Abortion Debate / Discussion Only In This Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
daw840 said:
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.

I never asked for your perspective so I'm not sure what you're responding to. I pointed out that ignoring talking points until it is convenient for you to jump in and mischaracterize it, takes away any form of legitimacy to your position. Had you actively engaged those points or if I lacked them entirely then you'd have a basis for your position to be considered.

Right now, it's just meaningless sniping.

Lastly, I called him a dunce because it's the correct word. I laid what I said in concise language only for him to distort it and embellish that distortion with gaf-memes. That was quantifiably stupid.

You make it seem as if calling Sarah Palin an idiot, is pointless name-calling rather than a pointed descriptor for her actions. Such is the same here.
 
Since you seem insistent on this line of reasoning, Atrus, so certain that you feel confidant in calling me a dunce over it, please explain why it is inherently "socialist" to believe in human rights and that they should be protected by a government.

And note that in so doing you are calling me a socialist, Thomas Jefferson a socialist, Adam Smith a socialist, John Locke a socialist, well virtually every non anarchist a socialist, and a lot of anarchists ARE socialists to boot.
 
Atrus said:
I never asked for your perspective so I'm not sure what you're responding to. I pointed out that ignoring talking points until it is convenient for you to jump in and mischaracterize it, takes away any form of legitimacy to your position. Had you actively engaged those points or if I lacked them entirely then you'd have a basis for your position to be considered.

Right now, it's just meaningless sniping.

Lastly, I called him a dunce because it's the correct word. I laid what I said in concise language only for him to distort it and embellish that distortion with gaf-memes. That was quantifiably stupid.

You make it seem as if calling Sarah Palin an idiot, is pointless name-calling rather than a pointed descriptor for her actions. Such is the same here.

How is it sniping when I have posted NUMEROUS TIMES in this thread debating my position? I have already answered in this thread my position. It would redundant for me to continue to state the same thing every time someone posted something that was already discussed earlier. Name calling is juvenile and does not add anything to the discussion.


Definition of Dunce:

a person who is stupid or slow to learn

This is why I accused you of name calling.
 
JayDubya said:
Since you seem insistent on this line of reasoning, Atrus, so certain that you feel confidant in calling me a dunce over it, please explain why it is inherently "socialist" to believe in human rights and that they should be protected by a government.

Because you are relying on the argument that we should look toward the social well-being of others (in this case the fetus) within the human collective.

To reiterate; what I said verbatim was:

"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."

Do not rephrase it in a manner convenient for you to take off into another direction. As you can see the word 'government' is not even in there, and on analysis I can only see this as an attempted segue into a prepared defense.
 
daw840 said:
How is it sniping when I have posted NUMEROUS TIMES in this thread debating my position? I have already answered in this thread my position. It would redundant for me to continue to state the same thing every time someone posted something that was already discussed earlier. Name calling is juvenile and does not add anything to the discussion.


Definition of Dunce:



This is why I accused you of name calling.

I was talking to your position in deference to me, so it very well is sniping. It allows you to take a convenient route to characterize a position on your terms, without actually addressing or acknowledging any points made prior.

As I said before, it was an accurate label for his actions and truth as they say in law, is an absolute defense.
 
Very well then.

No, it is neither Marxist in any sense of the word, nor is it weak to suggest that the negative liberty "right to life" be enforced by government for all human beings, not simply those that have passed through the personhood cave.
 
Atrus said:
I was talking to your position in deference to me, so it very well is sniping. It allows you to take a convenient route to characterize a position on your terms, without actually addressing or acknowledging any points made prior.

As I said before, it was an accurate label for his actions and truth as they say in law, is an absolute defense.


Look man, I wasn't trying to "snipe" you. But TBH, I am sick of restating my point. So I addressed the portion of your post that I had not yet discussed in this thread. I respect your POV on this issue. This is an extremely divisive issue amongst everyone and I understand where the other side comes from, my GF is pro-choice and I am not. We have had many debates on this subject and never has name calling entered into the equation. The moment someone calls someone a derogatory name it completely eliminates there credibility in the debate.
 
daw840 said:
This is an extremely divisive issue amongst everyone and I understand where the other side comes from, my GF is pro-choice and I am not.

That could be trouble. A friend of mine had his kid killed. Tore him right up.
 
JayDubya said:
Very well then.

No, it is neither Marxist in any sense of the word, nor is it weak to suggest that the negative liberty "right to life" be enforced by government for all human beings, not simply those that have passed through the personhood cave.

I don't understand why you preface your post with 'No'. I didn't say it was Marxist, nor did I say that suggesting 'the negative liberty "right to life" be enforced by government for all human beings' was weak.

I don't accept the same 'invent your own interpretation of events' that is both prevalent in your media and politics.
 
JayDubya said:
That could be trouble. A friend of mine had his kid killed. Tore him right up.


My GF basically said that she would have had an abortion in college. Not anymore. It would not be an option now, but she would not have had one while in college because she didn't think she would be able to complete college and have a kid. Whatever, we use protection (2 forms) and when we want a child we will stop using protection.
 
JayDubya said:
If you're so adamant, tubal ligation / vasectomy?

Just because a couple doesn't want a child in the present doesn't mean they won't want one further down the road.
 
daw840 said:
The moment someone calls someone a derogatory name it completely eliminates there credibility in the debate.

Not true at all. Some positions are so pointless and stupid that those words are specifically correct. It may not be endearing, but I suppose it depends if the person is looking for converts or not.

Creationists, Communists, Radical Islamists, Libertopians, and more are all examples of people with fundamentally stupid ideas.

Then there are actions which are fundamentally stupid. GAF-meme or 4chan-meme responses would be stupid.

So the question would be why would accurately labeling an idea or an act as stupid have an effect on credibility? Does it then forgo any other credible argument built up on that point?

Now it seems you're embroiled in a larger debate that you might not want to have gotten into, so I won't drag you further into it. I will say I understand your point, but it's misplaced in its use in the instance you used against me.
 
Atrus said:
Not true at all. Some positions are so pointless and stupid that those words are specifically correct. It may not be endearing, but I suppose it depends if the person is looking for converts or not.

Creationists, Communists, Radical Islamists, Libertopians, and more are all examples of people with fundamentally stupid ideas.

Well, you've just confirmed quite a few perjoratives I could say about you as objectively true, thus making them, by your standards, fair game.

However, your standards are not GAF standards, this is supposed to be civil, and while I'm not a mod, and I say this with all due respect, GET THE FUCK OUT of here and come back when you have some manners.
 
Atrus said:
Not true at all. Some positions are so pointless and stupid that those words are specifically correct. It may not be endearing, but I suppose it depends if the person is looking for converts or not.

Creationists, Communists, Radical Islamists, Libertopians, and more are all examples of people with fundamentally stupid ideas.

Then there are actions which are fundamentally stupid. GAF-meme or 4chan-meme responses would be stupid.

So the question would be why would accurately labeling an idea or an act as stupid have an effect on credibility? Does it then forgo any other credible argument built up on that point?

Now it seems you're embroiled in a larger debate that you might not want to have gotten into, so I won't drag you further into it. I will say I understand your point, but it's misplaced in its use in the instance you used against me.

Maybe true, thank you for not draggin me into that can of worms. I just would like it if people debated and shared their views without bringing in name calling. Plus, these things being "fundamentally stupid" is your POV. It's not the POV of the millions who share that belief. I agree with you on the subjects listed, they are stupid, but I also understand that their are a lot of people who believe differently. Are they stupid for believing that? No, probably not. A lot of extremely intelligent people have these beliefs.

edit: OK, maybe the GAF-meme and 4chan meme is just completely stupid.......:lol
 
Zoe said:
Reliably?

Not 100%, the success rate varies depending on how long it's been since the vasectomy was performed. And it's expensive. During the consultation for my vasectomy, my urologist said counting on reversal is a bad idea, and the procedure should be regarded as permanent. Which was okay with me because I don't want kids, ever. And while my wife and I are both pro-choice I didn't want her to have to go through an abortion.
 
daw840 said:
Are they stupid for believing that? No, probably not. A lot of extremely intelligent people have these beliefs.

edit: OK, maybe the GAF-meme and 4chan meme is just completely stupid.......:lol

I wouldn't call them intelligent, just educated enough to leap into pseudo-intellectualism. But lets leave this here and call this point suitably killed.
 
Atrus said:
I wouldn't call them intelligent, just educated enough to leap into pseudo-intellectualism. But lets leave this here and call this point suitably killed.

Fuck it.

Even *I* as a Libertarian (whoops, guess me as stoopid liberdopian lol) can recognize that a die-hard, Mao-loving, Chinese communist can have a high intellectual capacity and plenty of aptitude in their chosen field even if they have the most fundamentally repugnant beliefs about humanity, philosophy, and economics, and even if they take up those fields where they are professors, experts, or educators spreading those aforementioned repugnant beliefs.

Your value system does not make you smarter than anyone else. The fact that you think it does speaks volumes about your own character.
 
JayDubya said:
However, your standards are not GAF standards, this is supposed to be civil, and while I'm not a mod, and I say this with all due respect, GET THE FUCK OUT of here and come back when you have some manners.

Nice stealth edit, however so long as I addressed the topic at hand and any reliably related offshoots I have the right to be here as you do. At least until you buy the forum.

It may be my fault you're frustrated, but it's only because I'm sticking to the point I made and am not letting you reinvent for yourself your own version of events.
 
JayDubya said:
Your value system does not make you smarter than anyone else. The fact that you think it does speaks volumes about your own character.

Education and intelligence are two separate things (even if they trend together), and of course you'd be pissed off. I would be too if I was toting something as intellectually myopic as Libertopianism, but that's a whole 'nother side-story.
 
Atrus said:
Education and intelligence are two separate things (even if they trend together), and of course you'd be pissed off. I would be too if I was toting something as intellectually myopic as Libertopianism, but that's a whole 'nother side-story.

I'm not going to respond to your baiting. A mod will come along eventually.
 
JayDubya said:
I'm not going to respond to your baiting. A mod will come along eventually.

Could be one here now, but even so I don't see how side-seat modding benefits your case when some other person is doing what a forum is meant to be about. If anything, I've attempted to stay on what is actually being said more than you are.

Since you seem to want to end it on an ominous note of making this thread only in line with what you want, then I guess it's a convenient time for some Dead Space. I'd make a joke here, but you're not a very happy guy when people don't play the way you want them to.
 
Atrus said:
Could be one here now, but even so I don't see how side-seat modding benefits your case when some other person is doing what a forum is meant to be about.

Yes. A forum is all about people of different ideological beliefs coming together and calling each other stupid. That is what a forum is for.
 
JayDubya said:
Yes. A forum is all about people of different ideological beliefs coming together and calling each other stupid. That is what a forum is for.

I thought it was for armchair intellectuals to refer to constitutional scholars as fucktarded?
 
JayDubya said:
Read the post again.

Staying in your single issue ghetto too long makes me queasy. Is this thread for people to poke you with a sharpened stick through the bars of your cage? :lol

duty_calls.png


Have a good night, man.
 
i think i fall into the minority, though correct me if i'm wrong, in that i'm a pro-lifer/anti-abortion who's not religious.

I suppose this depends on at one point in the timeline is the mass of cells in a woman's womb is considered human (in my case, point of conception and implantation). But that aside, anytime someone has sex, regardless of whether any form of birth control is used or not, there's a risk of pregnancy. Even with the most reliable forms of BC, the risk still isn't 0% (due to user error and what not). Sex for the purpose of enjoyment doesn't bother me at all, but the lack of responsibility for the effect of individuals own decisions and the resultant desire to "terminate a mistake" does. No one has the right to take away the possibilities that await a living being.

In regards to rape situations, it's unfortunate for the mother, but I still believe that the child from that situation has a right to a chance and the mother has an obligation to enable that.

I haven't been in the latter situation so maybe I'm not qualified to say that. However, I truly do believe that medical emergencies, where there's a strong possibility that neither mother nor child will survive, are one of the few exceptions (ie. ectopic pregnancies and what not).
 
*sticks head into thread*

Ah, of course, it's JayDubya spending a Friday night trying in vain to convince peeps to see things his way.

Yawn.

Carry on.
 
JayDubya said:
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.
So you went right back to the circular logic? That's sad.

It's weird . . . you are trying to hide behind science to defend what is a religious view or a craving for a simplistic black & white rule.

This is not a question of is a blastocyst with unique DNA a separate being. It is. Duh. It is a question of does such a blastocyst get the same rights as a born human. I go back to my policy . . . to reduce suffering. Well, a blastocyst is incapable of 'suffering'. It lacks the nervous system to suffer. A dog can suffer however, and that is why Michael Vick is in jail.
 
The abortion debate has recently re-emerged in this thread
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=348250
so I decided to make a bump in this thread so the topic can once again be redebated and centralized in one place.


I've always wanted to make a serious post in response to Jaydubya's position but have always feared it will be buried by the cavalcade of discussion any abortion thread would entail or tl:dred but I guess since I'm bumping this thread, people will give it a read.

The crux of the modern abortion debate and decision to assign rights to zygotes is that zygotes are alive and human. It is not sufficient to just be alive, since there are many living things that do not have rights. It is the simultaneity of being alive and human that entails rights. Its also important to note that alive can have multiple definitions.

With this premise in mind I think my position can be best explored by a series of hypothetical examples.

Consider a man Bob. Bob is 20 years old, can think and is the average joe. Bob gets shot in the head and dies. Most biologists would attest the bob still contain living cells within him, however, noone would say he's alive since he still has living cells. It is his inability to undergo neural activity that makes us classify him as dead. His cremation would not entail his death but rather the initial gunshot wound. With this example I establish the premise that life, in the human sense, entails possession of neural activity, and is not merely the possession of living cells. A person cannot be simultaneously dead and alive.

Note: I recall reading an argument of yours jaydub that rejects a consciousness based definition of life by stating that anaesthetizing them and subsequently shooting them would not violate that man's rights. The fallacy is that no anaesthetic will completely remove neural activity from a human, and if it does, then the gunshot wound is redundant since he is already dead.

From here the next argument that would be made by the general pro-zygotic rights side would be that which discusses the removal of a potential human life. It will become a human, therefore it has rights. However, assigning rights based on potentials will wholly be arbitrary. In this case it will be chemically arbitrary. What makes a zygote have more right to live than a semen and an ovum but 100 pm apart? The response would be genetic. Only if it is genetically human does it have rights. The problem here is that a genetic definition is problematic. All who understand evolution should know that the amount of genetic material in a species can vary within the species (otherwise increase of genetic content would be impossible). Do we deny the right to life to all humans who do not have the right amount of genetic content? To make a distinction based on genetics is to commit the same fallacy that has been committed historically several times over. Against the jews, the blacks, the females. You say it yourself that personhood should not exclude any living human being, yet a solely genetic definition of life does just that. Therefore, assignments of rights to things that can become humanlife is wholly arbitrary. The condemnation of contraception is just as valid as condemnation of the termination of a zygote. Assignment of rights should not be rooted in arbitrarity.

I think in your initial argument jaydub, your argument established a basis for what it means to be human and what it means to be alive. You also made an argument about potential human life. I think I've responded to these arguments and made refutations to your refutations of counterarguments. I would love to hear you response.

To summarize: Being alive is not just having living cells. No human can simultaneously be dead and alive, therefore any definition of alive must entail the opposite characteristics of death. i.e. possession of neural ability.
Being human is not a genetic distinction. To do so would undermine human life. The sorites paradox as it is applied to a man slowly being replaced by robotic parts is also important to consider.
The potential human life argument is inherently flawed since it arbitrarily lends itself to condemnation of any forseeable timeline which could produce a human life. This restricts human rights in and of itself.
 
Stoney Mason said:
And this the thread for all you people who want to knock heads on abortion. Just saying!

You bumped it, dude. You make an argument, and you'll get a response.

But at least it clarifies something in the OP: "PoliGAF's election threads"

Election's over.
 
JayDubya said:
You bumped it, dude. You make an argument, and you'll get a response.

But at least it clarifies something in the OP: "PoliGAF's election threads"

Election's over.

Well I'll PM a mod and ask him to clarify and please make it for post election. Because I don't want the Poli-GAF thread to turn into a satisy your ego and let's debate Jaydubya on abortion thread. We already have enough of that farce on libertarian debates.
 
well.. i personally wasnt debating the libertarian point of view, but the catholic/religious point of view.. which i find completely hypocritical. i may not agree with JayDubya and other people like him, but at least they are consistent with their ideologies.
 
quadriplegicjon said:
well.. i personally wasnt debating the libertarian point of view, but the catholic/religious point of view.. which i find completely hypocritical. i may not agree with JayDubya and other people like him, but at least they are consistent with their ideologies.


I sent a pm Hitokage so he will either agree or not agree and say its cool for people to debate abortion in the Poligaf thread or not. My problem isn't with debating abortion on whatever grounds one chooses. My problem is that it is a highly contentious and emotional issue that derails the poligaf thread into a very narrow discussion every time it comes up.
 
quadriplegicjon said:
well.. i personally wasnt debating the libertarian point of view, but the catholic/religious point of view.. which i find completely hypocritical. i may not agree with JayDubya and other people like him, but at least they are consistent with their ideologies.

And there are such people that are Catholic / religious, as well - it's called "the consistent life ethic." Of course, not even all people that claim that position agree on everything, but at least for purposes of abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia, I'd reckon, you'd find consistency. And of course, one doesn't have to be Catholic to claim the consistent life ethic, in the same sense that other common principles (example: "do unto others what you would have them do unto you") are not exclusive to any one group. That example, the ethic of reciprocity, is older than Christ.

And also, of course, you have Democrat-supporting Catholics that oppose the legality of the death penalty and support the legality of abortion. So the inconsistency cuts both ways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom