just more small government conservatism. Force doctors to physically violate women and push for "personhood" amendments to outlaw abortion and eventually all forms of birth control.
The "forcing" issue wasn't the point. The point was that you feel some shouldn't be able to dictate those choices for all, yet that is exactly what the other side is doing. It's a fail argument.Spark wrote:
No one's forcing anyone to have an abortion. The option is the key.FEOS wrote:
Because one could use the same descriptor for the proportion of people who don't feel that way and are forcing their morality on others?Spark wrote:
And in one word the whole reason why I am pro-choice is summed up.
Silly, really.
EDIT: China and India excepted.
As for option being the key, look at it from the pro-life perspective: Should we be given the "option" of taking another human's life? Of course not--the only case where it is deemed appropriate is with the fetus...which the pro-life side feels is just as human as you or I. People shouldn't be given the "option" of killing one of us, now should they?
Again, just understanding the perspective of the other side.
FTR, I disagree with the legislation. But the outcry over how horrible a transvaginal ultrasound is is ridiculous. It's less intrusive than the sex the girl had to get pregnant in the first place. However, that doesn't mean the doctors should be forced to perform one, whether the clinical presentation calls for it or not.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
yes, damn those liberals for forcing the choice of abortion on the husbands and fathers of all the good subservient white christian women.FEOS wrote:
The point was that you feel some shouldn't be able to dictate those choices for all, yet that is exactly what the other side is doing. It's a fail argument.
I'll give that argument a try if i ever rape a woman. or does that rule only apply to already pregnant women? doesn't matter.But the outcry over how horrible a transvaginal ultrasound is is ridiculous. It's less intrusive than the sex the girl had to get pregnant in the first place.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2012-02-16 20:21:16)
You clearly have jumped to an incorrect conclusion.Reciprocity wrote:
yes, damn those liberals for forcing the choice of abortion on the husbands and fathers of all the good subservient white christian women.FEOS wrote:
The point was that you feel some shouldn't be able to dictate those choices for all, yet that is exactly what the other side is doing. It's a fail argument.
I'm pro-choice. I'm just open-minded enough to try to understand the pro-life perspective.
But way to fail tremendously with your conclusion-jumping.
Do some research on how many women aren't getting abortions because of rape.I'll give that argument a try if i ever rape a woman. or does that rule only apply to already pregnant women? doesn't matter.But the outcry over how horrible a transvaginal ultrasound is is ridiculous. It's less intrusive than the sex the girl had to get pregnant in the first place.
Again with the fail conclusions.
Try opening up your mind and examining an issue after you've identified and removed your biases. It's...refreshing.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It's hard to be open-minded about a pretty blatant violation of privacy.
If you can't be open-minded and objective about things you don't agree with, then you can't be--period.Turquoise wrote:
It's hard to be open-minded about a pretty blatant violation of privacy.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I just don't see any objective conclusion that involves regarding this as anything other than government overreach.FEOS wrote:
If you can't be open-minded and objective about things you don't agree with, then you can't be--period.Turquoise wrote:
It's hard to be open-minded about a pretty blatant violation of privacy.
The law itself seems very emotional in its origin. It seems to be very much a harassment law -- rather than a law defining illegal behavior.
This.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The irony of forcing somebody to be probed so that they can have a "choice" is killing me.
Sounds like people are being forced to make the "choice" that the campaigners want them to. That isnt choice at all. People are making their choices right now, the campaigners just dont like their decisions.
does the EU ban abortion?
Tu Stultus Es
well most of the countries allow it, so no i doubt it. ireland is the only one that doesn't allow it because they're backwards catholics.
oh no malta has banned it too, with sentances up to 3 years if you do get one.
so yeah dont get raped in malta because they dont give a shit
so yeah dont get raped in malta because they dont give a shit
you can still get it in ireland, but it has to be for a medical reason (you're going to die). most of the boyfriend/girlfriend couples i knew always had enough money saved away for flights to liverpool and they'd get it done over there.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
jord wrote:
This.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The irony of forcing somebody to be probed so that they can have a "choice" is killing me.
Sounds like people are being forced to make the "choice" that the campaigners want them to. That isnt choice at all. People are making their choices right now, the campaigners just dont like their decisions.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I understand the pro-life perspective and I reject it. if someone doesn't want an abortion, they don't have to fucking get one. that's why it's called a choice.FEOS wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I'm just open-minded enough to try to understand the pro-life perspective.
And if you read what i fucking wrote, you would see that I was commenting on your suggestion that a forced transvaginal ultrasound is no big deal especially if the little whore is already knocked up. Using your dipshit argument, I could just tell the judge, your honor, forcibly probing that woman with my dick was no big deal, she's been fucked before.Do some research on how many women aren't getting abortions because of rape.I'll give that argument a try if i ever rape a woman. or does that rule only apply to already pregnant women? doesn't matter.But the outcry over how horrible a transvaginal ultrasound is is ridiculous. It's less intrusive than the sex the girl had to get pregnant in the first place.
Again with the fail conclusions.
Try opening up your mind and examining an issue after you've identified and removed your biases. It's...refreshing.
Learn how to fucking read before you start throwing around "fail conclusions".
so its ok to kill a baby but its not ok to execute a murderer?
Tu Stultus Es
eleven bravo wrote:
so its ok to kill a baby foetus but its not ok to execute a murderer?
What I'm saying is a foetus is aborted, not a baby. According to Wikipedia the brain starts to develop at the 5th week. It's not till the 27th week that the brain starts developing rapidly. According to another article it is even considered that a newborn has no awareness nor consciousness (though I beg to differ on that point). So from my perspective, the abortion of a foetus isn't "murder". You are killing something that is alive, but not something that has a life.
I can understand why some people are anti-abortion as they see it as taking an innocent life, and that is abhorrent to many. I see it as terminating the development of a potential life that has no awareness nor consciousness whatsoever of its own existence. On a personal note, if my girl fell pregnant we would abort (we have had this discussion, and she takes the pill) but I can imagine it would not be without some level of regret. To some that is fine, others not fine.
I can understand both sides of the debate, but for me I would be upset if someone decided to take that choice away from me as it is not their decision to make.
I can understand why some people are anti-abortion as they see it as taking an innocent life, and that is abhorrent to many. I see it as terminating the development of a potential life that has no awareness nor consciousness whatsoever of its own existence. On a personal note, if my girl fell pregnant we would abort (we have had this discussion, and she takes the pill) but I can imagine it would not be without some level of regret. To some that is fine, others not fine.
I can understand both sides of the debate, but for me I would be upset if someone decided to take that choice away from me as it is not their decision to make.
Last edited by Jaekus (2012-02-17 20:51:58)
I get that. But rejecting something out of hand simply because you disagree with it is just...not open-minded or tolerant. Isn't that what we get preached to about all the time? Being open-minded and tolerant? I guess only in the cases where you agree with what you think people should be open-minded and tolerant about...Reciprocity wrote:
I understand the pro-life perspective and I reject it. if someone doesn't want an abortion, they don't have to fucking get one. that's why it's called a choice.FEOS wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I'm just open-minded enough to try to understand the pro-life perspective.
Perhaps you should fucking take your own fucking advice before fucking posting like you fucking do.And if you read what i fucking wrote, you would see that I was commenting on your suggestion that a forced transvaginal ultrasound is no big deal especially if the little whore is already knocked up. Using your dipshit argument, I could just tell the judge, your honor, forcibly probing that woman with my dick was no big deal, she's been fucked before.Do some research on how many women aren't getting abortions because of rape.
Again with the fail conclusions.
Try opening up your mind and examining an issue after you've identified and removed your biases. It's...refreshing.
Learn how to fucking read before you start throwing around "fail conclusions".
See how much more intelligent and rational one sounds when saying "fuck" every other word in a post?
I read what you wrote. You put words in my mouth to make a weak-assed argument. You took a small minority of the population involved and made the entire argument about that, even though I never made that argument. Millions of women who weren't raped and aren't in a medical crisis because of the pregnancy choose to end that pregnancy. Some view that as ending a human life. Many (if not the majority) of pro-lifers believe in the exception for rape or medical crisis--some don't.
LRN2NOTSTRAWMAN.
Perspective: transvaginal ultrasound wand vs speculum. The woman is making a choice in both cases. Making that choice in VA simply now involves an ultrasound...then the speculum and vacu-suck 2000 shoved up there. But it's the ultrasound wand that's sooo invasive? Oh, that's right...we have to view this emotionally, rather than objectively.
If you had any reading comprehension abilities, you wouldn't have jumped to the conclusion you did. But you're soooo convinced that your view is the only valid one, with any thought behind it, that you have to throw out that "internet tough guy" nonsense.
Get over yourself. Or better yet, take some of your own advice.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Your first point is spot on. However, your assessment of the foundation of the law shows you can't be bothered to try to understand both sides of the issue. Someone being against the death penalty could be argued just as accurately of taking an emotion-based position. Further, if they're pro-abortion and anti-death penalty, they are being just as hypocritical in many ways as those who are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.Turquoise wrote:
I just don't see any objective conclusion that involves regarding this as anything other than government overreach.FEOS wrote:
If you can't be open-minded and objective about things you don't agree with, then you can't be--period.Turquoise wrote:
It's hard to be open-minded about a pretty blatant violation of privacy.
The law itself seems very emotional in its origin. It seems to be very much a harassment law -- rather than a law defining illegal behavior.
If you believe that life begins at conception, then your position is to protect that life...not harass someone who wants to take it. Again, look at it from the other side. Try to understand their viewpoint. You don't have to agree with it to understand it. But to trivialize it like that is simply wrong. Their viewpoint is no more or less valid, nor any more or less steeped in emotion than the other.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It's ok to kill both.eleven bravo wrote:
so its ok to kill a baby but its not ok to execute a murderer?
Some people are consistent life ethicists -- they're against euthanasia, abortion, the death penalty, and war.
I'm on the other side. I'm for all four, although I think war should be much less common than it currently is.
Last edited by Turquoise (2012-02-18 09:03:16)
The only tolerance that really matters is the tolerance of the rights of others.FEOS wrote:
I get that. But rejecting something out of hand simply because you disagree with it is just...not open-minded or tolerant. Isn't that what we get preached to about all the time? Being open-minded and tolerant? I guess only in the cases where you agree with what you think people should be open-minded and tolerant about...
Beyond that, tolerance is selective for everyone. I'm tolerant of gay people, but I'm not tolerant of pedophiles, for example. I don't "agree" with homosexuality, I just don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.
I'm not tolerant of pedophiles, for obvious reasons.
This is true, but as in my post above, I'm for the death penalty and for abortion, so I'm consistent.FEOS wrote:
Your first point is spot on. However, your assessment of the foundation of the law shows you can't be bothered to try to understand both sides of the issue. Someone being against the death penalty could be argued just as accurately of taking an emotion-based position. Further, if they're pro-abortion and anti-death penalty, they are being just as hypocritical in many ways as those who are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think most issues can logically be boiled down to one position being more valid than the other.FEOS wrote:
If you believe that life begins at conception, then your position is to protect that life...not harass someone who wants to take it. Again, look at it from the other side. Try to understand their viewpoint. You don't have to agree with it to understand it. But to trivialize it like that is simply wrong. Their viewpoint is no more or less valid, nor any more or less steeped in emotion than the other.
FEOS wrote:
LRN2NOTSTRAWMAN.
watFEOS wrote:
If you believe that life begins at conception, then your position is to protect that life...not harass someone who wants to take it.
As far as the governments role in society, they aren't. It's not the governments job to decide who gets to die, and its not the governments job to tell women what to do with their private parts...FEOS wrote:
if they're pro-abortion and anti-death penalty, they are being just as hypocritical in many ways as those who are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.
.
The difference here is that one side is fighting for women's rights, and the other is the one arguing on a moral decision to protect life.