly says a Fetus and or embryo is not a human.


God also has children killed, or threatens to kill children numerous times in the bible. It almost becomes repetitive and boring the amount of times it is mentioned.

The bible is no more pro life then any other fictional book where children are murdered.

 

[morningbus]

Adoption is always a viable option in regards to pregnancy. This is 9 months that will suck, but everything will basically go back to normal afterwards as long as you work at it. If I am in a motorcycle accident that is possibly going to kill me or leave me paralyzed, my rehabilitation will be at least 9 months if not longer.

edit: What don't you understand about my response? If a human (the baby) is going to kill you when it is born, you can defend yourself by terminating it. Self Defense.

I was trying to apply your response to the motorcycle analogy, which didn't seem to fit that well. But, and at this point totally belabor this metaphor, is the 9 month rehabilitation (or the 9 month pregnancy) the punishment for taking a risk? If it meant that your rehab would be the matter of a few days versus 9 months, should we deprive you of it because you knew the consequences?

 

[Blackface]

Adoption is always a viable option in regards to pregnancy. This is 9 months that will suck, but everything will basically go back to normal afterwards as long as you work at it.

THis is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read about this topic, on any platform in my entire life.

If you really think everything goes back to normal, after a woman has an abortion, or she puts her baby up for adoption, you are clearly a delusional, anti social, uneducated and culturally deprived person.

 

[JayDubya]

Since I can't sleep from coughing too much...

abortion, much like the religion that accompanies it is stupid.

I agree, abortion is stupid.

Now why you think I should care about the rest of your post, seeing as it's citations from a book I don't recognize as exceptionally important, is beyond me, but it wreaks of attacking the people you want to be attacking, not discussing / debating with the people that are actually here.

 

[Blackface]

Since I can't sleep from coughing too much...



I agree, abortion is stupid.

Now why you think I should care about the rest of your post, seeing as it's citations from a book I don't recognize as exceptionally important, is beyond me, but it wreaks of attacking the people you want to be attacking, not discussing / debating with the people that are actually here.

Almost all people who are against abortion, are against it for religious reasons. That is why I put that there, and I will put quotes from every religious book on earth if I have to.

Now if someone who is not religious and isn't using religion as an excuse to be anti-abortion, which is quite ironic, I would love to debate with them.

I also meant, anti-abortion, my mistake on the typo.

 

[numble]

Since I can't sleep from coughing too much...

Now why you think I should care about the rest of your post, seeing as it's citations from a book I don't recognize as exceptionally important, is beyond me, but it wreaks of attacking the people you want to be attacking, not discussing / debating with the people that are actually here.

I agree, let's ban all religious discussion here.

 

[JayDubya]

Now if someone who is not religious and isn't using religion as an excuse to be anti-abortion, which is quite ironic, I would love to debate with them.

Not ironic at all. Read the thread.

I agree, let's ban all religious discussion here.

You can be religious and have that as your basis for valuing human life / ethical standards, but you can't use that as your argument when talking to atheist / agnostics. Just doesn't work.

 

[Zoe]

Reducing whose rights? Adoption is always an option. It merely inconveniences a person for ~9 months.

Merely inconveniences?

Having to pay thousands in prenatal care, increased food expenses, and clothing is an inconvenience?

Having to endure rapid physical changes, some of which are permanent, and risking complications before and after the birth is an inconvenience?

Having to adjust your lifestyle, affecting your education or work, and dealing with the emotional impact of the adoption process (they're not always too friendly to the birth mothers) and the social stigma afterward is an inconvenience?

Gee, you must have a pretty bad life if you think those are merely inconveniences.

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

pro-abortion, I'm all for freedom of choice, even if the choice sucks

 

[faceless007]

Yeah, like I said, only someone with a dick would say that about pregnancy. I defy you to find a single woman who has carried a baby to term who agrees with that assessment.

 

[JayDubya]

You could argue based on relative harm.

Lugging around a baby waiting for birth, whereupon adoptive parents take over (and often foot your bills) is a temporary state with, in gamer terms, risks comparable to rare lewtz.

vs.

100% fatal aggressive violence.

 

[Gaborn]

Merely inconveniences?

Having to pay thousands in prenatal care, increased food expenses, and clothing is an inconvenience?

Having to endure rapid physical changes, some of which are permanent, and risking complications before and after the birth is an inconvenience?

Having to adjust your lifestyle, affecting your education or work, and dealing with the emotional impact of the adoption process (they're not always too friendly to the birth mothers) and the social stigma afterward is an inconvenience?

Gee, you must have a pretty bad life if you think those are merely inconveniences.

Compared to the alternative? I think inconvenient is a pretty fair description. As I said earlier I'm basically in favor of abortion rights, though I think it's a shame, but come on now. I also find it interesting that no one really argued with my contention that abortions that are not medically necessary should absolutely NOT be covered by insurance policies (or government subsidy) at all.

 

[JayDubya]

Compared to the alternative? I think inconvenient is a pretty fair description. As I said earlier I'm basically in favor of abortion rights, though I think it's a shame, but come on now. I also find it interesting that no one really argued with my contention that abortions that are not medically necessary should absolutely NOT be covered by insurance policies (or government subsidy) at all.

The Hyde Amendment somewhat protects against that, thankfully.

Of course, Senator Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment and he'll soon have a blank check to do what he wants.

There's a tier to everything of course - I don't believe in social medicine one iota - but hopefully anyone reasonable could agree that even under such a system, taxes should not pay for elective procedures.

That includes cosmetic surgery, gender reconstruction, abortion, etc.

 

[Zoe]

Compared to the alternative? I think inconvenient is a pretty fair description. As I said earlier I'm basically in favor of abortion rights, though I think it's a shame, but come on now.

Those things I listed have life-long impacts. A person who is mentally sound can recover from an abortion in under a month.

 

[speculawyer]

Yes, "your bad" for having an apparently poor grasp on the English language, but hey, you can learn something new every day.

Man . . . you can really be a condescending asshole.

 

[JayDubya]

Man . . . you can really be a condescending asshole.

a) He deserved it, for the same reason that...

b)

 

[speculawyer]

Not ironic at all. Read the thread.

You can be religious and have that as your basis for valuing human life / ethical standards, but you can't use that as your argument when talking to atheist / agnostics. Just doesn't work.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming your abortion hatred is actually rooted in religion. That's reason with with some understandable logic (albeit built on a false premise). To protect a blastocyst of undifferentiated cells just because it has unique DNA is absurd black & white rule that only a very simplistic person requires. There is no compelling policy behind such a rule other than fundamental desire for simplicity.

 

[JayDubya]

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming your abortion hatred is actually rooted in religion. That's reason with with some understandable logic (albeit built on a false premise). To protect a blastocyst of undifferentiated cells just because it has unique DNA is absurd black & white rule that only a very simplistic person requires. There is no compelling policy behind such a rule other than fundamental desire for simplicity.

You're giving me, an atheist, "the benefit of the doubt" by assuming my disdain for a human rights abuse is rooted not in my scientific knowledge - which no doubt surpasses your own - and in my deeply rooted support for human liberty, but in a religion I do not hold to?

Why... thank you... so much... for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Man . . . you can really be a condescending asshole.

I believe in protecting living human beings from aggression against their rights, which are inalienable, and to that end, we have governments out of neccessity, because it's one of the few things they can maybe do well on occasion.

 

[speculawyer]

You're giving me, an atheist, "the benefit of the doubt" by assuming my disdain for a human rights abuse is rooted not in my scientific knowledge - which no doubt surpasses yours - and in my deeply rooted support for human liberty, but in a religion I do not hold to?

As with every time I present you with a difficult aspect of your views, you dodge the issue.

What is the compelling policy reason for protecting a blastocyst of undifferentiated cells?


To be fair, I'll give you my compelling policy reason for keeping abortion safe & legal: To reduce suffering. Without safe & legal abortion, rape or incest victims will have to suffer carrying the spawn of their rapist. Destitute women will need to suffer trying to care for a child. Unwanted children will be born into households unprepared for the rigors of child-rearing and end up poorly educated, malnourished, or abused. Simply put, allowing for the safe & legal abortion reduces suffering. I'm not saying that adoption is not a viable alternative. I heartily recommend it. But as a realist, I know that many women won't consider such an option.

A secondary policy reason is to prevent reverse eugenics. Birth control is relatively inexpensive, available, and easy to use. Intelligent people will generally not have a problem with unwanted pregnancies. However, people that are stupid, poor, drunk, drug-addicted, or otherwise likely to make poor decisions will still have a problem with unwanted pregnancies. With abortion unavailable as an option, we will end up with an unintentional reverse eugenics program that will increase proportion of stupid, poor, drunk, and drug-addicted people in our society. Not an outcome most would desire. Eugenics is awful. Reverse eugenics is even worse.


What is the compelling policy reason for protecting a blastocyst of undifferentiated cells that trumps those two policy reasons?

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

You're giving me, an atheist, "the benefit of the doubt" by assuming my disdain for a human rights abuse is rooted not in my scientific knowledge - which no doubt surpasses your own - and in my deeply rooted support for human liberty, but in a religion I do not hold to?

Why... thank you... so much... for giving me the benefit of the doubt.



I believe in protecting living human beings from aggression against their rights, which are inalienable, and to that end, we have governments out of neccessity, because it's one of the few things they can maybe do well on occasion.

It's a pity your world view doesn't seem to account for much beyond physical aggression. It makes it rather lacking.

 

[JayDubya]

As with every time I present you with a difficult aspect of your views, you dodge the issue.

Not once have I dodged the issue when arguing with you, despite your insipid insistence on that fact, in itself despite repudiation from myself and others on numerous occasions with citation.

What is the compelling policy reason for protecting a blastocyst of undifferentiated cells?

I said the protection of living human beings. I don't discriminate based on age. If you need further clarification, go read the first post in this thread for a review. I made it nice and lengthy to avoid retreading most of this garbage. Go quote what you take issue with, if you must.

To be fair, I'll give you my compelling policy reason for keeping abortion safe & legal: To reduce suffering. Without safe & legal abortion, rape or incest victims will have to suffer carrying the spawn of their rapist.

The "spawn." See how you heap scornful disdain upon a third party that is culpable for neither enmity nor harm. How positively medieval. Are you sure you're not religious? Maybe Catholic, Crusades period? A bit earlier?

Destitute women will need to suffer trying to care for a child. Unwanted children will be born into households unprepared for the rigors of child-rearing and end up poorly educated, malnourished, or abused. Simply put, allowing for the safe & legal abortion reduces suffering. I'm not saying that adoption is not a viable alternative. I heartily recommend it. But as a realist, I know that many women won't consider such an option.

It is more humane than abortion and frankly, the other option they had was not fucking if they didn't want to accept the possible ramifications.

A secondary policy reason is to prevent reverse eugenics. Birth control is relatively inexpensive, available, and easy to use. Intelligent people will generally not have a problem with unwanted pregnancies. However, people that are stupid, poor, drunk, drug-addicted, or otherwise likely to make poor decisions will still have a problem with unwanted pregnancies. With abortion unavailable as an option, we will end up with an unintentional reverse eugenics program that will increase proportion of stupid, poor, drunk, and drug-addicted people in our society. Not an outcome most would desire. Eugenics is awful. Reverse eugenics is even worse.

That comment doesn't make any sense. In order to prevent reverse eugenics, and because eugenics is bad, we have to encourage stupid poor people to kill their own young. Which then means that you don't think eugenics is bad, because you're promoting it.

What is the compelling policy reason for protecting a blastocyst of undifferentiated cells that trumps those two policy reasons?

Living human beings possess unalienable rights; among these are the rights to life and liberty; aggressive homicide is a violation of their rights. Such action calls for justice, and that falls within the purview of governance.

 

[speculawyer]

I said the protection of living human beings. I don't discriminate based on age. If you need further clarification, go read the first post in this thread for a review. I made it nice and lengthy to avoid retreading most of this garbage. Go quote what you take issue with, if you must..

Oh key-rist . . . another dodge.

So let me rephrase to avoid that silly dodge.

What is the compelling policy argument for legally defining a blastocyst of undifferentiated cells as a 'human being' with legal rights that trumps the policy reasons I gave.

 

[909er]

I would be very conflicted if I found a girl was pregnant by me. My political view on the matter is pro-choice, and rationally I know that abortion would be the easiest thing to do for my life where it is right now. But after a friend of mine got a girl pregnant, it's made me rethink my stance. While I remain pro-choice, if it were my child, I wouldn't want it aborted. If it were up to me, I would want it carried to term and raise it myself if the mother had no interest.

One of my best friends is ardently anti-abortion. In his case, it's because he knows from his biological father that abortion was definitely on the table for him, and he owes his existence to his mothers insistence on keeping him. Otherwise, a very liberal guy, but on abortion he's very much pro-life.

 

[faceless007]

a) He deserved it, for the same reason that...

b)

Do you deny that the pro-life side is often accused of being misogynistic? Because that's what I said.

 

[JayDubya]

Oh key-rist . . . another dodge.

So let me rephrase to avoid that silly dodge.

Stop the "dodge" nonsense, already.

What is the compelling policy argument for legally defining a blastocyst of undifferentiated cells as a 'human being' with legal rights that trumps the policy reasons I gave.

Aside from the fact that I already called into question the worth of the policy reasons you gave, biological science? I think I can reasonably call an organism that is alive and human a living human being, and if not, then that's some strange logical hang-up you've got, not me.

Furthermore, said blastocyst of undifferentiated cells is not even descriptive of any state of pregnancy, as at implantation, rapid differentiation occurs (ecto, meso, and endoderm).

Go read the first post in the thread already and otherwise don't bother me with questions I've already answered.

 

[speculawyer]

Stop the "dodge" nonsense, already.

I'll stop it when you give legitimate answers.

Aside from the fact that I already called into question the worth of the policy reasons you gave

All of your "reasons" already assumed that you had successfully defended you proposition of a blastocyst being a human being with rights. Pure circular logic.

And then there was this nice lie:

That comment doesn't make any sense. In order to prevent reverse eugenics, and because eugenics is bad, we have to encourage stupid poor people to kill their own young.

Encourage? I said I heartily recommend adoption. I'm just defending abortion as a safe & legal option.

biological science? I think I can reasonably call an organism that is alive and human a living human being, and if not, then that's some strange logical hang-up you've got, not me.

So I was 100% correct . . . it is your simplistic need for a black & white rule. Absolutely no policy reason at all.

Epic FAIL.

I frankly expected better.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

So I was 100% correct . . . it is your simplistic need for a black & white rule. Absolutely no policy reason at all.

Epic FAIL.

I frankly expected better.

I said something similar about 500 posts ago

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13184285&postcount=131

 

[JayDubya]

What are you even blathering about, Speculawyer?

Policy should not be informed by rational, scientific data?

An organism is only capable of being a human being when it travels through the magical personhood cave because a politician says so? Is that what you mean by a "policy reason?"

Or perhaps you mean to tell me that an organism is not biologically alive if it meets the criteria to be described as such? Or perhaps that an organism is not a member of our species even when it is clearly not a member of any other?


I've given you my rationale for the policy being changed: it is a human rights abuse. We generally oppose those, even when we disagree what acts fit those criteria.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

If you don't want a kid, wrap it up.

If you don't wrap it up, take care of your responsibilities.

Only time abortion should be legal is when it endangers the mother or it is rape/incest.

 

[daw840]

Almost all people who are against abortion, are against it for religious reasons. That is why I put that there, and I will put quotes from every religious book on earth if I have to.

Now if someone who is not religious and isn't using religion as an excuse to be anti-abortion, which is quite ironic, I would love to debate with them.

I also meant, anti-abortion, my mistake on the typo.

Religion does not guide my moral compass. My own personal moral and ethical code does.

Anyway, I will just let JayDubya handle this argument. He is obviously better educated in this subject than anyone else in this thread. Plus he is substantially more eloquent than I.

 

[onipex]

I would be very conflicted if I found a girl was pregnant by me. My political view on the matter is pro-choice, and rationally I know that abortion would be the easiest thing to do for my life where it is right now. But after a friend of mine got a girl pregnant, it's made me rethink my stance. While I remain pro-choice, if it were my child, I wouldn't want it aborted. If it were up to me, I would want it carried to term and raise it myself if the mother had no interest.

This.

 

[chaostrophy]

Now if someone who is not religious and isn't using religion as an excuse to be anti-abortion, which is quite ironic, I would love to debate with them.

I've met several non-religious anti-abortion advocates.

There's a catch-22 though. Obviously appealing to secular human rights, or biology, is going to have a better chance of getting the message through to pro-choice people and fence-sitters than appealing to religion. But the problem with this approach is that in order to be logically consistent, those who advocate it pretty much have to be opposed to abortion in the case of rape, because from that perspective aborting the child of a rapist is killing it for the sins of its father.

The conservative religious opposition to abortion is generally rooted in the belief that non-procreative sex is sinful so those who engage in it deserve to be punished with an unwanted baby. Thus they also oppose contraception, sex ed, etc, but are okay with abortion for rape victims because the victim didn't get pregnant by being naughty.

 

[Deku]

The abortion debate is like the preferred mental sport played by mentally detached individuals living in a socially conservative wealthy nation state who see the world in black and white.

In most of the world, population control is a matter of pragmatism and survival.

If and when the United States finally falls and the barbarians march on Washington, all this will be pointlness.

The natural state of man is to abort when needed and not abort when not. The moral highground is neither here nor there.

Enjoy it dubya, and hope the DOW doesn't bring your sport down with it.

 

[Fusebox]

This thread is like a Palin rally, some people think they're winning just because they repeat their stupid opinion more times and with more volume than anyone else.

Deku, it's not a stretch to assume people in this thread have girlfriends and have had personal experience with abortion, so your little assumption about who should debate this topic and who can't isn't helping anything either.

I'm just glad everyone in this thread gets 1 vote in real life instead of 1 vote per everytime they feel the need to repeat their backwards beliefs about what the other sex should and shouldn't be able to do with their bodies, ugh.

 

[JayDubya]

^ Then I guess I should be glad you only get one vote instead of one vote everytime you misrepresent our position.

Doesn't really make me glad, though. You're still doing it, you still get the one vote despite calling other people stupid and backwards when not looking so brilliant yourself.

 

[daw840]

This thread is like a Palin rally, some people think they're winning just because they repeat their stupid opinion more times and with more volume than anyone else.

Deku, it's not a stretch to assume people in this thread have girlfriends and have had personal experience with abortion, so your little assumption about who should debate this topic and who can't isn't helping anything either.

I'm just glad everyone in this thread gets 1 vote in real life instead of 1 vote per everytime they feel the need to repeat their backwards beliefs about what the other sex should and shouldn't be able to do with their bodies, ugh.

And your side consistently slams the other side calling the "backwards" and "stupid." Can you not just accept that this is a debate and people have different beliefs on this issue? Or do you have to constantly name-call and repeat your stance? I can't speak for everyone else in this thread, but I came in here, stated what I believe and had a discussion about it. I never insulted the opposing viewpoint as you have.

 

[Fusebox]

I don't have a side, I don't join teams, all I have is my own infallible opinion.

Consider though, if you're consistently being advised by multiple sources that your position on something is stupid and backwards as you're claiming...

 

[daw840]

I don't have a side, I don't join teams, all I have is my own infallible opinion.

Consider though, if you're consistently being advised by multiple sources that your position on something is stupid and backwards as you're claiming...

Only here on this message board. I don't really get involved in debates like this IRL.

 

[JayDubya]

Consider though, if you're consistently being advised by multiple sources that your position on something is stupid and backwards as you're claiming...

... that the people we're talking with are immature and can't have a civil conversation?

 

[oneHeero]

Pro-choice should be the only option. Nothing else needs to be said. It should be the mother/father's decision as one or ultimately the mother's decision.

There is no, abortion is wrong, put the child up for adoption etc. Its there decision and thats that.

My wife and I have both agreed that would be the route we'd go if she became pregnant again(we have a 2yr old). We just arent in the position to have another child. If she really came out and said "no we are going to have the baby I dont care" than I would say ok. But as of now, our decision is to abort. Its just what is best for our family and "we" both know it. Not you, not our religion, not anyone else, but us.

 

[JayDubya]

If you're so adamant, tubal ligation / vasectomy?

 

[Atrus]

Anti-abortionists seem to only have enough audacity to make noise in a holier than thou manner, but they often have little conviction to back up these ideologies.

They don't want YOU to have abortions for the sake of THEIR ego, but they actually couldn't give a shit about the kids once they're born.

You'd think that if the interest of humans were in the minds of any of these people, they'd have made a motion to deal with the roughly 18,000 children who actually are persons, that won't see tomorrow, or the near 1 billion who are malnourished, etc.

Always realize that these appeals for the sake of humanity are not only inconsistent, they are only empty gestures for the sake of grasping the so-called higher ethical ground.

 

[JayDubya]

Oh goodie. The "if you're not a socialist, you can't be anti-abortion" argument.

Nevermind that the overwhelming majority of lefties are pro-abortion, and that's not even counting the Chinese.

*yawn*

Shit up a different thread with that, okay?

 

[Atrus]

Oh goodie. The "if you're not a socialist, you can't be anti-abortion" argument.

I believe this thread went to shit on the original post but thats beside the point.

The point is that you yourself are relying on arguments that fetuses are human and thus need to be protected. Not only is that an innately socialist argument, it is a very weak one.

 

[JayDubya]

I believe this thread went to shit on the original post but thats beside the point.

The point is that you yourself are relying on arguments that fetuses are human and thus need to be protected. Not only is that an innately socialist argument, it is a very weak one.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

As someone frequently accused of misusing that word, may I point out to you that you have far exceeded any mislabeling I may have ever been accused of.

It is "innately socialist" to prosecute homicide / protect a right to life? :lol

Wow, I guess the Sumerians were socialist. I guess virtually every society our species has ever developed is socialist.

 

[Atrus]

As someone frequently accused of misusing that word, may I point out to you that you have far exceeded any mislabeling I may have ever been accused of.

It is "innately socialist" to prosecute homicide in order to protect a right to life? :lol

Wow, I guess the Sumerians were socialist. I guess virtually every society our species has ever developed is socialist.

No dunce. I was clearly pointing out that the appeals to the nature of the fetus as being a human being as the socialist argument. To also stay on the point and avoiding your distraction of cats and laughing emotes to underscore the weakness of your position, every society on earth has had in it socialist elements.

Of course, having socialist elements does not mean that a society as a whole is a socialist society. That is a political definition unto its own.

 

[faceless007]

Consider though, if you're consistently being advised by multiple sources that your position on something is stupid and backwards as you're claiming...

Hey, I think JayDubya and co. are just as wrong and misguided as strongly as anyone else, but I can't get behind that argument--there are questions on which the majority of a society can and often is flat-out wrong. (But this isn't one of them.)

 

[daw840]

No dunce.

And your side continually relies on name calling to make a point.

 

[Atrus]

And your side continually relies on name calling to make a point.

I wasn't name calling, I was actively labeling what he just did. Add to that your rather weak attempt to make a point, yet not one of 'your side' actually addressed several of the points I've made, some through rhetorical questioning because I was in a humorous mood.

So it makes your point rather hollow to address nothing until it suits you to address one, and only to distort the situation as if no points were made beyond what you've described.

 

[daw840]

I wasn't name calling, I was actively labeling what he just did. Add to that your rather weak attempt to make a point, yet not one of 'your side' actually addressed several of the points I've made, some through rhetorical questioning because I was in a humorous mood.

So it makes your point rather hollow to address nothing until it suits you to address one, and only to distort the situation as if no points were made beyond what you've described.

I have stated my perspective rather clearly numerous times in this thread. I am not repeating myself for your benefit. JayDub summed up pretty much (with very few exceptions) my beliefs in the first thread.

Last time I checked, calling someone a dunce is a form of name calling. I have seen a lot of this from your side.