Jump to content

What pissed you off today? v.2


Mara
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, IbanezJem said:

The male pill would make the last paragraph fairer. It isn`t so much promiscuity, which is hardly a crime for either sex, but potency and sperm motility that you need to know if you`ve got big plans for a night out and want to avoid unwanted side effects of intercourse (ie. a baby). The horrific thought of impregnating a woman doesn`t seem enough of a deterrent for most men, for some reason.

I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of unwanted pregnancies are not the result of sex between 2 people who were ignorant (in the very literal sense) of the possibility that a pregnancy may result.  I'd be willing to bet that 95% (or north) are the result of people who just did not make the right choice in the moment.   I doubt there's any way to get totally reliable numbers, for obvious reasons.  And that's not a judgment, either.  But we don't have a problem with the availability of contraception, for the most part.  IMO, adding another form is not going to make a dent in the problem.

 

But sure, if it can be brought to market, have at it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, laughedatbytime said:

The use of the term "cluster of cells" is indicative of someone who is not interested in engaging in an honest argument.  An infant, or you, or I could just as easily be described similarly.    A healthy discussion can be held only if the terms of the debate are framed fairly.  There are two competing interests here in the vast majority of cases (my position is that abortion should be allowed as self-defense if the life of the mother is at significant risk), the right to life of the child vs the desire of the woman to go through a pregnancy.   That is the core of this debate.   All of the other arguments that are made to support legal abortion are either easily dismissed or can, with perfect logical consistency be expanded beyond abortion.   I believe that the life of the child takes precedence regardless of the circumstances of its conception.  If this is a result of rape, caring for the needs of the child should have first claim on any of the assets of the rapist.   You obviously disagree that the life of the baby takes precedence, which seems to be the antithesis of compassion for life, that it can be taken without the protection of the law.

 

All of the overwrought attribution of malignant motives to those who are pro-life, untrue as they are, are appeals to emotion and shouldn't have any place in a logical argument.

 

Also, your statement that no one is arguing for allowing a child to be killed after birth is not true.   Google Peter Singer, who's a professor at Princeton (or was at some point.).   His logic at least has the merit of being consistent, sick as it is.

 

 

 

I can see we are not going to change each others minds, so this will be my last comment.

 

1. Trying to say all potential lives are of equal importance is the problem.  Not all those potentials lives will come to be and for them to be afforded the same "rights" as those who are actually physical beings in the real world is a fallacy.

 

2. Women are not being afforded rights in this scenario if they are told their lives should be forfeit to bring the pregnancy to term.  Some men believe women deserve the right to bodily autonomy but this view of them as breeding stock is reprehensible.

 

3. You can believe the fetus takes precedent over the woman's life.  You will never have a pregnancy so your dismissive view of a woman's perspective on this is irrelevant.  I certainly hope none of your female relatives have the misfortune to be impregnated against their will, your compassion is sorely lacking.

 

4. Singer is an outlier that 99 per cent of the US population has ever heard of let alone agree with his ideas on euthanasia and abortion.  That is a red herring that "appeals to emotion and shouldn't have any place in a logical argument." 

Edited by Rhyta
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rhyta said:

I can see we are not going to change each others minds, so this will be my last comment.

 

1. Trying to say all potential lives are of equal importance is the problem.  Not all those potentials lives will come to be and for them to be afforded the same "rights" as those who are actually physical beings in the real world is a fallacy.

 

2. Women are not being afforded rights in this scenario if they are told their lives should be forfeit to bring the pregnancy to term.  Some men believe women deserve the right to bodily autonomy but this view of them as breeding stock is reprehensible.

 

3. You can believe the fetus takes precedent over the woman's life.  You will never have a pregnancy so your dismissive view of a woman's perspective on this is irrelevant.  I certainly hope none of your female relatives have the misfortune to be impregnated against their will, your compassion is sorely lacking.

 

4. Singer is an outlier that 99 per cent of the US population has ever heard of let alone agree with his ideas on euthanasia and abortion.  That is a red herring that "appeals to emotion and shouldn't have any place in a logical argument." 

You're right, no one's changing anyone's mind here.  I recognize that I won't be able to, you don't even think I have a right to an opinion.   But I'll respond anyway.

 

1.    Nobody is talking about potential lives here, whether you recognize that or not, they are actual lives, which negates your silly and selfish premise.

 

2.   I'm not sure how you could come to the conclusion that a woman's life is forfeited if she doesn't have the right to kill her child.   And your continued ridiculous reference to "breeding stock" would be offensive if it wasn't so laughable.  Stop attributing beliefs to others that they don't hold.   

 

It is interesting that you refer (using the euphemisms so popular on your side to obscure what you're advocating) to what some men believe.   In your world where you decide who gets to have an opinion and who doesn't, does their opinion matter, or should they sit meekly in the corner reserved for non-vagina owners.  By the way you better make an exception for the seven men who in 1973 created a right out of whole cloth because politics.

 

3.  Your framing of the issue is as wrong as it could possibly be, I believe that the life of the unborn child takes precedence over the mother's desire not to carry the child to term.   I wish we could have an honest debate, but guess not.

 

I do hope that none of either of our relatives are impregnated against their will, and would hope they'd have the moral courage not to compound a tragedy with another one.

 

4.  Singer's position, while not known by most people and which is extremely odious, is actually internally consistent from the perspective of the child being killed, there's nothing in terms of the development of the child that is particularly significant about the trip down the birth canal.    This is too hard for most people to face, therefore, they categorize it as "appealing to emotion and having no place in a logical argument" when in fact it is completely logically consistent; calling something absurd while not engaging with the argument and countering it with logic is actually kind of sad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2022 at 3:10 PM, Rick N. Backer said:

Speaking for myself, I don't agree with your assessment of what I've said at all.  In fact, I haven't said anything about my position on abortion itself.  I've pointed out why I think people equating reversing Roe with banning abortion are wrong, something I don't think can be disputed.  I've pointed out that the early opponents to abortion were not religious zealots, they were doctors.   And in the post you quoted, I pointed out that It is NOT a fallacy to say that as the law stands today abortion is legal at any time during the pregnancy.

 

This is the problem with this issue.  People don't really listen to what others they perceive to be "the enemy," are saying.  They know what they know.

 

On 5/16/2022 at 4:07 PM, laughedatbytime said:

It's awfully presumptuous of you to say that because of their genitalia, some people have no right to have an opinion or cannot have an understanding of these issues.   It's awfully presumptuous to say that prolifers (about half or more of whom are women) are unfeeling toward women who are undergoing some of the worst trauma possible.   There's provision in the consideration of the vast majority of prolifers for exceptions in the cases that you bring up above.

 

You mention that it's rarely black or white, but the fact remains that the vast majority of cases are nothing like you've described, that about 98% of all abortions, based on a study done by a group that favors legal abortion, do not involve extreme cases such as rape, incest, or involve threats to the life of the mother.   People who advocate for legal abortion benefit from a general lack of knowledge around this issue, and always bring up the hard cases but never recognize the many, many (48 times more many) more times this is not the case.

 

Finally, I would argue that the chief "beneficiaries" of legal abortion aren't women at all, but promiscuous men (not really even men, but users) who impregnate multiple women but then are off the hook for supporting the life they created by paying the relatively low cost to kill that life; then it's on to the next one.   I support any steps taken that are necessary to hold the father financially responsible for the child he created, and much more should be done to do so.

Like and respect both of you guys so I will finish here.  With the number of states that have put "trigger laws" in place, abortion certainly will be less available if Roe is overturned.  LABT, I appreciate your mention of holding fathers financially responsible.  The best world would be where there is enough support for children, families, and parents that abortion would not be necessary except for medical emergencies. And Rick, yes there are reasons I am not in SOCN.  I normally do try to hold down the political overtones; my political background is very complicated but I am nearly always right, :laugh::laugh:  I am sure the group does not need a person like that.  

Edited by blueschica
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, blueschica said:

 

Like and respect both of you guys so I will finish here.  With the number of states that have put "trigger laws" in place, abortion certainly will be less available if Roe is overturned.  LABT, I appreciate your mention of holding fathers financially responsible.  The best world would be where there is enough support for children, families, and parents that abortion would not be necessary except for medical emergencies. And Rick, yes there are reasons I am not in SOCN.  I normally do try to hold down the political overtones; my political background is very complicated but I am nearly always right, :laugh::laugh:  I am sure the group does not need a person like that.  

I like and have respect for you, and agree wholeheartedly with your third sentence.

 

:cheers:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, blueschica said:

 

Like and respect both of you guys so I will finish here.  With the number of states that have put "trigger laws" in place, abortion certainly will be less available if Roe is overturned.  LABT, I appreciate your mention of holding fathers financially responsible.  The best world would be where there is enough support for children, families, and parents that abortion would not be necessary except for medical emergencies. And Rick, yes there are reasons I am not in SOCN.  I normally do try to hold down the political overtones; my political background is very complicated but I am nearly always right, :laugh::laugh:  I am sure the group does not need a person like that.  

I like and respect you as well Chica, so I'll make one last point.  I've also never suggested that overturning Roe would not impact the availability of abortion anywhere.  What I did say is that it will be up to the people in their own states to decide what policy best suits their sensibilities.  The voters of Alabama, including women, do not necessarily view the issue the same way voters, including women, view it in Massachusetts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with leaving it to the states is that may make matters worse.  Roe was intended to deal with the crazy quilt problem of 50 different laws and the confusion that will ensue. But just telling the women in states that outlaw it to go to another state is not an option for everyone and those states may not be able to help all those who need it.

 

I live in a state that has a religious group who dictates to the legislature and has an overly heavy influence on the laws that are passed.  I was happy the federal government was there to appeal to on some of the more onerous laws.  Now there will be a trigger law that comes down when Roe is overturned and that ends the discussion. 

 

Telling half the population that their rights can be rescinded is wrong and why so many are angry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Rhyta said:

 

Telling half the population that their rights can be rescinded is wrong and why so many are angry about it.

There are a few problems with this statement.  First off, it is not a right to kill your child.  Second, women make up half of the population, and about half of them are pro-life, so even if we were in bizarro world and killing your child was a right, only 25% of the population would be potentially effected.  Also, recognizing that there is obviously not a right to kill unborn children in the Constitution won’t affect potential pro-abortionists in many states as many will allow it to remain legal to kill a fully formed human life even as it is being born, despite the opposition of about 90% of all Americans.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wouldn't much of the above material be more appropriate in SOCN? The last few pages read like a transcript from a holiday gathering.

 

The last time I posted in this thread I merely wanted to bitch about shrink-wrapped Afrin bottles!

 

Carry on.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If god is all powerful, why is it that man must legislate his will? Let him speak directly to us, conversationally, and tell us what he wants. Heck, I'd even start to believe.

PS: Some of my Jewish and Hindu friends are pretty pissed off that a legislation is being pushed by a Christian morality. 

Edited by grep
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, grep said:

If god is all powerful, why is it that man must legislate his will? Let him speak directly to us, conversationally, and tell us what he wants. Heck, I'd even start to believe.

PS: Some of my Jewish and Hindu friends are pretty pissed off that a legislation is being pushed by a Christian morality

There is no requirement for belief (or non-belief) in any sort of god to believe that the unborn have a right to life.  This is a red herring pushed by the pro abortion side to obfuscate what they're advocating for and deflect the conversation into more friendly territory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, laughedatbytime said:

There is no requirement for belief (or non-belief) in any sort of god to believe that the unborn have a right to life.  This is a red herring pushed by the pro abortion side to obfuscate what they're advocating for and deflect the conversation into more friendly territory.


Or perhaps it is the Christian Right who want us to believe that is an obfuscation by pro-choicers.

 

Edited by grep
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The burden of proof for the existence of a thing is on he who would believe that a thing exists.

Consider - If I have to prove definitively that a thing doesn't exist, then I must search every inch of the infinite universe in order to prove that the universe is indeed void of that thing.   Impossible.

However, all that is needed for proof of existence is peer reviewed evidence of same - from non-circular referencing sources. It's pretty simple. 


Now, one can believe in whatever thing they want. Provable or otherwise. Doesn't matter much to me. You fine solace in it...live and let live.

But forcing a morality on those who see differently is getting a little old. You don't like a thing.... enforce it on your own kind. Leave the rest of us out of it. 

 

Edited by grep
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: If you take away the right to a legal abortion, you're throwing us back into the dark ages of coat hangers. 

Abortion won't go away. Safe abortion however will go away. 

You aren't going to save nearly as many lives as you think.  In fact, you're putting more lives at risk.   

But that's OK, right?  So long as the law of the land fits your perfect little world view. 'Nothing else matters', including the consequences of the environment you just created.

Bookmarking this one. If RvW is repealed, I'll come back to it in 5 years and have a look at the stats around 'back room' abortions. (Not that I know anything about that....at f***ing all...from family stories from the 60s, or Mayor Koch's own testimony) 

See ya' then. Please feel free to prepare for your upcoming denial. I look forward to dissecting it. Sadly at the expense of those girls and unwanted children who will suffer as a result.

Coat hangars bitches.  Remember those? Are you old enough to even know what that means???

That's what you moral majority dumbasses are going to force people towards.  With no viable and reasonable alternative that you can articulate in clear English sentences.

Edited by grep
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, grep said:


Or perhaps it is the Christian Right who want us to believe that is an obfuscation by pro-choicers.

 

 

2 hours ago, grep said:

PS: If you take away the right to a legal abortion, you're throwing us back into the dark ages of coat hangers. 

Abortion won't go away. Safe abortion however will go away. 

You aren't going to save nearly as many lives as you think.  In fact, you're putting more lives at risk.   

But that's OK, right?  So long as the law of the land fits your perfect little world view. 'Nothing else matters', including the consequences of the environment you just created.

Bookmarking this one. If RvW is repealed, I'll come back to it in 5 years and have a look at the stats around 'back room' abortions. (Not that I know anything about that....at f***ing all...from family stories from the 60s, or Mayor Koch's own testimony) 

See ya' then. Please feel free to prepare for your upcoming denial. I look forward to dissecting it. Sadly at the expense of those girls and unwanted children who will suffer as a result.

Coat hangars bitches.  Remember those? Are you old enough to even know what that means???

That's what you moral majority dumbasses are going to force people towards.  With no viable and reasonable alternative that you can articulate in clear English sentences.

I'm not part of any "moral majority" so your premise, if you even believe it in the first place, is faulty.   One can't help but believe you want to start from this dishonest premise because you can't defend your arguments on the merits, again nothing about this has anything to do with the existence or non existence of any incarnation of god.  If you can't see that there's no point in going further, because you're arguing in bad faith.

 

As an aside, I should point out here that I think the tactics of certain pro-lifers, with their emphasis on religious slogans like "pray to end abortion" have hurt the pro-life movement by allowing the pro abortion side to dishonestly cast the debate in terms of "shoving their religion down people's throats".  Not sure whether you're one of the duped or one of the dupers, but it doesn't really matter to the core argument.

 

Which is that, if one follows the science, you know, that those on the left claim to worship until it becomes inconvenient to their argument to do so, one must realize that abortion involves killing a living human being.   Biologists believe this, even those who worry about saying so and playing into the hands of prolifers.    See link below.  Whether that right supersedes the right of the mother not to have to carry the baby to term (feel free to use the term "clump of cells" here like you on the pro abortion side often do, like you're anything more than that) IS the only debate, once you strip away all the bullshit your side tries to do throw out to obfuscate the issue.     

 

No one is arguing that killing the unborn will stop in those states where it becomes illegal, just like laws against taking the lives of those who have been born didn't stop some of their lives from being taken to the tune of about 22,000 per year.  Would you argue that these laws (commonly known as laws against murder because those deaths occur to people whose lives are considered worthy of the protection of the law) should be stricken from the books because these deaths happen anyway, and besides, one of the commandments in that nasty book would prohibit that, and that would be "shoving religion down people's throats"?

 

https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/

 

You then talk about the " suffering of girls and unwanted children" (as if the unwanted children would prefer to have been killed in the womb, or for that matter, you would put any age limit on abortion, so you won't even be honest in your phrasing; your entire argument is a pure appeal to emotion) and the era of coat hangers.  While personal anecdotes like those you offer are powerful, they belie the fact that, first, virtually all abortions end in the death of 50% of all human beings subject to the procedure (as much as your side wants to dehumanize human life), and as befitting an industry whose profits are dependent on taking human life, the arguments made by their proponents are vastly overstated.  As one of the people most responsible for legal abortion, Bernard Nathanson, put it...

 

"How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter, it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew that the figures were totally false and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible."

 

I welcome the comparison between pro-life states and pro-abortion states we'll have five years from now (though I'd much prefer that the barbaric, deadly practice that is abortion be ended everywhere).  They won't be kind to your side.

 

I'll finish there.   If you're interested in an honest debate, I welcome it, though there's no evidence that you'll engage in one and plenty against it, so I won't hold my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, grep said:

The burden of proof for the existence of a thing is on he who would believe that a thing exists.

Consider - If I have to prove definitively that a thing doesn't exist, then I must search every inch of the infinite universe in order to prove that the universe is indeed void of that thing.   Impossible.

However, all that is needed for proof of existence is peer reviewed evidence of same - from non-circular referencing sources. It's pretty simple. 


Now, one can believe in whatever thing they want. Provable or otherwise. Doesn't matter much to me. You fine solace in it...live and let live.

But forcing a morality on those who see differently is getting a little old. You don't like a thing.... enforce it on your own kind. Leave the rest of us out of it. 

 

Well, at the exact moment of conception, the product of human reproduction (in the interests of neutrality, we can stay away from leading terms) has 46 distinct chromosomes.  They are not the same 46 chromosomes of the mother, or the father.  In approximately 1 month, the product of human reproduction will have a detectable heartbeat.  At around the same time, there will be detectable EEG activity.  Which of course means the brain is already developing and beginning to function.  At the moment of conception, the product of human reproduction is either a male or a female and at about 9 weeks, genitalia begin to develop.  We often hear "her body, her choice."  I trust we agree that a woman who is pregnant with a son does not have a penis as "part of her body."  At the moment of conception, the mother did not herself have a Y chromosome either. 

 

All of the things I mention above have no relation to whether you believe the Lord's Prayer should end with "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever," or whether you believe that Jesus was God incarnate, or whether you believe in a God at all.  They are simply biological facts.  They also occur within the time period that Roe, and Casey, preclude the states from prohibiting abortion at all. In fact, in my home state, they occur almost 5 months before an abortion can be prohibited.

 

Now, as to your point about the burden of proof, let's imagine you are out in the woods hunting deer (whether you yourself hunt or not is immaterial to the hypothetical).  If you see the bushes near you start to rustle, do you shoot at the rustling because you can't see if it's your hunting buddy or not, or do you hesitate, because you're not sure?  The burden of proof is ordinarily on the person advocating some irreversible action.  If your argument is that the product of human reproduction is not a human life, tell me why.  And tell me when it becomes one.  Is the line conception, 6 weeks, 15 weeks, 24 weeks, never?

 

I think if you spoke to many people who oppose abortion, you'll find that they believe that the procedure involves terminating a human life.  They aren't interested in subjugating women.  About half of them ARE women.  The fact that only women get pregnant is indeed a biological fact, but we can't change that.  This is why the issue belongs at the state level, where legislatures can sort out these complex questions and reach a compromise that their citizens arrive at.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

At the moment of conception, the product of human reproduction is either a male or a female

OUTRAGEOUS! That violence has no place here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The fact that only women get pregnant is indeed a biological fact, but we can't change that.

Enough, stop this hate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnRogers said:

OUTRAGEOUS! That violence has no place here!

I wonder if there are any transgendered people on this messageboard? I'd guess there are some trans people who are Rush fans based on how many Rush fans there are but do any of them post here? Someone should start a poll. :tongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BastillePark said:

I wonder if there are any transgendered people on this messageboard? I'd guess there are some trans people who are Rush fans based on how many Rush fans there are but do any of them post here? Someone should start a poll. :tongue:

There's already one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just stopping by on my occasional look to see the abortion issue has quite a bit of you foamed up. Let me try kicking this hornet's nest again. 

 

I guess woman will just need to resort to not allowing sex unless they are planning pregnancy. After all, they do hold the keys to the kingdom. 

 

Credit for this policy brought to you by the people that market themselves as 'keeping government out of our lives'. 

 

But by god, if a mentally unstable kid wants to shoot up a grocery store in a black neighborhood, he has all the rights to an assault weapon. There would a lot more people alive to day if his mother ended her pregnancy for her demon spawn.

 

Abortion...OH MY GOD NO!

Assault Weapon...by all means, it's your choice and right sir.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HemiBeers said:

Just stopping by on my occasional look to see the abortion issue has quite a bit of you foamed up. Let me try kicking this hornet's nest again. 

 

I guess woman will just need to resort to not allowing sex unless they are planning pregnancy. After all, they do hold the keys to the kingdom. 

 

Credit for this policy brought to you by the people that market themselves as 'keeping government out of our lives'. 

 

But by god, if a mentally unstable kid wants to shoot up a grocery store in a black neighborhood, he has all the rights to an assault weapon. There would a lot more people alive to day if his mother ended her pregnancy for her demon spawn.

 

Abortion...OH MY GOD NO!

Assault Weapon...by all means, it's your choice and right sir.

If there's any purpose to government, the first purpose should be to defend the lives s of those who live within its' jurisdiction.   Defining certain lives as not worthy of protection is not the mark of a civilized society.

 

And according to your "logic", there would be a lot more people alive if his mother capped his six year old demon spawn ass, so one assumes that should be legal as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, laughedatbytime said:

If there's any purpose to government, the first purpose should be to defend the lives s of those who live within its' jurisdiction.   Defining certain lives as not worthy of protection is not the mark of a civilized society.

 

And according to your "logic", there would be a lot more people alive if his mother capped his six year old demon spawn ass, so one assumes that should be legal as well.

Or perhaps the police should have killed him when they first got report of his mental instability.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, goose said:

Or perhaps the police should have killed him when they first got report of his mental instability.

How many lives will be lost in 32 years if we wait?   And what could possibly go wrong?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, the conservative war on contraceptives is starting to ramp up.

Because that will save defenseless lives too, right?  Has nothing at all to do with enforcing a particular morality. Nope, Not at all.....

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control

 

Edited by grep
typo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...