wait
maybe she covers it in this thread

what is the basis of an atheist being pro life?

10/7/2005 5:50:49 PM

Quote :

"Well you can sue mother nature for not giving you a vagina."

too bad its not mother nature that is the problem here. but nice try...

Quote :

"Is it discrimination that a woman can never get an erection?"

1) No, its irrelevent
2) Women DO get "erections." Looks like someone didn't pay attention in sex ed class...

Quote :

"If you want to be a father, have sex with a woman who wants a child, it's not that tough."

At issue here is NOT being able to be a father. Rather, its the right of a father to have the same rights as the mother. but hey, feel free to keep evading the issue.

Quote :

"It's not my fault god didn't make you a woman."

and its certainly not my fault that thats irrelevent.

Quote :

"What the fuck are you taling about?"

its not surprising that you can't follow your own backpedalling. Lemme review:

Quote :

"But you are talking about the reverse. Having sex isn't perfectly correlated with pregnancy."

10/7/2005 6:21:29 PM

Quote :

"too bad its not mother nature that is the problem here. but nice try..."

You're upset that you don't have the body parts to birth a child right? Isn't this why you want to tell a woman what she has to do with hers?

Quote :

"Women DO get "erections." Looks like someone didn't pay attention in sex ed class..."

Is a virgin trying to tell me about sex? This isn't really a subject you have any knowledge in, now if it was a discussion on jacking off you might hold some wieght.

Quote :

"At issue here is NOT being able to be a father. Rather, its the right of a father to have the same rights as the mother. but hey, feel free to keep evading the issue."

They are the same. You have the right to do what you want with your body, and the woman has the right to do what she wants with hers. Now what you want is the right over your own body AND hers. How is that equality?

Quote :

"its not surprising that you can't follow your own backpedalling."

Where am I backpedaling? You were throwing random words together, it had nothing to do with anything.

[Edited on October 7, 2005 at 8:31 PM. Reason : ]

10/7/2005 8:30:23 PM

Just a few things.

Quote :

"It's an article I never published."

ahahahahahaha

Quote :

"But this idea fails to hold up to scrutiny. "

The complete absense of any argument... there's not even pretense of it being supported.

Quote :

"On the other hand, in the United States, along with much of the developed world, the overwhelming majority of men and women who work in sex trade do so largely out of choice"

I've argued this issue on TWW before, that didn't go to far and neither will this. But how many prostitutes have you know? Just how many of the ppl currently working in specifically prostitution in this country do you think had a middle class income, decent lifestyle, or anything that would make it clear that they went into it for the fun of it? Does being directly forced (only the cases where the woman was told "you have to do this") into prostitution sound so much worse to you than having no choice other than prostitution?


Without taking this beginning post as anything representative of the general argument, I would like to say a little about arguing slippery slope against pro-choice.
Abortion is a very clear concept. There stand different pro-choices on where is the last ethical point to abort the baby; I personally don't have a problem with it until we get into the sketchy region of slicing the head open while it is half out of the vagina. Around that point i would find it appropriate to call it something else. My point is that it stops there.

But going in the other direction, which side was it that has had volumes of slippery slope arguments in countless issues of Time involving "embryos have rights", "stem cells have rights", "sperm and eggs themselves have rights"?

While i don't see anything presented here being halfway sufficient to damage the pro-choice argument based on the rights of the woman, that's not even the only case I would make. If the woman has the will to abort the child, what kind of life do you think that presents for the vast majority of the children after society doesn't allow the woman to abort it? And, you know, we don't particularly have a underpopulation problem here. Future children of the world have a much greater right to be born into a society capable of supporting them and a family having every will to raise them properly than the right to be halfway through pregnancy and not get a "jinx, you don't have a chance at the world after all". At least in my humble opinion they do.

10/7/2005 9:36:34 PM

Quote :

"This would be similar to a situation in which I find a person who is of certain socioeconomic status or has a history of family depression or illness and deciding that they don't have good prospects for happiness (or, hell, even just contentedness so I end their life (I'll be kind and not end it in the same way that the aborted fetus has their life ended)."

It wouldn't be the exact same thing, because at no point was the person you are killing a non-sensient part of your body. Abortion done fairly early in the term (which is the kind of abortion most pro-choicers argue for) is not removing anyone's choice, because no "one" explicitly exists, and it has no choice. Only the expectant mother has consciousness and self awareness and "I think therefore I am" or whatever. She is the one who has to make the decision to terminate the existence of something growing inside her, that will dramatically impact her life. She can do so for whatever reason, but hopefully society will teach her to have some ethics, and only do it if it's absolutely necessary. If you want to look at it as murder, that's fine, but murder is acceptable in some instances in society, and abortion should be one of those cases.

Quote :

"The problem here is that pro-choicers, as a general rule, feel that the fetus is not human in the sense that it deserves access to the same 'human rights' that most people feel that born humans have. I, and most pro-lifers, disagree; we feel that the fetus should have access to these rights. So, we disagree on a fundamental level and this whole topic cannot be argued."

If it's a rights issue, then most of the pro-lifers you are talking about are hypocrites, or are cognitively dissonant. We kill people all the time, like criminals from the death penalty, criminals in self defense, we send soldiers basically to die over seas (for nebulous reasons at that),various other more secretive types of killings (like in spy work), and we kill innocent, conscious, living people in wars. There are even more indirect ways we kill people too (but that's for another discussion). Unless you are against all those types of killings as well, then it's hypocritical to be against abortion on the grounds of "rights". Not to mention that the mother herself has rights over her body.

10/8/2005 12:17:05 AM

Quote :

"This would be similar to a situation in which I find a person who is of certain socioeconomic status or has a history of family depression or illness and deciding that they don't have good prospects for happiness (or, hell, even just contentedness so I end their life (I'll be kind and not end it in the same way that the aborted fetus has their life ended)."

How highly do you fucking hold the life of a fetus? These pro-lifers have got to get it out of their heads that walking into someone's house and killing them is the same wrongness as abortion. Lets say that this depressed person was completely doped up to the point of a complete non-functioning brain and wasn't going to gain conscious thought for a very long time, it will be a direct burden on you to keep the thing going, society alone didn't have recourses to support it, pooped at random intervals, yada yada. Maybe you can border on a valid analogy, but you cannot get over the distinction of a life started and a life not yet started.

10/8/2005 1:30:44 AM

Quote :

"Therefore, Pro-Choice advocates should, in theory, frown upon “sin taxes” which raise the prices of alcohol and cigarettes to prohibitive levels. After all, it is a personal choice to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, and sin taxes are simply an indirect attempt to interfere with personal choice. Thus, Pro-Choice advocates should oppose the idea of punitively taxing fast-food corporations. Similarly, the Pro-Choice advocate should oppose anti-drug laws in principle because it interferes with an individual’s autonomy of his or her own body. After all, the choice to take up prostitution is nothing more than a choice as to how to employ one’s body. "

wow
this dude knows exactly how I feel

GO ABORTION! GO!

10/8/2005 1:44:26 PM

again i still dont see how this is a misnomer

i agree with the article

10/8/2005 2:01:09 PM

the article is just a huge slippery slope/strawman.

10/8/2005 2:46:43 PM

Quote :

"You're upset that you don't have the body parts to birth a child right? Isn't this why you want to tell a woman what she has to do with hers?"

wow. you just don't get it? PRO-LIFERS DON'T SEE IT AS "just part of a woman's body." Try arguing their actual fucking point for once, Kris. thx for the strawman, though. i really do like it.

Quote :

"Is a virgin trying to tell me about sex?"

relevance, plz... sex ed teaches us that women have "erections." You don't have to have sex to have taken sex ed. ad hominem at its best, I suppose. or is that "appeal to authority." I can't remember which.

Quote :

"They are the same. You have the right to do what you want with your body, and the woman has the right to do what she wants with hers. Now what you want is the right over your own body AND hers. How is that equality?"

Quote :

"but hey, feel free to keep evading the issue."

Quote :

"But going in the other direction, which side was it that has had volumes of slippery slope arguments in countless issues of Time involving "embryos have rights", "stem cells have rights", "sperm and eggs themselves have rights"?"

too bad thats not a "slippery slope." slippery slope would be "WHATS NEXT? SEX WITH CHICKENS?"

Quote :

"because no "one" explicitly exists"

are you sure?

Quote :

"and it has no choice."

you are damned fucking right it has no choice.

Quote :

"If you want to look at it as murder, that's fine, but murder is acceptable in some instances in society"

only, murder IS NEVER acceptable in life. Murder != killing. but nice try.

Quote :

"If it's a rights issue, then most of the pro-lifers you are talking about are hypocrites, or are cognitively dissonant."

Quote :

"Murder != killing."

Quote :

"These pro-lifers have got to get it out of their heads that walking into someone's house and killing them is the same wrongness as abortion."

do you care to actually advance any points to show this? nope, you don't.

Quote :

"Lets say that this depressed person was completely doped up to the point of a complete non-functioning brain and wasn't going to gain conscious thought for a very long time, it will be a direct burden on you to keep the thing going, society alone didn't have recourses to support it, pooped at random intervals, yada yada."

so, you are telling me that a fetus will not gain consciousness? Or, do you just like bringing up totally irrelevent and extreme cases?

Quote :

"the article is just a huge slippery slope/strawman."

two things with which you are intimately familiar, as you routinely use them yourself.

10/8/2005 5:20:48 PM

Quote :

"you just don't get it? PRO-LIFERS DON'T SEE IT AS "just part of a woman's body.""

I understand that, but that doesn't change the fact that the fetus is in HER body. If you want to force the woman to continue with birth, you are forcing her to do something with her body, regardless of whether you consider the fetus a part of it or not.

Quote :

"relevance, plz..."

Quote :

"The last time your penis was near a woman you were on the uterus slip-n-slide."

Quote :

"only, murder IS NEVER acceptable in life. Murder != killing. but nice try."

Technically you can't call abortion murder either, considering the word implies unlawfulness. Additionally it was the case that they gave me.

Quote :

"two things with which you are intimately familiar, as you routinely use them yourself."

BURNED!

10/8/2005 5:29:38 PM

Quote :

"I understand that, but that doesn't change the fact that the fetus is in HER body."

cafre to actually PROVE THAT. you know, again, the main point that pro-lifers take issue with? dense, aren't you?

Quote :

"If you want to force the woman to continue with birth, you are forcing her to do something with her body, regardless of whether you consider the fetus a part of it or not."

thats great. maybe she should have thought about that before doing something else with her body, also something the fetus had no part in...

Quote :

"Technically you can't call abortion murder either, considering the word implies unlawfulness."

too bad they think abortion SHOULD be murder. thus their analogy is fitting.

Quote :

"BURNED!"

yes, i did burn you. your point?

10/8/2005 5:41:52 PM

Quote :

"cafre to actually PROVE THAT. you know, again, the main point that pro-lifers take issue with? dense, aren't you?"

STOP. Listen. Regardless of whether the fetus is the part of her body it is IN her body. In other words, the fetus isn't outside her body. Do I need to explain it another way?

Quote :

"thats great. maybe she should have thought about that before doing something else with her body, also something the fetus had no part in..."

That's irrelevant. The fact here is you are taking a woman's soverignty over her own body. I don't see any reason for the father to be able to say "you have to do this with your body" if the mother doesn't want to. This is why the father doesn't have any rights in deciding the abortion, because he can't have a baby or an abortion, sorry, it comes with the penis.

Quote :

"too bad they think abortion SHOULD be murder."

That's different from saying it IS murder, which I hear so often.

Quote :

"yes, i did burn you. your point?"

My point was your stupid little insult was meaningless. You'll die a virgin, cold, alone, and unloved in your own urine and fecal matter.

10/8/2005 5:51:07 PM

Quote :

"STOP. Listen. Regardless of whether the fetus is the part of her body it is IN her body. In other words, the fetus isn't outside her body. Do I need to explain it another way?"

No one is arguing that the woman's body isn't affected, Kris. But keep up your strawman.

Quote :

"The fact here is you are taking a woman's soverignty over her own body."

in the interest of protecting another being's sovereignty.

Quote :

"I don't see any reason for the father to be able to say "you have to do this with your body" if the mother doesn't want to."

Strawman. no one is saying that the father should have veto power.

Quote :

"This is why the father doesn't have any rights in deciding the abortion, because he can't have a baby or an abortion, sorry, it comes with the penis."

actually, no. the reason the father doesn't have any rights is because pro-murder people choose to ignore the father's role in a pregnancy.

Quote :

"That's different from saying it IS murder, which I hear so often."

then I suppose that in lobbying to make anything illegal, the lobbyists are foolish for arguing against something that is currently legal. good work, kris.

Quote :

"My point was your stupid little insult was meaningless."

as ad hominem usually is

Quote :

"You'll die a virgin, cold, alone, and unloved in your own urine and fecal matter."

You'll die not a virgin, but still cold, alone, and unloved in your own urine and fecal matter.

10/8/2005 6:27:24 PM

Quote :

"No one is arguing that the woman's body isn't affected, Kris. But keep up your strawman."

Then what the hell was this?
Me: "I understand that, but that doesn't change the fact that the fetus is in HER body."
You: "cafre to actually PROVE THAT. you know, again, the main point that pro-lifers take issue with? dense, aren't you?"

I can't understand your aguement when you keep jumping around like this. So are we in agreement that the fetus is inside the mother's body?

Quote :

"in the interest of protecting another being's sovereignty."

Perhaps, but that responsibility would fall on the government, not on the father

Quote :

"Strawman. no one is saying that the father should have veto power."

Quote :

"in other words, a man NEVER has a choice as to whether or not he becomes a father. that is discrimination if i've ever heard of it."

Quote :

"actually, no. the reason the father doesn't have any rights is because pro-murder people choose to ignore the father's role in a pregnancy."

No, the reason the father has no rights in the preganancy is because body's involvement stops after intercourse, this is also hwne his right stop, because if they went any further they would be infringing on the mother's right to her own body.

Quote :

"then I suppose that in lobbying to make anything illegal, the lobbyists are foolish for arguing against something that is currently legal."

Irrelvant. The fact is the word murder is misused if someone says "Abortion is murder".

Quote :

"You'll die not a virgin, but still cold, alone, and unloved in your own urine and fecal matter."

I'm ok with that, at least I won't be an evolutionary failure.

10/8/2005 7:07:32 PM

i demand the right to not have my dna used in any woman's body, even if I ACCIDENTALLY allow her to have it

10/8/2005 8:37:06 PM

isnt THEFT of dna a crime?

10/8/2005 8:41:23 PM

the dna is worth the cost of raising a child... very valuable and worth a courts time to put the thief in jail

10/8/2005 8:41:51 PM

she wants to grow something with the dna she stole!!

10/8/2005 8:42:24 PM

Quote :

"I can't understand your aguement when you keep jumping around like this. So are we in agreement that the fetus is inside the mother's body?"

yes, but being inside the mother's body doesn't fucking matter. I haven't jumped around at all. however, trying to change the issue, as you often do, is what makes it appear that i am jumping around. for instance:

Quote :

"Perhaps, but that responsibility would fall on the government, not on the father"

I never claimed it was the father's right to protect the unborn. I mentioned the protection of the unborn in reference to something else, as well, NOT with respect to the father's rights. but nice attempt at evading the issue again...

concerning the "veto" and the quotes you referenced. show me how those quotes say that I say the father should have veto power. I know that you can't.

Quote :

"No, the reason the father has no rights in the preganancy is because body's involvement stops after intercourse"

and yet you ignore the fact that he is a father and that his child is being murdered.

Quote :

"because if they went any further they would be infringing on the mother's right to her own body."

and again, this assumes that ONLY the mother's body is in question, which it isn't. You really are disappointing me, Kris. Usually you make pretty good arguments, regardless of whether I agree with your ultimate point. You are severely lacking in this one, though.

Quote :

"Irrelvant. The fact is the word murder is misused if someone says "Abortion is murder"."

care to actually support that assertion? because murder is generally defined as depriving someone of life without due process. If we view the fetus as being deserving of life, then depriving that fetus of life without due process would constitute murder. And no, due process is not simply the slut deciding she doesn't want to be a mother.

Quote :

"I'm ok with that, at least I won't be an evolutionary failure."

assuming that you become a father, yes.

10/8/2005 9:53:30 PM

4 very different questions for everyone:

Is it wrong to kill potential life that may or may not be aware of itself?

Is it wrong to kill life that may or may not be aware of itself?

Is it wrong to kill life that's not aware of itself?

Is it wrong to kill?

The answers that both 'pro-lifers' and 'pro-choicers' give are always interesting.

To throw my $0.02 in, I believe that the two very broad 'groups' are trying to classify into black and white something that is very much gray. Why is it not possible to compromise? Why is it impossible to find middle ground?

I tend to have more of an issue with the 'Pro-Life' group. Taking the title literally, it SHOULD mean, that all Pro-Lifers are against the killing of anything. Killing people for war, crimes, drugs, shits and giggles should all be wrong in their eyes. This would be in addition to the slaughter of animals for eating, and plants for eating and raw materials. But alas, we aren't extremists and neither are the Pro-Lifers. Obviously they've got to acknoweldge that killing, the act of taking life, is a necessity on certain levels.

So killing is ok, except for Humans. Killing us is bad! So let's change the title to reflect the recent progress we've made. 'Pro-HumanLifers' want to protect and guarentee the right of every fertilized egg to be born. But at what cost? Do the rights of potential life trump the rights of life that already exists? You can't make the argument that all women choose to become pregnant just like I can't sit here and make an argument that all women got pregnant against their will.

Another point that was brought up by someone above concerned the welfare and child adoption problems in the country and in the world. It's been my observation that a fair number of 'Pro-HumanLifers' default to this statement "If the mother doesn't want the child, then she should just give it up for adoption." (Again, not EVERYONE says this, but it is a common statement). This seems really cold to me. What is that child's life going to be like as a kid who was given up for adoption? What will the nations orphan population be like if we added in the number of average aborted kids in a given year? What's the demand by the population for kids to adopt? How are you going to guarentee that child, that you forced to be in this world, a good life? Again, I don't want to generalize and say all these children will have shitty lives, but that doesn't mean that they won't. If the system is overcrowded and no one wants these kids, what's the likelyhood of an orphan child having a good life?

Would it be fair to change our classification again? It would be an easy hop, skip and jump from 'Pro-HumanLife' to 'Pro-HumanBirth', because it seems like there are definitely those out there who are concerned with getting those potential little human lives out of their mothers safe and sound, but could give a shit less about them from that point on.

Meh, flame away.

10/8/2005 11:10:43 PM

Quote :

""because no "one" explicitly exists" are you sure? "

Yes.

Quote :

""If you want to look at it as murder, that's fine, but murder is acceptable in some instances in society" only, murder IS NEVER acceptable in life. Murder != killing. but nice try. "

What/who determines when something crosses the line from killing to murder?

Quote :

"4 very different questions for everyone: 1- Is it wrong to kill potential life that may or may not be aware of itself? 2- Is it wrong to kill life that may or may not be aware of itself? 3- Is it wrong to kill life that's not aware of itself? 4- Is it wrong to kill?"

1- Yes
2- What is this "may or may not"? That statement includes all "life". In general, it's wrong, but it depends at what stage of unawareness they are.
3- In general, no, but it depends at what stage of unawareness.
4- Yes.

[Edited on October 8, 2005 at 11:27 PM. Reason : w]

10/8/2005 11:24:18 PM

Quote :

"Taking the title literally"

thats the problem. taking the title literally. Although, if you had to pick which title was more accurate of the actual position, then "Pro-Life" wins it easily.

Quote :

"Yes."

OK, prove it. and simply saying "THE FETUS ISN'T ALIVE" doesn't cut it.

Quote :

"What/who determines when something crosses the line from killing to murder?"

short answer? the gov't.
long answer? People have long tried to discern when the line is crossed. and they still aint figured it out. However, look at a previous comment of mine about how our gov't generally defines murder and I think you'll find that comment, itself, hard to argue against. Its relationship to abortion is a bit more nebulous. But I like calling pro-abortion people "pro-murder" because it riles up the stupid womenists and the like

10/8/2005 11:31:57 PM

Quote :

"short answer? the gov't. long answer? People have long tried to discern when the line is crossed. and they still aint figured it out. However, look at a previous comment of mine about how our gov't generally defines murder and I think you'll find that comment, itself, hard to argue against. Its relationship to abortion is a bit more nebulous. But I like calling pro-abortion people "pro-murder" because it riles up the stupid womenists and the like "

If that's the case, then currently, abortion isn't murder, it's killing, because it's legal under the gov. From now on, I will tell people that aaronburro said abortion is killing, not murder.

Quote :

" "Yes." OK, prove it. and simply saying "THE FETUS ISN'T ALIVE" doesn't cut it. "

Conventional philosophy on "existence" closely follows the statement "I think therefore I am". A fetus, up until about halfway through gestation, lacks the neurological development to think (and even with the structure in place, it still doesn't assure thought, but I bet it is processing information as an individual at this point). The structure that will become the brain is in place after the first trimester though.

From a social perspective, most people wouldn't identify the unborn fetus as a sentient human. This is not scientific, but if you left it up to society, the fetus wouldn't explicitly exist as "one self" either.

AFAIK, there's no concrete, scientific way of determining unique conscious thought (not yet anyway), but to me, it's valid enough to just base it on what structures are physically developed.

[Edited on October 8, 2005 at 11:40 PM. Reason : 2]

10/8/2005 11:34:29 PM

Quote :

"If that's the case, then currently, abortion isn't murder, it's killing, because it's legal under the gov."

i believe I addressed that above by saying that many people believe abortion should be illegal. thus, to them abortion IS murder. I hope you can see the difference but doubt you will

10/8/2005 11:35:48 PM

^ That's a self-evident statement. It doesn't need to be said. The issue though is why do they see things that way? If their reasons are stupid, then there is no reason they should be given any attention. Which goes back to my previous question of how should we determine when something goes from killing to murder (since legally it's not murder now, but some people want it to legally be murder). Why do they feel that abortion should be murder, but execution or war should not be murder?

10/8/2005 11:43:32 PM

true. but, would you consider depriving someone of life w/out due process to be murder? if so, then execution likely doesn't fit the bill of murder, but rather killing.

10/8/2005 11:56:51 PM

I view execution as vengeance, and i'm not sure how I feel about vengeance (i'm generally for it, but I haven't sat down and pondered it's implications). So it's murder, but it's acceptable. I would see shooting someone in direct self-defense as killing though, and not murder.

10/9/2005 12:00:15 AM

so, to you, vengeance is murder, even if it is done via due process of law?

10/9/2005 12:08:35 AM

^x a lot

To the person who made this quote

Quote :

"While i don't see anything presented here being halfway sufficient to damage the pro-choice argument based on the rights of the woman, that's not even the only case I would make. If the woman has the will to abort the child, what kind of life do you think that presents for the vast majority of the children after society doesn't allow the woman to abort it? And, you know, we don't particularly have a underpopulation problem here. Future children of the world have a much greater right to be born into a society capable of supporting them and a family having every will to raise them properly than the right to be halfway through pregnancy and not get a "jinx, you don't have a chance at the world after all". At least in my humble opinion they do."

Thank you, a much better way of saying what I intended to say with the part about the child welfare system. I love how pro lifers are insistant that life should happen....but the quality of it doesnt seem to matter a lot to them.

I mean, arent there enough unwanted kids in the world who dont get adopted? Arent there enough who starve and die? Why cant we take care of them instead of even having the fight about abortion- shouldn't all these pro lifers be busy with that instead? I guess i just dont get it.

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 12:14 AM. Reason : ..]

10/9/2005 12:12:21 AM

i love how pro-choicers insist on murdering in the name of women's bodies, but neglect the fact that its not only about a woman's body.

see how that works, LadyWolfff?

10/9/2005 12:14:06 AM

^^^ Yes.

There's no practical reason that the gov should kill people. It doesn't make sense for a civilized country to endorse the killing of their own people. We like to make fun of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Fundamentalist for executing their citizens, but what we do is practically the same thing.

But, on a personal, emotional level, I can't have sympathy for a cold-blooded murder. If someone killed my mother, or other loved one, I would truly love to kill them back (but that's illegal). So, I just accept, for emotional reasons, that the gov. would do it for me.

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 12:14 AM. Reason : 3]

10/9/2005 12:14:20 AM

^^ Nope.

I"m talking about the already living breathing on their own walking/crawling folks who are already born.

10/9/2005 12:15:35 AM

^ which seems to be a bit irrelevent when it comes to the topic of abortion. argue the issue at hand, honey.

10/9/2005 12:22:39 AM

^ I am arguing the issue at hand. If it's murder to kill a fetus and you're so concerned with people living, isn't letting all the kids in the world who are unwanted and get punted around or die, abuse or murder by inaction? you folks dont seem to care about that.

10/9/2005 12:32:48 AM

again. what do all these other things you mention have to do with something that comes down to a WOMAN and a BABY? absofuckinglutely nothing. thats why we call it a "logical fallacy." Red Herring, to be more precise. And, just for good measure, you throw in ad hominem tu quoque, too!

10/9/2005 12:43:00 AM

It's all about who's right's are more important; a woman's or something that's not even aware of itself.

10/9/2005 2:40:57 AM

^^^ Those things though are currently illegal (various forms of abuse and neglect).

Abortion though is currently legal. Your question doesn't make sense, because you are asking why they don't want something that's already illegal, to not happen. It's already illegal, so society as a whole, obviously is against it. Also, abuse/neglect of already living, conscious, and sentient beings is quite obviously and plainly wrong (to most people), there's no debate on the issue. The problems come in though in how much we care about other people. It's completely separate from the abortion issue.

The never-ending debate on abortion always seems to boil down to 2 things:
1) At one point does life deserve legal protection (pretty much the same thing as when is killing murder).
2) Should the gov. legislate morality.

My personal pro-choice stance hinges on my belief that I don't think the gov. should be able to control what a person (a woman) can do with their body, when it has no effect on anyone else, which is tied to my belief that a fetus, up to a point until it develops a minimal level of sentience, can be killed with no ensuing suffering or loss of free will.

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 2:50 AM. Reason : 2]

10/9/2005 2:46:15 AM

Quote :

"I haven't jumped around at all."

Did you read what I quoted you on?

Quote :

"I never claimed it was the father's right to protect the unborn."

It was certainly implied

Quote :

"but nice attempt at evading the issue again..."

You keep saying this, yet you seem to have no idea what "the issue" is. We were discussing your idea of a father's right to force a mother to do something with her body. We aren't really talking about abortion in general, that issue is far to passé for me to be interested in discussing it.

Quote :

"show me how those quotes say that I say the father should have veto power."

can you read? You were never that specific, but it was most certainly implied.

Quote :

"and yet you ignore the fact that he is a father and that his child is being murdered."

That's not up to him to decide.

Quote :

"and again, this assumes that ONLY the mother's body is in question, which it isn't."

So the mother's body isn't involved? Then where, may I ask, does this fetus reside?

Quote :

"care to actually support that assertion?"

Sure
"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder

Quote :

" If we view the fetus as being deserving of life"

That definition no where mentions our view, it only specifies the law's view, and being that abortion is legal, it by definition can't be murder.

Quote :

"assuming that you become a father, yes."

I believe you put it best: pregnancy is corellated with sex. So I guess at least I have a chance. To bad evolution won't be able to pass on your masturbatory right arm strength.

Quote :

"Is it wrong to kill life that's not aware of itself?"

Your question is very vauge. Is it any human cells? Because removing cancer or jacking off on a sock ends the life of human cells.

Quote :

"OK, prove it. and simply saying "THE FETUS ISN'T ALIVE" doesn't cut it."

Why don't you prove it? He was just saying his beliefs, you can't really ask him to provide evidence for that. Now what you could do is say "your beliefs are wrong and here's my proof".

Quote :

"I addressed that above by saying that many people believe abortion should be illegal. thus, to them abortion IS murder."

Once agian, the defintion doesn't specify what you THINK should be law, it specifies what IS law.

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 3:13 AM. Reason : q]

10/9/2005 3:11:51 AM

So according to the CDC, there were 853,485 legally reported abortions in 2001.

In the 1990s, the average number of adoptions in the US was 120,000 per year.


Assume that we make any and all abortions illegal. You then tell these women, who are now locked into pregnancies they don't want, that they can give their children up for adoption if they don't want them. Even if a quarter of them do, thats still 213,371 new orphans you're throwing into the system.

Who's going to pay for their care? What do you do with the increasing surplus that this country will now get in every year?

What about the mother's that keep the kids that they don't want? It sounds irrational as hell, but there are plenty of mother's who don't want their pregnancies and end up keeping the kid anyway. What is their life going to be like?

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The 'Pro-Life' side of the argument fights so passionately for the kids to be born, but they don't seem to give a shit about the life after it's here. If you're going to fight so hard to force a life to be brought into this world, you better be prepared to make sure it's life is worth it.

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 12:08 PM. Reason : ,]

10/9/2005 12:07:05 PM

Ok, i'm gona hit some things using quick variable names.

L1:

Quote :

"I mean, arent there enough unwanted kids in the world who dont get adopted? Arent there enough who starve and die? Why cant we take care of them instead of even having the fight about abortion- shouldn't all these pro lifers be busy with that instead? I guess i just dont get it."

A1:

Quote :

"i love how pro-choicers insist on murdering in the name of women's bodies, but neglect the fact that its not only about a woman's body. see how that works, LadyWolfff?"

L2:

Quote :

"I"m talking about the already living breathing on their own walking/crawling folks who are already born."

A2:

Quote :

"which seems to be a bit irrelevent when it comes to the topic of abortion. argue the issue at hand, honey."

L3:

Quote :

"I am arguing the issue at hand. If it's murder to kill a fetus and you're so concerned with people living, isn't letting all the kids in the world who are unwanted and get punted around or die, abuse or murder by inaction? you folks dont seem to care about that."

A3:

Quote :

"again. what do all these other things you mention have to do with something that comes down to a WOMAN and a BABY? absofuckinglutely nothing. thats why we call it a "logical fallacy." Red Herring, to be more precise. And, just for good measure, you throw in ad hominem tu quoque, too!"

First, L1 goes to argue point of poor conditions for aborted children if they are born, also blame placing on pro-lifers. A1 says nothing at all about said issue, instead asks LadyWolf to argue a different issue (I think). Then an offcolor comment.

We have clarification that simply the issue of the woman’s right is not being discussed in L2. In A2 we get the clarification that the reason Arronburr was not paying attention to the actual argument and the subsequent pigheadedness was that he considered it to be "irrelevant". And everyone else should have been thinking the same from the beginning. Then subsequent offcolorness.

In L3 we have a clear request to not change the subject, as well of a rephrasing and clarification of the question being presented to Arronburr. In A3 Arronburr demonstrates his ability to cover his eyes, this apparently doesn't have anything to do with society, just a mother and child. Then we get to witness the great intelligence of Arronburr through a unsupported, incorrect, and offcolor application of the most basic concept of argument.

On the logical fallacy issue, which sounds like an unlogical jump?
A: If the conditions would-be-aborted children live in are terrible, we should take no consideration of that in the abortion issue.
B: If the conditions would-be-aborted children live in are terrible, we should be more willing to permiss abortion.

Someone is going to yell me at for rephrasing a claim they have, but until you say something over the level of angered bickering, people will misinterpret what you're saying.


I think i can argue pretty well, but if we're going to be children, and i have to argue points that the other person picks, as well as other person getting jittery that he won the argument at every bend... I'd rather not go back to 3rd grade. Could these ppl who are here to basicly mud sling possibly consider changing their ways so something intelegent can be said?

10/9/2005 4:34:37 PM

Quote :

"Did you read what I quoted you on?"

yes, and ironically, you jumped around several of my posts to do so.

Quote :

"It was certainly implied"

certainly not by me.

Quote :

"We were discussing your idea of a father's right to force a mother to do something with her body."

thats funny. I never said the father should force the mother into doing anything. so how are we discussing that?

Quote :

"can you read?"

yes I can. and I can read that I never stated it.

Quote :

"That's not up to him to decide."

there's no decision to make in what you quoted me on. it was a staement of fact.

Quote :

"So the mother's body isn't involved? Then where, may I ask, does this fetus reside?"

what part of the word "ONLY" doesn't make sense to you?

Quote :

"The unlawful killing of one human by another"

there you have it. exactly as I put it. murder. you have a life which has been snuffed out without due process. thank you for proving my point.

Quote :

"it only specifies the law's view"

too bad the law has no view on whether or not a fetus is alive. it conveniently ignores this point.

Quote :

"Why don't you prove it?"

because I'm not the one asserting that it 100% isn't alive. crazy thing that you have to actually support your claims.

Quote :

"Once agian, the defintion doesn't specify what you THINK should be law, it specifies what IS law."

and yet, to me, its murder. so I will call it murder.

thank you, and GOOD NIGHT!

Quote :

"Who's going to pay for their care? What do you do with the increasing surplus that this country will now get in every year? "

red herring much? you know who ought to pay for them? the mothers and fathers who had them. pretty god damned simple if you ask me. wanna play with the big boys? welp, be prepared to pay with the big boys.

Quote :

"I've said it once and I'll say it again. The 'Pro-Life' side of the argument fights so passionately for the kids to be born, but they don't seem to give a shit about the life after it's here."

I've said it time and again. Thats a red herring that doesn't address the actual fucking issue.

Quote :

"First, L1 goes to argue point of poor conditions for aborted children if they are born, also blame placing on pro-lifers. A1 says nothing at all about said issue, instead asks LadyWolf to argue a different issue (I think). Then an offcolor comment."

the reason I say nothing about her comment is that it is OFF FUCKING TOPIC. Its meant to divert the issue at hand, abortion, by talking about something seemingly relevent, but not relevent.

Quote :

"On the logical fallacy issue, which sounds like an unlogical jump? A: If the conditions would-be-aborted children live in are terrible, we should take no consideration of that in the abortion issue. B: If the conditions would-be-aborted children live in are terrible, we should be more willing to permiss abortion."

the whole point of using a logical fallacy is to avoid presenting actual arguments for the topic at hand. if I wanted to be a dick, I'd point out that changing the status quo changes things (wow, what a fucking SHOCK!) and that as such, we'd have to view a world without abortion differently. But I don't point that out. I'm sorry that I didn't want to get on an entirely different fucking topic, just to appease some stupid bitch who can't even argue her fucking point without talking about something entirely different.

Quote :

"I think i can argue pretty well, but if we're going to be children, and i have to argue points that the other person picks, as well as other person getting jittery that he won the argument at every bend"

remind me again: what was the topic? was it "abortion is wrong" (which actually wasn't the first topic at all, but I digress...) or was it "today's foster system sucks ass?" remind me. which one it was that we were talking about?

10/9/2005 5:06:21 PM

I'm talking about you not accepting pro-choice arguments, changing arguments is not changing topics.

We do not have enough people to raise these kids properly, so instead of letting hundreds of thousands of children starve to death, we should let women abort children.

What part of that is changing of topic? That is an argument that you refuse to address. It ends with "we should let women abort children." If you have any intention of actually arguing for pro-life, you will not persist in disregarding it by saying it is about "today's foster system sucks ass".

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 5:36 PM. Reason : ]

10/9/2005 5:35:33 PM

Quote :

"what part of the word "ONLY" doesn't make sense to you?"

It doesn't matter if the mother is the only one involved, the fact is that she is involved, and you are forcing her to do something with her body that she doesn't want to, whether its the fetus forcing her or the father or the government, it doesn't change that fact.

Let's say I want to have sex with a woman, I shouldn't be able to put a court order out to force her to have sex with me. Now let's say I'm a fetus, and I want this woman to birth me. What right do I have to force her to do so?

Quote :

"you have a life which has been snuffed out without due process."

It is by due process. Abortion is legal. There's your due process.

Quote :

"too bad the law has no view on whether or not a fetus is alive"

Sure it does, abortion is legal.

Quote :

"because I'm not the one asserting that it 100% isn't alive. crazy thing that you have to actually support your claims."

He never made a claim or asserted anything, he stated his beliefs. If you say that you are a christian I can't just ask you to prove your god exists. If you had said "god exists", then the burden of proof is on you, however if you just say "I believe god exists", then no proof is required.

Quote :

"and yet, to me, its murder. so I will call it murder."

Then you are using the word wrong. The definition specifies the law, not aaron the ugly virgin's personal belief set.

10/9/2005 7:15:27 PM

Quote :

"too bad the law has no view on whether or not a fetus is alive" Sure it does, abortion is legal."

yeah but you also get charged twice for murdering a pregnant woman

so...

10/9/2005 7:18:57 PM

That's irrelevant. The fact is that abortion can't be illegal killing if it's legal.

10/9/2005 7:29:19 PM

i was just saying that the law does seem to have an opinion on if a fetus is alive

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 7:36 PM. Reason : i agree with your point]

10/9/2005 7:36:01 PM

There are always circumstances for murder. For example murder vs. manslaughter. But this still doesn't change the fact that abortion can't be murder if it's legal.

10/9/2005 8:02:48 PM

Quote :

"What part of that is changing of topic?"

pretty fucking simple. the topic is "pro-choice people are logically inconsistent." Running in and saying "NUH UH! PRO-LIFERS ARE INCONSISTENT TOO!!!!" is irrelevent, its a red herring, and its ad hominem tu quoque. Its NOT RELEVANT. If she wants to talk about that, she can go start another thread about it, in which I will proceed to rip her a new one. The entire point of calling out a logical fallacy is to avoid the intended pitfall of that fallacy. In this case, the pitfall is that it gets us off topic and onto something else unrelated. It convolutes the discussion. If, however, she would like to come in and explain how talking about something unrelated is, in fact, related, then she can be my guest, as that is how you actually respond to someone calling you out for a logical fallacy, if, in fact, you are not actually using one.

Yes, it seems related, and THATS WHY ITS A RED HERRING! It seems related, but it isn't. To give you a further hint about WHY its not related, lets look at what abortion is. Its a process that involves a mother and a fetus at the very least, and more likely it involves a doctor, and I believe it should involve the father as well. Please, tell me WHERE THE FUCK orphanages come into play? Pro-lifers don't give a fuck about orphanages FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ABORTION! Neither to Pro-Choicers. Its irrelevant. Is the foster care system fucked up? Yes. Would it be fucked up if abortion were illegal? Yep. But its also fucked up with abortion legal. Thus, abortion has NO BEARING on the foster system actually working. Please, if you want to see what I think of this red herring, START A NEW FUCKING TOPIC WHERE WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT, and QUIT DIVERTING THIS ONE!!! Just because you don't understand WHY its a red herring doesn't make it any less of one.

In order to avoid being a Gamecat, I'll link you to a description. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html I'll also link you to ad hominem tu quoque. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html Read about them, and try and explain to me HOW LadyWolff's "arguments" don't fit the bill.

Now, back to Kris, whose arguments are related to the topic at hand, although loosely.

Quote :

"It doesn't matter if the mother is the only one involved"

FUCK YES it does. Thats the whole idea of a conflict of rights. If I live out in the middle of fucking nowhere, then yes, I can play my music as loud as I want, because it is bothering no one. If, however, I live in the city and I have a neighbor next door, then my music volume, which was previously only subject to me, is now subject to my neighbor as well. The same goes for abortion. if the mother is actually the only party involved, then yes, its her damned decision. However, if anyone else is involved, then its not as simple a matter.

Quote :

"Now let's say I'm a fetus, and I want this woman to birth me. What right do I have to force her to do so?"

I would say that that is likely the whole problem inherent in the discussion of abortion. Thank you SO MUCH for finally hitting on that problem!

Quote :

"It is by due process. Abortion is legal. There's your due process."

No due process has been given TO THE FETUS. The obvious parallel is the civil rights era. You would have me believe that, according to your argument, blacks had no right to dispute Jim Crow laws, because they were laws, and thus they were legal. Due Process had been done, right? WRONG. Rights were denied to blacks, and they were denied without due process, thus such laws were illegal.

Quote :

"Sure it does, abortion is legal."

So, I suppose Jim Crow laws were legal because they were laws, and were thus legal, right? I'll admit that I am potentially talking out of my ass here, but where in Roe v. Wade did the SC establish that the fetus, itself, was not entitled to rights? Where ANYWHERE in the legal system has the actual matter of the LIFE and RIGHTS of the fetus been discussed? As far as I know, nowhere. And, furthermore, even if it has been discussed, that still doesn't mean that the actual topic is concrete. Again, Jim Crow laws. Liberals often like to talk about the Constitution being a "living, breathing document." Therefor, are not those who feel the fetus's rights are being ignored obligated to speak up?

Quote :

"He never made a claim or asserted anything, he stated his beliefs."

Thats great. But, he stated his beliefs were the reason that his views on abortion, and those of the current laws, are logically consistent, then the honus is on him to show how his belief is supported. To use your analogy, if I simply say "God exists," there is no burden of proof on me to prove it to you. If, however, I say "God exists, and therefor our laws should reflect that," then I MUST prove God's existence.

Quote :

"Then you are using the word wrong. The definition specifies the law"

So I guess blacks really were subhumans pre-civil rights legislation then, right?

Quote :

"yeah but you also get charged twice for murdering a pregnant woman "

yeah, don't even get me started on that but Kris is right, it is a bit irrelevant, though it does make for a good topic of conversation.

10/9/2005 8:59:55 PM

I admit to only reading the original post. But, it turns out I'm generally pro-choice by all the criteria in bold. So, maybe it's not a misnomer after all.

Can you believe I'm a registered Republican? I'm starting to wonder how that happened myself.

10/9/2005 9:21:42 PM