Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

The Starting DebateFollow

#1 Nov 02 2011 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,833 posts
Mississippi is going to vote on legislation that defines a person as beginning at conception. This would make abortion murder.

But, would it also make mothers who may have smoked, drank, ate McDonalds fries, did a cartwheel, had a Heimlich maneuver, took some medication, or any other number of things that may impact a developing fetus, manslaughterers?

What does it mean to define a couple of freshly joined cells in a little tube inside a woman's body, as a person?





Edited, Nov 2nd 2011 3:03pm by Elinda
____________________________
LOOK here.
#2 Nov 02 2011 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
I think it's stupid, but I hope it passes with flying colors. Let MS show everyone else how stupid thinking is.

Edited, Nov 2nd 2011 9:11am by Lubriderm
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#3 Nov 02 2011 at 7:12 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,355 posts
This argument will eventually go in this direction, so let's just point out that Mississippi just executed two people in May.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Nov 02 2011 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Technically, all those things you mention are probably true.

Realistically, this is just an attempt to make abortion illegal and they won't give a shit about the "manslaughter" of smoking while pregnant.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Nov 02 2011 at 7:19 AM Rating: Excellent
We need to go back to public executions. Since we are a government by, for, and of the people, let them know what they are taking part in.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#6 Nov 02 2011 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,833 posts
Hah, when the mother dies in child-birth the baby becomes the murderer.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#7 Nov 02 2011 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,355 posts
No, the baby was obviously defending itself against being smothered by the womb.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#8 Nov 02 2011 at 7:35 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,003 posts
Kudos to them, I suppose. Does anybody know of other states that define a legal person at a specific stage of pregnancy?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#9 Nov 02 2011 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,437 posts
Elinda wrote:

What does it mean to define a couple of freshly joined cells in a little tube inside a woman's body, as a person?


It means no Biotech company in their right mind will set up shop in Mississippi.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#10 Nov 02 2011 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,833 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:

What does it mean to define a couple of freshly joined cells in a little tube inside a woman's body, as a person?


It means no Biotech company in their right mind will set up shop in Mississippi.

True enough.

I wonder if stem cells are people?
____________________________
LOOK here.
#11 Nov 02 2011 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,437 posts
Elinda wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:

What does it mean to define a couple of freshly joined cells in a little tube inside a woman's body, as a person?


It means no Biotech company in their right mind will set up shop in Mississippi.

True enough.

I wonder if stem cells are people?


Or is implanting 10 embryos to hopefully get 1 to take a crime?

How about human genes expressed in other organisms?

Does a tissue culture have rights?

Heaven help you if your freezer or incubator breaks down. Not only do you lose your cell lines, you get charged with manslaughter too?

Yeah it's a stretch, sure. But why take the risk if you don't have to?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#12 Nov 02 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hell, freezing a living person at all is probably illegal. If I can't do it with a five year old, why can I do it to a 5 day old "person"?

But, as I said, this isn't about that. It's just a rough-shod run to ban abortion and the rest of it will be ignored. At least by the legislature; I suppose someone might try to bring a suit at some point over it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Nov 02 2011 at 10:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
5,225 posts
I'm just wondering how Roe v Wade comes into play here. Didn't the Supreme Court rule that a woman has the right to an abortion up until the point of viability? I'm probably missing something here, but this seems to be in pretty direct violation of that.

If this passes, it'll be interesting to see what happens in court.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist anus.
#14 Nov 02 2011 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
They want to press a SCoTUS hearing on Roe v Wade in hopes that the current crop will overturn it. Or hope that a GOP candidate wins the presidency, Stevens dies/retires and they can stock up the court with more conservatives to overturn it (since it'll be a while before this actually goes through the courts).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Nov 02 2011 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
There was a pretty extensive report about this on NPR this summer--essentially, the law WOULD make all these things illegal (including embryo implantation). And while they were confident that it was being put forth for a targeted attack on abortion, with no intention to make use of the other aspects, it also sets a legal standard that anyone else could use later on to attack those areas.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#16 Nov 02 2011 at 10:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
5,225 posts
Jophiel wrote:
They want to press a SCoTUS hearing on Roe v Wade in hopes that the current crop will overturn it. Or hope that a GOP candidate wins the presidency, Stevens dies/retires and they can stock up the court with more conservatives to overturn it (since it'll be a while before this actually goes through the courts).


Ah, I see. I was derping.

idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
There was a pretty extensive report about this on NPR this summer--essentially, the law WOULD make all these things illegal (including embryo implantation). And while they were confident that it was being put forth for a targeted attack on abortion, with no intention to make use of the other aspects, it also sets a legal standard that anyone else could use later on to attack those areas.


Which seems to me kind of like writing them a blank check - not something I'd be wanting the lawmakers to do at all. But because this is focused on as a primarily abortion issue, there's probably going to get a lot of support in Mississippi.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist anus.
#17 Nov 02 2011 at 10:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,355 posts
Looks like its going to be a great time to be a doctor in Alabama, Tennessee, Lousianna, and Arkansas.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Nov 02 2011 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,536 posts
What always amuses me about this is that it is a scientifically documented fact that one third of all pregnancies are terminated naturally by the woman's body because of the nonviability of the embryo, usually within the first two months of pregnancy, without her ever knowing she was even pregnant.

DNA transcription errors can be major major problems when you've only got eight cells in a blastocyte. So, say, the cell that is eventually supposed to differentiate into the central nervous system burps and flips half its 22nd chromosome around. A malformed nonhuman freak starts forming. The error checking system of the uterus goes "Whoops, that's not right" and terminates the pregnancy on its own.

Thus, every woman who isn't a virgin is thus a murderer by this law!
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#19 Nov 02 2011 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,833 posts
catwho wrote:


Thus, every woman who isn't a virgin is thus a murderer by this law!
I've always felt sort of evil.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#20 Nov 02 2011 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,232 posts
I'm pretty sure I've had two miscarriages and didn't know I was pregnant (until it happened). Felt good.
#21 Nov 02 2011 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Technically, all those things you mention are probably true.

Realistically, this is just an attempt to make abortion illegal and they won't give a shit about the "manslaughter" of smoking while pregnant.


Realistically, this only affects the choices of the mother. There's been precedent for some time now that actions taken by others which causes the loss of a pregnancy can result in manslaughter or similar charges.

IDrownFish wrote:
I'm just wondering how Roe v Wade comes into play here. Didn't the Supreme Court rule that a woman has the right to an abortion up until the point of viability? I'm probably missing something here, but this seems to be in pretty direct violation of that.

If this passes, it'll be interesting to see what happens in court.


This law is specifically about challenging Roe v. Wade (or at least I'd assume so). It's far more about the states rights aspect of the issue than where precisely the law decides that personhood begins.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Nov 02 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
I can't wait for Mississippi to fall into horrendously harsh levels of poverty after this passes.

That or wait around and see for the anti-contraceptive nutjobs to come out of the woodwork.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#23 Nov 02 2011 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,232 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Technically, all those things you mention are probably true.

Realistically, this is just an attempt to make abortion illegal and they won't give a shit about the "manslaughter" of smoking while pregnant.


Realistically, this only affects the choices of the mother. There's been precedent for some time now that actions taken by others which causes the loss of a pregnancy can result in manslaughter or similar charges.

When I was pregnant with Noah, I didn't know it until I was several months along (yes, it's possible to be pregnant and not realize it). I still smoked, drank some wine, had a lot of coffee. He's fine, but what if I had miscarried? Should I be blamed for not even knowing I was pregnant in the first place?
#24 Nov 02 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,915 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I can't wait for Mississippi to fall into horrendously harsh levels of poverty after this passes.

That or wait around and see for the anti-contraceptive nutjobs to come out of the woodwork.


That shouldn't take long if this law passes I suppose. After all, the next best thing to murdering a baby is preventing it from being created in the first place.

____________________________


#25 Nov 02 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
Zieveraar wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I can't wait for Mississippi to fall into horrendously harsh levels of poverty after this passes.

That or wait around and see for the anti-contraceptive nutjobs to come out of the woodwork.


That shouldn't take long if this law passes I suppose. After all, the next best thing to murdering a baby is preventing it from being created in the first place.


After that masturbation and menstruation will be illegal, because wasting good reproductive material is a sin!
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#26 Nov 02 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Should I be blamed for not even knowing I was pregnant in the first place?

I have no idea how a state law proclaiming the person-hood of a fetus would interact with any relevant federal statutes, but assuming there is no jurisdictional conflict you would most likely be committing homicide by misadventure or--at worse--involuntary manslaughter.
#27 Nov 02 2011 at 5:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Technically, all those things you mention are probably true.

Realistically, this is just an attempt to make abortion illegal and they won't give a shit about the "manslaughter" of smoking while pregnant.


Realistically, this only affects the choices of the mother. There's been precedent for some time now that actions taken by others which causes the loss of a pregnancy can result in manslaughter or similar charges.

When I was pregnant with Noah, I didn't know it until I was several months along (yes, it's possible to be pregnant and not realize it). I still smoked, drank some wine, had a lot of coffee. He's fine, but what if I had miscarried? Should I be blamed for not even knowing I was pregnant in the first place?


I think that a lot of the opposition cases are pretty speculative. What if the courts rule in a given way down the line? There's some common sense applications to even this law that don't turn out so draconian if you stop and think about it. When deciding cases like this, the courts tend to look at the reasonableness of the actions being taken and the expectation that they would result in the outcome. If you're walking down the street doing nothing unusual, and someone is distracted by you, runs a red light and kills someone, you aren't accountable for the result. But if you deliberately shine a light at the driver to distract him, causing him to lose control and kill someone, you are.


The intent of your actions and expectation of the outcome matters a lot. Since drinking and smoking are not unusual behaviors for someone who does not know they are pregnant, the court would have to hold you to an impossible standard to level such a charge against you. I think that's incredibly speculative and unlikely to occur even if this law does go through as written.


There's actually an interesting side point to this with regard to IVF. It may be that this law wont affect IVF at all, and may in fact actually help codify the harvesting of embryonic stem cells from the leftovers. Obviously, the law doesn't affect the fertilization of an egg and implantation of said egg. However, what about the left over embryos? It's quite possible (likely in fact) that the law would view those embryos the same way it would view any person on life support, since that's essentially exactly the state they are in. Now, whether the parents can terminate that life support gets sticky because the legal issue there is usually whether there's a reasonable chance that said person could recover and life a fully functional life in the future (that was the core issue in the Terry Schivo case IIRC). However, once the embryo has degraded to the point at which its no longer viable (or sooner depending on how future court rulings go), the legal precedent for donation of organs and whatnot of the deceased is pretty well set. A embryo is currently in a legal limbo state, but a "person" isn't. The remains of a person absolutely can be used for science if the person (or authorized guardian) wishes it.


Don't really have a pony in this race either way, but I do find the potential legal ramifications pretty fascinating. They aren't always what most people assume right off the bat.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Nov 02 2011 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
What I hate, is the people who will be in favour of this essentially act in the following manner:

Screenshot
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#29 Nov 02 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

What always amuses me about this is that it is a scientifically documented fact that one third of all pregnancies are terminated naturally by the woman's body because of the nonviability of the embryo, usually within the first two months of pregnancy, without her ever knowing she was even pregnant.


What always amuses me is that people post things like this without quivering at the obvious contradictions. I'll really never understand how your people's minds work. Just to recap, the idea is that it's a "scientifically documented fact" that 33% of pregnancies end with miscarriages, but that more than half of this documented number occur without the women ever knowing. How, praytell, are the events where the woman doesn't know, which apparently is more than 50% of the time, as it usually is the case....scientifically documented?

Are there teams of graduate students cruising landfills hoping to score menstrual blood filled items to run HCG tests on? Fuck, that is amusing!

Hey, now we're both amused!

The words you were looking for when you typed "a scientifically documented fact" were "generally estimated". It's amusing how frequently the two ideas are conflated.

Hey, now I'm twice as amused. It's a scientifically documented fact that being amused twice correlates with the amused person dying. Eventually.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#30 Nov 02 2011 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

What always amuses me about this is that it is a scientifically documented fact that one third of all pregnancies are terminated naturally by the woman's body because of the nonviability of the embryo, usually within the first two months of pregnancy, without her ever knowing she was even pregnant.


What always amuses me is that people post things like this without quivering at the obvious contradictions. I'll really never understand how your people's minds work. Just to recap, the idea is that it's a "scientifically documented fact" that 33% of pregnancies end with miscarriages, but that more than half of this documented number occur without the women ever knowing. How, praytell, are the events where the woman doesn't know, which apparently is more than 50% of the time, as it usually is the case....scientifically documented?

Are there teams of graduate students cruising landfills hoping to score menstrual blood filled items to run HCG tests on? Fuck, that is amusing!

Hey, now we're both amused!

The words you were looking for when you typed "a scientifically documented fact" were "generally estimated". It's amusing how frequently the two ideas are conflated.

Hey, now I'm twice as amused. It's a scientifically documented fact that being amused twice correlates with the amused person dying. Eventually.



It's not like a pregnancy can't leave evidence behind after its termination, especially with hormone levels.

If they participate in a study that lets doctors evaluate their hormone levels every x months, then compare the results to surveys filled out by the mothers, they'd be able to estimate the number of pregnancies that are naturally terminated. It's not perfect, but it's far from nothing. And it's enough to give me confidence in a 33% statistic, even if its standard deviation is 5-10%.

(One would also assume they'd compare the sexual activity of those in the sample to national averages, and adjust accordingly).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#31 Nov 02 2011 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,362 posts
The pro-life movement doesn't seem to realize that banning abortion isn't going to end abortion. If it's not available legally, it'll be available illegally. It's an ugly necessity. No one likes the fact that abortions happen--no one normal, at least. Combine this with the simple fact that a woman having autonomy over her reproductive cycle is one of the sure-fire solutions we have for poverty, and the argument becomes slightly moot. There are ways of reducing abortion, but banning happens to not be a good one.
#32 Nov 02 2011 at 9:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
No one likes the fact that abortions happen

Hey, we all gotta eat.
LeWoVoc wrote:
no one normal, at least.

Ahhhhh.
#33 Nov 02 2011 at 10:54 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
I hope this passes in every state, ever since you people started allowing gay unions we need a new reason for you guys to come north of the border. (that isn't to watch a bills game in Toronto.)







Edited, Nov 3rd 2011 12:54am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#34 Nov 02 2011 at 11:59 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,225 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
you people


Obligatory.

____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist anus.
#35 Nov 03 2011 at 1:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,067 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Technically, all those things you mention are probably true.

Realistically, this is just an attempt to make abortion illegal and they won't give a shit about the "manslaughter" of smoking while pregnant.
Maybe not in a "press charges" kind of way, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see at least one wrongful death lawsuit where the father sues the mother for smoking while pregnant.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#36 Nov 03 2011 at 6:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,627 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I'm pretty sure I've had two miscarriages and didn't know I was pregnant (until it happened). Felt good.

I figure that it happens all the time. Girls get "scares" and "irregular periods" which is probably just embryos attaching then failing, over and over again.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#37 Nov 03 2011 at 1:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
The pro-life movement doesn't seem to realize that banning abortion isn't going to end abortion. If it's not available legally, it'll be available illegally. It's an ugly necessity. No one likes the fact that abortions happen--no one normal, at least.


Is that supposed to be an argument? At the very least, the idea that the lack of legally available abortions caused some massive number of deaths has been pretty completely debunked. Since Roe v. Wade, the number of fatalities from abortion has increased because the total number of abortions has increased (dramatically).


Quote:
Combine this with the simple fact that a woman having autonomy over her reproductive cycle is one of the sure-fire solutions we have for poverty, and the argument becomes slightly moot.


Where the hell did you hear this? I would argue the exact opposite, if anything.

Quote:
There are ways of reducing abortion, but banning happens to not be a good one.


I tend to agree, however your arguments seem to counter this statement. If abortion isn't a problem, then why reduce the number of them? Can we at least acknowledge that the conditions/choices which lead to a woman needing an abortion in the first place are negative in general and thus the rate of abortion is a problem? While I don't agree with the absolutist stance that the pro-life folks tend to take, I can respect them for at least identifying something as a problem and trying to do something about it. The problem is that many pro-choice folks, seemingly purely as part of taking the opposite position, find themselves defending abortion as therapeutic, helpful, and beneficial to women. It isn't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Nov 03 2011 at 1:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Technically, all those things you mention are probably true.

Realistically, this is just an attempt to make abortion illegal and they won't give a shit about the "manslaughter" of smoking while pregnant.
Maybe not in a "press charges" kind of way, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see at least one wrongful death lawsuit where the father sues the mother for smoking while pregnant.


Are you aware that 38 states in the US currently have some form of fetal homicide laws? And some of them do include acts performed by the mother to kill the fetus, but require intent and exclude legally performed abortions. Shouldn't a father be able to sue in that case though? I mean, he's lost a child too. If they both know she's pregnant (and we're assuming here that they didn't choose to have an abortion), aren't they *both* responsible for avoiding things which might result in loss of the child?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Nov 03 2011 at 2:21 PM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,536 posts
If a woman intended to get pregnant, and the woman ends up killing the baby through some means or another with clear intent of killing the fetus, I'd say she was probably mentally unfit to be a mother anyway. Forcing her to go through with childbirth and keeping the baby probably isn't the smartest thing to do.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#40 Nov 03 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
catwho wrote:
If a woman intended to get pregnant, and the woman ends up killing the baby through some means or another with clear intent of killing the fetus, I'd say she was probably mentally unfit to be a mother anyway. Forcing her to go through with childbirth and keeping the baby probably isn't the smartest thing to do.


You're thinking too situationally and applying the reasoning after the fact. The counter argument would be that if abortion wasn't easily obtainable, women would make better choices *before* becoming pregnant and thus find themselves in need of an abortion less frequently. This is, of course, about statistical results across the population. Obviously, you can zero in on "this woman" who finds herself pregnant anyway, but is unfit to raise a child, and creates a horrible result. But in the course of helping her get out of her predicament, we're statistically placing more women into one as well.


Is that better? Hard to say. What if what we're really doing here is that for every one woman who we're liberating from being forced to remain connected to a guy she doesn't like because of a baby she didn't want, we're causing 10 women to get into a cycle of bad relationships with guys who are bad for them because easy abortions let them avoid having to choose more carefully in the first place? Obviously, I don't have the perfect answers, but I think it's naive to think that abortion somehow actually helps people on total. It may help "that person", but I think that on the whole, it's harmful to society.


The best and surest route out of poverty is to make good responsible choices in your life. While we can certainly point to the occasional young woman for whom a mistake which may ruin her otherwise excellent chances at life can be fixed via abortion, we should not ignore that most women who get abortions are *not* going to take advantage of that life altering move to put themselves on the right track. Most of them are instead going to continue making the same mistakes. I just don't see how giving people an "out" for bad choices is ever going to result in a more responsible and successful population.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Nov 03 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,536 posts
Your argument would hold more weight, gbaji, if we were talking about anything other than sex and procreation. Unfortunately, the Malthusian argument also holds for human beings: we will continue to grow in population so long as our resources continue to allow us to survive.

The level of sexual education necessary to arm men and women with the information needed to make correct choices regarding their reproductive health is continually undermined by the very same forces that claim to hate abortion.

Every time I see a pro-life billboard, I have to wonder how many people in a soup kitchen that $1000 would have fed. Of all the causes to get attached to, the pro-lifer movement is probably one of the most selfish ones. Care for the living first.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2011 5:14pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#42 Nov 03 2011 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
catwho wrote:
Your argument would hold more weight, gbaji, if we were talking about anything other than sex and procreation. Unfortunately, the Malthusian argument also holds for human beings: we will continue to grow in population so long as our resources continue to allow us to survive.


Yup. And interestingly enough, availability of abortion doesn't tend to decrease that growth much at all. People tend to have the same number of kids. Availability of abortion tends to statistically just affect the number of abortions people have along the way. It's a pretty circular thing when looked at across the whole society.

Quote:
The level of sexual education necessary to arm men and women with the information needed to make correct choices regarding their reproductive health is continually undermined by the very same forces that claim to hate abortion.


/shrug

You're putting a lot of your own assumption on what the "correct choices" are. The same folks who oppose abortion would tend to argue that teaching people to not have sex casually with people they would not be willing to marry and live the rest of their lives with in the event of a pregnancy is the "correct choice". They would argue that the absence of easy outs for making the wrong choices, will make them more likely to make the really correct choices in life.


Your argument appears to be that the correct choice is to use birth control and take advantage of abortion when you're involved in a sexual relationship with someone you have no intention of forming a family with.

The counter argument is that the really correct choice is to not waste so much of your life being involved in sexual relationships with people you have no intention of forming a family with. There's a pretty good set of arguments that the latter is really a much better "correct choice", especially in the context of life stability, poverty rates, upward mobility, and all sorts of other social indicators.

Quote:
Every time I see a pro-life billboard, I have to wonder how many people in a soup kitchen that $1000 would have fed.


Why don't you wonder the same thing when you see *any* billboard. Seems like an unfair assessment to me.

Quote:
Of all the causes to get attached to, the pro-lifer movement is probably one of the most selfish ones. Care for the living first.


Dogmatic, yes. Selfish? I disagree. They honestly believe that it's much better for the living in the long run to adopt the positions they hold. And while I don't agree to the dogmatic aspects of it, I can see their point. There are consequences to choices in your life that go beyond just whether you end out raising a child you didn't want. There are self esteem issues, relationship issues, and ultimately financial/job issues involved.

I could drag out the statistics for women who've had abortions for you if you'd like. They are pretty dismal though. The liberal claim that an abortion just makes a problem go away for the upwardly mobile woman on the go is a bogus myth.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2011 2:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Nov 03 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
ITT: gbaji calls calls casual sex "a waste of time".
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#44 Nov 03 2011 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,355 posts
Being married and with a kid means all you can hope for is premeditated sex. Smiley: frown
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#45 Nov 03 2011 at 5:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Every time I see a pro-life billboard, I have to wonder how many people in a soup kitchen that $1000 would have fed.

Why don't you wonder the same thing when you see *any* billboard. Seems like an unfair assessment to me.

Most billboards aren't moralizing at me.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Nov 03 2011 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,232 posts
gbaji wrote:
most women who get abortions are *not* going to take advantage of that life altering move to put themselves on the right track. Most of them are instead going to continue making the same mistakes.

And you know this because...?

Reading more of gbaji's comments lead me to believe that he really doesn't know many women, and he has a pretty dim view of the ones that he does know.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2011 7:25pm by Nadenu
#47 Nov 03 2011 at 5:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
Gbaji doesn't know that, he doesn't get his news from anywhere or trust surveys or scientific studies.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#48 Nov 03 2011 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,627 posts
No, it's just obvious. Come on now.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#49 Nov 03 2011 at 6:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,405 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Being married and with a kid means all you can hope for is premeditated sex. Smiley: frown


Unless you make a conscious decision to go out and find a 'friend" to waste some time with!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#50 Nov 03 2011 at 6:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nilatai wrote:
Gbaji doesn't know that, he doesn't get his "news" from anywhere or trust "surveys" or "scientific" "studies".

"Fixed" for "accuracy".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Nov 03 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:
most women who get abortions are *not* going to take advantage of that life altering move to put themselves on the right track. Most of them are instead going to continue making the same mistakes.

And you know this because...?


Because today 50% of all abortions are performed on women who've had at least one abortion already.

How about this page. There's lots of information there, but the relevant upshot is that if the purpose of abortion is to help women avoid the poverty associated with single motherhood, it's failed miserably at it. And along the way, there are a host of additional problems as well.

Quote:
Reading more of gbaji's comments lead me to believe that he really doesn't know many women, and he has a pretty dim view of the ones that he does know.


And yet, I seem to have a better intuitive grasp of the effects of abortion on women than most people. At least I don't just parrot political position based talking points. I'm not so invested in a "side" of the argument to ignore the negatives and downfalls of any given position. Abortion is not the magic bullet it's often made out to be. In fact, there's quite a bit of data suggesting that the primary problem it's supposed to solve (poverty among single women) has been made worse as legal abortions have become more common.


But most people aren't willing to look at or even acknowledge data which opposes their starting assumptions, so I fully expect a standard dismissal of the whole thing, probably with some snarky comment about how I hate women's rights or something. Go rhetoric!!!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 40 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (40)