Why is it "imperative"? I certainly don't think it is. Why do your values trump mine?
Abortion
- Thread starter JOEBIALEK
- Start date
Why is it "imperative"? I certainly don't think it is. Why do your values trump mine?
Tiassa
Please, do not "pull" a Repo Man and falsely accuse me of making questionable statements. I advocate support for children living under substandard conditions, whether or not the child is illegitimate. Why? Duh! It's not the child's fault. I have come to expect better from a moderator, Tiassa. Unfortunately, all the articulacy in the world won't change what I said to suit your argument.
Please, do not "pull" a Repo Man and falsely accuse me of making questionable statements. I advocate support for children living under substandard conditions, whether or not the child is illegitimate. Why? Duh! It's not the child's fault. I have come to expect better from a moderator, Tiassa. Unfortunately, all the articulacy in the world won't change what I said to suit your argument.
Repo Man said:
It is an odd phenomenon, isn't it? But, yes, there are some people who legitimately don't understand the implications of their beliefs. Anti-abortionists, for instance, may never explicitly declare themselves misogynists; indeed, a good number of them are women. But for some reason, they don't recognize their nearly singular focus on castigating mothers while ignoring the men who knock them up and the children in need who already made it to the world.
"Pro-life", they say. But it's merely a convenient slogan. They don't actually seem to give a damn about life itself. Rather, it's about appealing to God, or exercising control over other people.
At least, that's the nearest I can figure. Because they don't seem to care about the quality of these children's lives.
They'll be told by the doctors they visit...
...thought this part was quite obvious.
And if their choice results in a pregnancy, then it's their responsibility to care for the baby.
My problem with your posts is that you accuse me of saying things I haven't. Yes, I've been banned (once) before, but that was the result of a mod's personal vendetta against me for my position on homosexuality. Not sure how that applies to this topic.
That was a joke, and you sure took the bait. But I must say, if you require a complicated list to keep track of your sexual partners, you get around.
I'd think most people could keep such a list in their head. After all, a woman only really needs to keep track of all the different men she's slept with in the past month.
And you know, for all your fixation on rape/incest; those situations account for less than 1% of all abortions.
And, as I've said, I would limit abortion based on fetal development to probably 6-8 weeks. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "controlling" anyone. It has to do only with protecting innocent life. And, of course, I would also make an exception for the life of the mother (self defense) or severe fetal abnormalities.
They chose to have the condom break? What about the woman who believed the man who told her he had a vasectomy?
If you believe I have made a strawman fallacy out of one of your positions, it is up to you to refute it. Telling me to "shut the fuck up" doesn't cut it, and is exactly the sort of behavior that gets one banned. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
If you act like a bigot, don't be surprised if people think you're a bigot
Then act like it. By your argument, it would seem to be a secondary consideration at best.
And I've come to expect better of people who think they should be taken seriously.
My advice to you, sir, would be to pay attention to what people actually say instead of tell them what they believe. When you ignore a point of discussion in order to tell people what they believe, all you accomplish is to remind others of your own bigotry.
See my response to Repo Man: If you really think that avoiding explicit expression of what is evident in your conduct protects you from certain accusations, you're wrong.
I, for one, am sick of the vicious, seemingly pathological dishonesty of the anti-abortion crowd. I've tolerated it from conservatives most of my life, and the result is that we're still arguing the same useless crap that they want to dwell on. I am no longer willing to accommodate such bigotry and vice.
If people in your position could offer some genuine reflection on the issue, that would be one thing. But the closest you ever get is when you get cornered and say things like,
—and—
Expressions of what you genuinely believe should not have to be dragged out of you. And they shouldn't be couched in self-righteousness. If you don't wish to be seen as a bigot, then don't present yourself as one.
Does that confuse you? When you make a point of addressing me in an insulting manner, why should you be offended if I resent it? That routine is so damn old, Kadark.
Kadark said:
Then act like it. By your argument, it would seem to be a secondary consideration at best.
And I've come to expect better of people who think they should be taken seriously.
My advice to you, sir, would be to pay attention to what people actually say instead of tell them what they believe. When you ignore a point of discussion in order to tell people what they believe, all you accomplish is to remind others of your own bigotry.
See my response to Repo Man: If you really think that avoiding explicit expression of what is evident in your conduct protects you from certain accusations, you're wrong.
I, for one, am sick of the vicious, seemingly pathological dishonesty of the anti-abortion crowd. I've tolerated it from conservatives most of my life, and the result is that we're still arguing the same useless crap that they want to dwell on. I am no longer willing to accommodate such bigotry and vice.
If people in your position could offer some genuine reflection on the issue, that would be one thing. But the closest you ever get is when you get cornered and say things like,
"Where did I indicate I felt this way? You've got the wrong impression of me."
—and—
"Please, do not "pull" a Repo Man and falsely accuse me of making questionable statements. I advocate support for children living under substandard conditions, whether or not the child is illegitimate. Why? Duh! It's not the child's fault. I have come to expect better from a moderator, Tiassa."
Expressions of what you genuinely believe should not have to be dragged out of you. And they shouldn't be couched in self-righteousness. If you don't wish to be seen as a bigot, then don't present yourself as one.
Does that confuse you? When you make a point of addressing me in an insulting manner, why should you be offended if I resent it? That routine is so damn old, Kadark.
And you are the arbiter of what the circumstances were of the sex, and what the results are to be,and in what manner they are to "make the most of it" ?kadark said:
For many people, one of the possible results, making the most of things, might be an abortion. For you, maybe not. Sounds like life.
And these imperatives of yours - how come you to call the cops, to enforce them ? I think it's imperative you stay out of business you don't understand - other people's sex lives pretty high on that list.
Bells
Staff member
So as far as you are concerned, the rights of the child only end when it is not a result of rape, incest or a medical emergency? You don't think the child has a right to life if circumstances arise which results in the mother possibly dying? The child only has a right to life if the mother is either a whore or selfish? Righteo.
Tiassa
If you wanted my opinion, you should have asked for it. Of course, you chose not to, and ended up being wrong (as in, I support helping children who suffer with poor living conditions due to having only one parent).
The feeling's mutual.
iceaura
I couldn't care less about their sex lives. It's the termination of a developing baby that worries me.
If you wanted my opinion, you should have asked for it. Of course, you chose not to, and ended up being wrong (as in, I support helping children who suffer with poor living conditions due to having only one parent).
The feeling's mutual.
iceaura
I couldn't care less about their sex lives. It's the termination of a developing baby that worries me.
So now you're essentially calling women who have sex whores? To put it simply (as if I haven't been clear enough), I only support abortion if the mother did not consent to having sex in a state of clear judgement (meaning getting drunk at a party and nailed by some sleazy stranger doesn't qualify). If, however, the woman consented to having sex, then she is fully committed at that point to fulfilling her obligation of giving birth.
Lou Natic:
Should she have the choice to use contraception? Doing that prevents a potential child from being born.
Why?
You appreciate that the viability of a baby is a continuum, and you don't see birth as an obvious dividing line. Then, you need to consider where the line ought to be drawn, because we obviously need to draw the line somewhere on "thou must not kill your baby". The ancient Greeks, for instance, commonly left unwanted newborn children out in the open to die of exposure, a practice that today would be considered unconscionable. Today, most people at least agree that a child has a "right to life" from birth. In fact, most people have qualms about late-term abortion, too.
Where things get sticky is early-term pregnancies. We have a division between those who claim that conception is somehow relevant and those who claim that some time later in the development of the foetus is a more appropriate place to draw the line.
I assume you draw the line at conception, but not before. Correct? If so, why? You say there's no meaningful difference between a baby one day before birth and one day after. So, what's the morally meaningful difference in one moment before the sperm joins with the egg and one moment after? Before you have two cells. After you have one cell. But suddenly you want to give that one cell the full human right to life of an adult, it seems. Why?
So, killing a 2-week old foetus is morally equivalent to killing a 6-month old infant? Really? Why?
But few free choice proponents really do that. Most claim to balance the rights and interests of the foetus against the rights and interests of the mother.
It's so much easier to knock down a straw man than to deal with the true complexity, which is why these arguments go round in useless circles most of the time.
Opponents would say that the petty rights of a bundle of cells has taken on a supernatural level of importance for some indiscernable reason, to the point where its continued existence holds priority over a grown adult's prospects of future happiness.
Should she have the choice to use contraception? Doing that prevents a potential child from being born.
Why?
You appreciate that the viability of a baby is a continuum, and you don't see birth as an obvious dividing line. Then, you need to consider where the line ought to be drawn, because we obviously need to draw the line somewhere on "thou must not kill your baby". The ancient Greeks, for instance, commonly left unwanted newborn children out in the open to die of exposure, a practice that today would be considered unconscionable. Today, most people at least agree that a child has a "right to life" from birth. In fact, most people have qualms about late-term abortion, too.
Where things get sticky is early-term pregnancies. We have a division between those who claim that conception is somehow relevant and those who claim that some time later in the development of the foetus is a more appropriate place to draw the line.
I assume you draw the line at conception, but not before. Correct? If so, why? You say there's no meaningful difference between a baby one day before birth and one day after. So, what's the morally meaningful difference in one moment before the sperm joins with the egg and one moment after? Before you have two cells. After you have one cell. But suddenly you want to give that one cell the full human right to life of an adult, it seems. Why?
So, killing a 2-week old foetus is morally equivalent to killing a 6-month old infant? Really? Why?
But few free choice proponents really do that. Most claim to balance the rights and interests of the foetus against the rights and interests of the mother.
It's so much easier to knock down a straw man than to deal with the true complexity, which is why these arguments go round in useless circles most of the time.
Opponents would say that the petty rights of a bundle of cells has taken on a supernatural level of importance for some indiscernable reason, to the point where its continued existence holds priority over a grown adult's prospects of future happiness.
While they may be out there, I've never once heard an an anti abortion spokesperson say "We greatly look forward to the day when birth control methods are so effective, and readily available that this becomes a non-issue." Instead, all I've heard from them are quotes like this gem from Joe Scheidler:
"I think contraception is disgusting -- people using each other for pleasure."
It's all about controlling people's behavior. They know what's best for you.
"I think contraception is disgusting -- people using each other for pleasure."
It's all about controlling people's behavior. They know what's best for you.
Clues ... for free
Which brings us back to the point of why anyone should take you seriously in this discussion? After all, if such an important issue is cause for such vicious levity, well, that says something about your priorities, doesn't it?
Are you able to remember your pre-married life? Now, maybe you were a statistical aberration who didn't hit on lots of women, but I think one of the things that needs to be addressed is whether or not men should be obliged to carry around signed affidavits attesting that they will support any child they help conceive. They could give them to any woman they intend to hit on.
I mean, I do find something perverse about the notion that, while so many men pursue sexual intercourse, begging and bribing and even lying to women in order to achieve their goal, the anti-abortion argument should be so fixated on women "getting around". It's blatantly misogynistic, and drives home the point that the abortion debate isn't actually about fetuses or life or anything like that. It's just a surrogate for exercising dominion over women.
Don't you give me that. If you wanted my opinion, you easily could have found it in this topic, instead of inventing some perverse, bigoted fantasy.
Since you missed it last time, I'll reiterate:
Given the unreliability of your outlook, I'm not surprised that you would say that.
Madanthonywayne said:
Which brings us back to the point of why anyone should take you seriously in this discussion? After all, if such an important issue is cause for such vicious levity, well, that says something about your priorities, doesn't it?
Are you able to remember your pre-married life? Now, maybe you were a statistical aberration who didn't hit on lots of women, but I think one of the things that needs to be addressed is whether or not men should be obliged to carry around signed affidavits attesting that they will support any child they help conceive. They could give them to any woman they intend to hit on.
I mean, I do find something perverse about the notion that, while so many men pursue sexual intercourse, begging and bribing and even lying to women in order to achieve their goal, the anti-abortion argument should be so fixated on women "getting around". It's blatantly misogynistic, and drives home the point that the abortion debate isn't actually about fetuses or life or anything like that. It's just a surrogate for exercising dominion over women.
• • •
Kadark said:
Don't you give me that. If you wanted my opinion, you easily could have found it in this topic, instead of inventing some perverse, bigoted fantasy.
Since you missed it last time, I'll reiterate:
To the other, your behavior is indicative. Given the specific misogyny and bigoted assignation of your response in #184, one would not be unreasonable to wonder what your priorities really are. Don't be surprised if people don't believe your protestations.
After all ... that post focuses on castigating women and abortion while ignoring the children in need of homes.
Which is, after all, the underlying point you appear to have missed. By miles. And miles. And miles.
After all ... that post focuses on castigating women and abortion while ignoring the children in need of homes.
Which is, after all, the underlying point you appear to have missed. By miles. And miles. And miles.
Given the unreliability of your outlook, I'm not surprised that you would say that.
I already knew your opinion on the topic, which is why I challenged it.
**Knocks on Tiassa's hollow skull**
Anyone home?
Thanks for re-posting that, as if I didn't have the displeasure of reading it the first time. How you can extract misogyny from my post leaves me befuddled. Of course the man in the relationship has an important role in caring for his kid. Of course the kid will receive support if need be. Of course it's not all on the mother's shoulders.
Eloquent language. I like that. Really, I do!
Shouldn't those who find the idea of an abortion appalling think homosexuality is the greatest thing ever? Gays don't have abortions. Promoting homosexuality could conceivably reduce the number of abortions performed each year. If the issue were really about discomfort over the death of a fetus, I'd think this would have occurred to those who wish to see the number of abortions performed per year go down.
the whole anti abortion thing is not about the rights of the unborn but about pushing a groups sense of morality on society of a whole. you never hear these anti abortion people come up with ways to reduce the amount of abortions. to all of you anti abortion people IF YOU WANT TO REDUCE SOMETHING THAT IS AN EFFECT YOU DON"T PLAY WITH THE EFFECT SIDE OF THE EQUATION YOU ALTER THE CAUSE SIDE OF IT
Ah, yes. The Tiassa "I don't take you seriously" maneuver. A classic.
Do you seriously think it's that difficult for a woman to keep track of who she's slept with in the past month?
Sure I remember my pre-married life. Do I remember every woman I ever hit on? Hell no. But I sure as hell remember every woman I've slept with. Probably even the ones I only got to 3rd base with. And why would an affidavit be needed? All that's needed is a blood test, and a list of who to test.
.
Bullshit. How is banning abortion exercising dominion over women? Most men who knock up some women they don't care about are very happy to hear the woman is aborting the child.
If not for abortion, the man may be stuck paying child support for the next twenty years. Quite a high price for a one night stand. Abortion allows the man to fuck her, then tell her to fuck off and take care of the "problem" herself. That's misogynistic.
Your scenario is certainly misogynistic. But you can't expect people to take you seriously if you try to portray legal roadblocks to abortion on demand as a way to protect women from misogyny. That would be like telling gay men that making homosexuality illegal was being done to protect them from exposure to AIDS.