Support NeoGAF

[thesoapster]

c) Catholics that vote for pro-abortion politicians are hypocrites; pick another religion or expect to have your religious leaders decry you. Wah.

Realistically, how many Catholics do you know who agree with every single stance the church has? Obviously quite a few don't agree on the birth control issue

Should also be noted this is one priest, it's likely not representative of the church as a whole.

 

[JayDubya]

They were people. A fetus is not, legally.

Past-tense, no, they weren't. They were property.

 

[speculawyer]

I don't believe in snark, it's bad for the digestion.

How oxymoronic.

 

[reilo]

Yes, but this election you just happen to agree with the result

Who said anything about irrationality being exclusive to just one side of the political aisle?

Then again, at least the majority of the public didn't buy into the bullshit of Obama being an arab terrorist sympathizing evil marxist muslim, but I'm sure there is a large number of people that still did.

 

[speculawyer]

Past-tense, no, they weren't. They were property.

Yes they were . . . the view was wrong and it changed.

 

[reilo]

What's your operational definition of "irrational?"

You.

 

[Panda Bear]

Well in this case, agreed.

Human beings should never be treated as the subhuman property of another human being.

What they're considered vs. what. they. are. Couldn't have paid someone to make my point better.

So what specifically is your definition of a human being then?

 

[Gaborn]

Who said anything about irrationality being exclusive to just one side of the political aisle?

Then again, at least the majority of the public didn't buy into the bullshit of Obama being an arab terrorist sympathizing evil marxist muslim, but I'm sure there is a large number of people that still did.

Sure, but a lot of people do seem to have irrationally high expectations for him. He's got that Kennedy-esque aura about him that people seem to go wild over.

In any case, I agree that irrationality is prevalent on both sides. With that said I'm not sure what the point of that is. Just because you think a particular individual or even group of individuals is behaving irrationally does not mean that their ultimate decision is WRONG, it just isn't always necessarily based on clear thinking. Sometimes conventional rational wisdom is wrong.

 

[Mama Robotnik]

 

[JayDubya]

Yes they were . . . the view was wrong and it changed.

And the current view that excludes personhood from living human beings - allowing them to be considered subhuman property - is somehow better or more infallible?

 

[speculawyer]

What's your operational definition of "irrational?"

You.

:lol

 

[Future]

Why do people argue abortion. Its an unwinnable debate. Either you believe a bunch of cells constitutes as life or you dont. Anti-abortionists will say of course its life if it can develop into a child. Pro-choicers will compare the cells to isolated sperm or eggs, or scientific studies that suggest otherwise. In the end no one will be convinced of either position.

This line however, in the OP

The bishops suggested that the final document include the message that "aggressively pro-abortion policies" would be viewed "as an attack on the church."

Is pure bullshit, and makes you want to take the other side. Getting people riled up with exaggerations like this is the one thing I hate about many religious organizations, and the Right in general

 

[speculawyer]

And the current view that excludes personhood from living human beings - allowing them to be considred subhuman property - is somehow better?

We've been through this. What compelling goal is served by defining a blastocyst as a human with rights? You came up with nothing. What compelling goal is served by defining them as not human? Reduction of suffering by reducing unwanted pregnancies. End of story.

 

[reilo]

Sure, but a lot of people do seem to have irrationally high expectations for him. He's got that Kennedy-esque aura about him that people seem to go wild over.

In any case, I agree that irrationality is prevalent on both sides. With that said I'm not sure what the point of that is. Just because you think a particular individual or even group of individuals is behaving irrationally does not mean that their ultimate decision is WRONG, it just isn't always necessarily based on clear thinking. Sometimes conventional rational wisdom is wrong.

Of course he has irrationally high expectations, but any president taking office on January 20th - whether their name was Kennedy, Obama, Clinton, or McCain - would have a hell of hurdle to overcome.

I just hope that Obama does use conventional rational wisdom to achieve his decisions, because if the last 8 years have proved anything is that the alternative is much worse and rarely, rarely right.

 

[JayDubya]

What compelling goal is served by defining a blastocyst as a human with rights?

Quite possibly the same compelling goal that is served by defining someone's useful and quite expensive cotton-picker as a human with rights: the promotion of human liberty. It's the right thing to do.

I suppose it also forwards the goal of having our laws in good standing with scientific reason and fact.

 

[Gaborn]

Of course he has irrationally high expectations, but any president taking office on January 20th - whether their name was Kennedy, Obama, Clinton, or McCain - would have a hell of hurdle to overcome.

I just hope that Obama does use conventional rational wisdom to achieve his decisions, because if the last 8 years have proved anything is that the alternative is much worse and rarely, rarely right.

Sure but my point was not about Obama really, I was just using him as an example. For the record I DON'T think very highly of what he'll do, partly because of my ideological disagreements but also because in the current situation almost any person is set up to fail.

With that said, on subject, I'm not sure what the point of arguing your belief that Jay is irrational is. Either he is or he isn't, but that doesn't mean that he would be objectively wrong.

 

[speculawyer]

Quite possibly the same compelling goal that is served by defining someone's useful and quite expensive cotton-picker as a human with rights: the promotion of human liberty. It's the right thing to do.

Ah but you are bootstrapping your argument by already assuming the fetus is a person with legal rights. FAIL.

 

[JayDubya]

Ah but you are bootstrapping your argument by already assuming the fetus is a human. FAIL.

Well, it ain't a donkey.

 

[reilo]

Sure but my point was not about Obama really, I was just using him as an example. For the record I DON'T think very highly of what he'll do, partly because of my ideological disagreements but also because in the current situation almost any person is set up to fail.

With that said, on subject, I'm not sure what the point of arguing your belief that Jay is irrational is. Either he is or he isn't, but that doesn't mean that he would be objectively wrong.

Well, he takes the position that everybody that is pro-choice is objectively wrong [by calling us murderers, no less], so it's only fair that I am allowed to call him irrationally wrong.

 

[Gaborn]

Ah but you are bootstrapping your argument by already assuming the fetus is a human. FAIL.

Ummm... spec? a human fetus is human. The debate is about whether it's a person.

Reilo - Again though, rationality doesn't address the validity of a concern. A person could have irrationally believed both JFK and RFK would be shot, but that doesn't mean that it DIDN'T happen just because someone irrational believed it would happen before it did. Calling a person irrational limits the individual's credibility but not necessarily their points

 

[JayDubya]

Well, he takes the position that everybody that is pro-choice is objectively wrong [by calling us murderers, no less]

Yes, I take the position that I'm right on a wholly black and white issue where there's really no reasonable middle ground. If I didn't, I wouldn't argue my position.

The part in brackets is total BS, by the way.

 

[mre]

Ummm... spec? a human fetus is human. The debate is about whether it's a person.

But it's also very similar, genetically speaking, to a chimpanzee. So, if we assume that a fetus is actually a chimpanzee, rather than a human, how does that change your opinion?

 

[Gaborn]

But it's also very similar, genetically speaking, to a chimpanzee. So, if we assume that a fetus is actually a chimpanzee, rather than a human, how does change your opinion?

I haven't actually voiced my opinion in this thread particularly :lol . Personally I disagree a bit with JayDub, I think that abortion should be legal but I would limit it in some ways. For example I wouldn't allow insurance providers to cover abortions that were not medically necessary for the life of the mother. With that said, similarity doesn't really matter in terms of genetics, all humans are genetically similar to, but notably distinct from chimps.

 

[reilo]

Yes, I take the position that I'm right on a wholly black and white issue where there's really no reasonable middle ground. If I didn't, I wouldn't argue my position.

The part in brackets is total BS, by the way.

Did you just say there's no middle ground in this debate, or is this more of your intelligence being lost on us lowly people?

 

[Beer Monkey]

Taxing the churches is something I've wanted to do for two decades. Frank Zappa had it right.

We could really use the money right now, too.

 

[polyh3dron]

Where are all those Republicans who said that we should support our President unconditionally during war time? You know, those righties who said that voices of dissent against our president during a time of war was un-American...

 

[Solaros]

double standards abound

 

[reilo]

Where are all those Republicans who said that we should support our President unconditionally during war time? You know, those righties who said that voices of dissent against our president during a time of war was un-American...

Well, according to some right-wingers, supporting any non-right candidate or president is un-American.

 

[speculawyer]

Yes, I take the position that I'm right on a wholly black and white issue where there's really no reasonable middle ground. If I didn't, I wouldn't argue my position.

It is only black & white if you choose to over-simplify it that way.

It's like trying to define what differentiates different species . . . there is no clear bright line, only one we decide to impose.

 

[polyh3dron]

It is possible, but it's like supporting the legality of slavery while sternly suggesting that it's not a very nice thing to do to own slaves.

Apples, they're exactly the same as oranges.

 

[Atrus]

And the current view that excludes personhood from living human beings - allowing them to be considered subhuman property - is somehow better or more infallible?

Again wrong. A fetus is NOT a human 'being' in legal jurisprudence but termed a human 'organism'.

I have to review legal precedents as an auditor and in such a case in tax law, it was established that a fetus is not an organ and in addition not a human being either.

So technically speaking nobody is excluding person hood from living human beings either.

 

[speculawyer]

Taxing the churches is something I've wanted to do for two decades. Frank Zappa had it right.

We could really use the money right now, too.

Indeed. Zappa was right. He had to pay taxes for entertaining people, so why shouldn't the churches? I've had more religious experiences from Zappa than from any church!

 

[JayDubya]

Did you just say there's no middle ground in this debate

On abortion? No, it's one of the most (if not the most), exceedingly polarizing topics around.

Again wrong. A fetus is NOT a human 'being' in legal jurisprudence but termed a human 'organism'.

"Human being" is the colloquial common use term for "a member of the species Homo sapiens."

The current legal status is either what is totally kosher or in dire need of change depending on one's perspective on this topic, so technicalities of current legal status are not exceedingly relevant.

 

[mre]

Taxing the churches is something I've wanted to do for two decades. Frank Zappa had it right.

We could really use the money right now, too.

If we're that hard up for money, maybe we should abolish the tax exempt status across the board (with the exception for governmental agencies because that would just be silly)?

 

[polyh3dron]

OK guys, let's stop the abortion discussion right now, before this turns into another JayDubya vs. GAF thread.

Spoiler

PS I just rubbed one out, zomg holocaust

 

[JayDubya]

Also, churches are charitable organizations, so unless we're going to start telling those freeloading motherfuckers at the Red Cross to divy up, you might want to rethink things.

Spoiler

PS I just rubbed one out, zomg holocaust

Spoiler

YOUR RETARDED

 

[speculawyer]

Also, churches are charitable organizations, so unless we're going to start telling those freeloading fuckerss at the Red Cross to divy up, you might want to rethink things.

Are they really? Some are. Some are not. If they are out feeding poor people, then they are. If they are just taking their donations and building massive mega-churches and satellite networks, then they are not.

 

[Cloudy]

It is possible to be anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights

Yes, if you're not a self-righteous douchebag..

Abortion is LEGAL in this country and elected officials have to respect that. Why do these zealots keep trying to brainwash their congregations?

 

[Atrus]

On abortion? No, it's one of the most (if not the most), exceedingly polarizing topics around.



"Human being" is the colloquial common use term for "a member of the species Homo sapiens."

The current legal status is either what is totally kosher or in dire need of change depending on one's perspective on this topic, so technicalities of current legal status are not exceedingly relevant.

In order to understand the current legal status one must first have an understanding of legal jurisprudence and the terms behind it. So the technicalities are very much relevant unless of all you want to do is bring about emotional appeals or bias perspectives in order to affect something that cares about neither.

 

[speculawyer]

PS I just rubbed one out, zomg holocaust

Spoiler

YOUR RETARDED

But if he spooged onto an egg expelled by a woman it would be different?

 

[mre]

In order to understand the current legal status one must first have an understanding of legal jurisprudence and the terms behind it. So the technicalities are very much relevant unless of all you want to do is bring about emotional appeals or bias perspectives in order to affect something that cares about neither.

His argument is not that he doesn't understand it, but that he doesn't agree with it and thinks it should be changed. If one doesn't agree with the current legal jurisprudence and the terms behind it, one is not likely to acknowledge the import of that current legal jurisprudence and its associated terms in one's own argument.

 

[Hitokage]

Lolz at JayDubya pushing his own morality onto catholics. Whether an embryo has a human soul yet or not is something he never considers!

 

[JayDubya]

Lolz at JayDubya pushing his own morality onto catholics. Whether an embryo has a human soul yet or not is something he never considers!

Pushing my morality? And what exactly do you want me to consider about something I don't believe in? The church's views regarding ensoulment are well-documented.

 

[Monocle]

Hypocritical asshole. :lol

 

[Atrus]

His argument is not that he doesn't understand it, but that he doesn't agree with it and thinks it should be changed. If one doesn't agree with the current legal jurisprudence and the terms behind it, one is not likely to acknowledge the import of that current legal jurisprudence and its associated terms in one's own argument.

Which of course makes everything pointless unless you rebel against the entire legal establishment, but if you do that, you undermine the basis of legal establishment that provides for the strength of law or the rights that he so claims to defend.

 

[mre]

Which of course makes everything pointless unless you rebel against the entire legal establishment, but if you do that, you undermine the basis of legal establishment that provides for the strength of law or the rights that he so claims to defend.

Why does one have to rebel against the entire legal system if one is only taking issue with the government's position on one issue (I'm not saying this is applies to JayDubya)? But when one engages in hyperbole of this sort, one undermines the very purpose of discourse. One must guard against doing this.

 

[JayDubya]

I'm not saying this is applies to JayDubya?

Yes, this is applies.

 

[Ionas]

On one hand, it kinda sucks that some leaders in the Catholic Church are playing this idiotic game.

On the other, I wish more people understood that Catholicism isn't some self-applied label you can adopt and disregard at your leisure. You have to actually accept the doctrine, even if you have some hesitations with minor points.

On the third, genetically altered hand, this thread and all abortion threads are a total clusterfuck.

 

[btkadams]

But but...America is a christian nation!!

lol have you seen religulous?

 

[Terrell]

Past-tense, no, they weren't. They were property.

The main difference here is science. Scientifically, slaves were human beings. This is irrefutable, and thus being humans, it only makes sense that human rights were dictated to show it's wrong to claim a human as a possession.
Once again, scientifically, it has been designated that the "life" of a fetus does not begin until it has reached the uterus and begun maturation. Until it develops a brain capable of even the slightest form of intelligence, it is no more different than, say, a tomato. Only it's made of the same carbon material as us.

So really, are you trying to argue against science? Because really... if you're going to do that, one could hope you would reject other scientific principles and gifts, as well. Wouldn't want to be against science only when it suits you.