Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 289

Thread: The so-called pro-life party

  1. #166
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,180

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    If the fetus is not part of her body, then we should be able to remove it and it should survive on its own.
    Same with coma victims and people in the ICU, natch.

    Pregnancy being a biological process requiring the mother is a decent starting point, as I said in my post to Jester, if you could be bothered to read and understand anything. Arguing a fetus is the same as an eyeball is a nonstarter.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    I think ovi's right.

 

  • #167
    toxic Xyxox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Province
    Aurora, IL
    Oratio
    8,633

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Same with coma victims and people in the ICU, natch.

    Pregnancy being a biological process requiring the mother is a decent starting point, as I said in my post to Jester, if you could be bothered to read and understand anything. Arguing a fetus is the same as an eyeball is a nonstarter.
    Ah, I get it now. Fetuses are people and women are nothing more than fetus life support systems according to your argument.

    Gotcha.

    Trump is just Putin's little bitch.

  • #168
    Religipster Enkhidu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Dayton
    Oratio
    7,101

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    If the fetus is not part of her body, then we should be able to remove it and it should survive on its own.
    Which is why a plurality of our population (as evidenced by the fact that so many state outlaw 3rd trimester abortions) draws the line where a fetus becomes a person where they do.

    It's been stated a number of times - the underlying question is "when does a fetus become a person?"

  • #169
    toxic Xyxox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Province
    Aurora, IL
    Oratio
    8,633

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Enkhidu View Post
    Which is why a plurality of our population (as evidenced by the fact that so many state outlaw 3rd trimester abortions) draws the line where a fetus becomes a person where they do.

    It's been stated a number of times - the underlying question is "when does a fetus become a person?"
    Amazingly enough, this was decided in Roe v. Wade, yet some insist upon continuing to argue a settled point.
    Trump is just Putin's little bitch.

  • #170
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,180

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    Ah, I get it now. Fetuses are people and women are nothing more than fetus life support systems according to your argument.

    Gotcha.

    No, my argument is that you're an idiot looking for a strawman victory. I've said that fetus are not 'part of a woman's body' but are instead 'in a woman's body'. Control over what your body is used for is a valid argument, and one previously and often stated reason I support the legality of abortion. It is, however, not 'part' of a woman's body, nor is it similar, in any way, to any other organ or cell in her body, up to an including cancer cells. Such comparisions belie the speaker's ignorance and/or attempt to play a strawman semantics game to win points for their bullshit false morality position.

    I am pro-abortion, because I believe, in part, that women should be able to have the choice early in pregnancy to not undergo the hardship of pregnancy, especially if the final result is unwanted. You, however, are just a moron parroting the talking points and failing to grasp the nuances of other arguments in an attempt to hit everything with your provided hammer. You're to damn ignorant to actually argue a position -- if it doesn't fit your premade and provided talking point shotgun, by God you'll make it fit. Even if that means shooting people nominally on your side because they don't toe the acceptable line.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    I think ovi's right.

  • #171
    Religipster Enkhidu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Dayton
    Oratio
    7,101

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    Amazingly enough, this was decided in Roe v. Wade, yet some insist upon continuing to argue a settled point.
    I'd argue that Roe v Wade settled legality, but not philosophy. It's use of the term "potentiality of human life" (not to mention the stickiness of using viability as a line - something which continues to change as medicine advances) is problematic.

  • #172
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,180

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    Amazingly enough, this was decided in Roe v. Wade, yet some insist upon continuing to argue a settled point.
    Unfortunately for you amazement, such settled points have become decidedly unsettled in subsequent decisions, up to and including the abandonment of the trimester model as the determination point of fetal viability.

    It helps to be aware of the actual state of affairs on abortion, especially landmark cases such as Planned Parenthood vs Casey that bolster your position on abortion. Arguing that fetal viability is a legally settled point when it's be ambiguated by followon cases instead of disambiguated just makes you look like even more of a moron.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    I think ovi's right.

  • #173
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    And that's why the inability to rationally discuss the topic continues. Both sides are unwilling to let go of their personal righteousness, and, instead of being honest with themselves, spend their time attacking their opponents by misrepresenting their personal righteousness.

    You go, mang, you go.
    Fuck you and the redefinition of my stance you rode in on, buster.

    I've told you what the issue is about for me. Don't tell me otherwise. Tell me what it's about for you if you like, but otherwise shut the fuck up. I know what the issue is for me. My stances flow from that. Neither you nor anyone else is going to tell me different.

    Talk to me about why framing the issue as I do is wrong. Tell me why the conclusions I draw from that framing are wrong. Those are useful topics of discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    I believe the hammer locking back is PWD's trigger warning.

  • #174
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,180

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    Fuck you and the redefinition of my stance you rode in on, buster.

    I've told you what the issue is about for me. Don't tell me otherwise. Tell me what it's about for you if you like, but otherwise shut the fuck up. I know what the issue is for me. My stances flow from that. Neither you nor anyone else is going to tell me different.

    Talk to me about why framing the issue as I do is wrong. Tell me why the conclusions I draw from that framing are wrong. Those are useful topics of discussion.
    I have, you aren't listening. Your framing is poor because the issue is not about choice, it's about abortion. Choice is the rational for your chosen position on abortion, not your position.

    Choice is the wrong framing because your aren't arguing for choice, you're arguing for the availability of abortion. Saying choice is the frame means you cannot compare positions or rationals with anyone who's frame isn't also choice. Which means all you will do is hurl invective and misunderstandings with people who frame their position otherwise. Hell, I'm here insisting the frame is actually the issue, and you're busting my chops because you've decided the issue is choice because that's your rational. Even though I saying the topic is abortion, you're insisting your topic is choice. How the hell can there be communication?

    Insisting on choice is insisting on a framework antithetical to others. It's small wonder that there's no lucid discussion on this topic from either side because people are so wrapped up in their personal rationalizations of how it's not really abortion, it's choice/life.

    And your conclusions on abortion framed as choice are wrong, because your conclusions are about choice -- which isn't the topic being discussed. If your conclusions are correct, and properly framed, your only conclusion is that anyone who hasn't framed the issue the same way as you is wrong, which is convenient that you've picked a framing such that opposition is easily dismissable. Being against abortion might be acceptable, but choice? If you're against choice you must be a [insert fundamentalist attack of choice here] or hate women, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    I think ovi's right.

  • #175
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    I have, you aren't listening. Your framing is poor because the issue is not about choice, it's about abortion. Choice is the rational for your chosen position on abortion, not your position.
    I'm going to bail out on your bullshit right here.

    The issue is about choice, for me. Everyone has the absolute right of choice over their own body. Abortion is merely one manifestation of that. End of discussion.

    Because the issue is about choice, and the right of control over one's body, I cannot possibly approach abortion in any other way.

    Would you like to try a different tact?
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    I believe the hammer locking back is PWD's trigger warning.

  • #176
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,180

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    I'm going to bail out on your bullshit right here.

    The issue is about choice, for me. Everyone has the absolute right of choice over their own body. Abortion is merely one manifestation of that. End of discussion.

    Because the issue is about choice, and the right of control over one's body, I cannot possibly approach abortion in any other way.

    Would you like to try a different tact?
    So why is it punishable by law for a pregnant woman in engage in risky drug taking activities that can harm the fetus, like excessive alcohol intake, use of hard illegal drugs, or intentionally taking known teratogens?

    There, done. Skewed points of view that attempt to totally invalidate others instead of recognizing the issues are just attempts at moral rationalization. It's a weak position that only allows weak arguments while maintaining the arguers ability to be morally righteous. And, before you go off, I think the same thing about pro-lifers.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    I think ovi's right.

  • #177
    Religipster Enkhidu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Dayton
    Oratio
    7,101

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    I'm going to bail out on your bullshit right here.

    The issue is about choice, for me. Everyone has the absolute right of choice over their own body. Abortion is merely one manifestation of that. End of discussion.

    Because the issue is about choice, and the right of control over one's body, I cannot possibly approach abortion in any other way.

    Would you like to try a different tact?
    Limiting the issue to choice only doesn't accommodate the possibility that the fetus is a legally protected entity (which is a primary counter argument that respects the idea that you can do whatever you want until it infringes on another person). Doesn't this show a flaw in the framing?

  • #178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    So why is it punishable by law for a pregnant woman in engage in risky drug taking activities that can harm the fetus, like excessive alcohol intake, use of hard illegal drugs, or intentionally taking known teratogens?
    Am I responsible for the full slate of law now? Great, I'm going to start enacting a eugenics program that would make nail kitty need a change of pants.

    There, done. Skewed points of view that attempt to totally invalidate others instead of recognizing the issues are just attempts at moral rationalization. It's a weak position that only allows weak arguments while maintaining the arguers ability to be morally righteous. And, before you go off, I think the same thing about pro-lifers.
    Acknowledged upthread that the moral highground claiming is bullshit.

    So stop fucking doing it.

    I've told you the ground I've staked out, you're welcome to engage on that basis. Soon as you tell me the issue is about something other than I've told you it's about for me, you can fuck off.

    Why shouldn't the issue be about control over one's own body? No, don't quote me random laws enacted from all over the spectrum of beliefs and orthodoxies, tell me the real shit. I'm no more a fan of the collected works of our various lawmakers than you are. They aren't evidence of anything beyond the ability of interested parties to push for their creation.

    I've told people above it's about the sovereignty over one's body for me, and that since the fetus isn't a human until it's a human, it doesn't get a vote nor a place at the table, not for the forms of abortion I can grudgingly support. That's the same sense that leads me to piss on drug and alcohol consumption laws, laws against suicide attempts, against euthanasia, and so on.

    That's not the only viewpoint possible, nor is it the only logical and self-consistent viewpoint. I freely acknowledge the value in some other people's positions. They do not change how I'm approaching it.

    Why should I approach it differently? That's your avenue if you think you want to pick at this. Alternatively, how am I mis-applying it?

    Telling me the issue is about something else and then quoting me some bullshit laws on the books don't get there. You knew that before you posted.
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    I believe the hammer locking back is PWD's trigger warning.

  • #179
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    [Lots of interesting discussion clipped] Being against abortion might be acceptable, but choice? If you're against choice you must be a [insert fundamentalist attack of choice here] or hate women, right?
    I'm still not quite understanding what you're saying, here, about the distinction between abortion and choice.

    I can see how the arguement can certainly be framed as choice: when the state or nature of the fetus is meaningless to you.

    If I knew for a fact that there was a soul and that a soul entered those two cells the instant they touched, I'd probably still be pro-choice, or pro-fetus-murder, or whatever you want to call it.

    The ability to choose whether or not to stay pregnant (Abortion, or morning-after pill, by whatever means) or the ability to choose whether or not it is possible to become pregnant (birth control pills or other methods) trumps anything else.

  • #180
    Quote Originally Posted by Enkhidu View Post
    Limiting the issue to choice only doesn't accommodate the possibility that the fetus is a legally protected entity (which is a primary counter argument that respects the idea that you can do whatever you want until it infringes on another person). Doesn't this show a flaw in the framing?
    No, the fetus isn't a human. Not during the timeframes in which abortion is legal. Since I'm not "pro-abortion" despite people's desperation to make it so, I'm clearly also not pro-abortion-in-any-trimester such as when a fetus might have turned into a human.

    For the sake of argument, once the fetus is a human, then it needs to be considered in the equation. Never before. Even once it is figuring in the equation, the host takes precedence.

    If you want to offer the host transplantation as an alternative to rid herself of the issue, be my guest, but you do not get to dictate to her that she's going to carry to term with her body.
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    I believe the hammer locking back is PWD's trigger warning.

  • Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 LastLast

    Tags for this Thread

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •