|
|
Post by kirinke on May 15, 2022 12:40:46 GMT
Infanticide is considered murder. However, abortion is not. Nice try at false equivalency. But even I see through your pathetic attempts. Here's a real equivalency. Anti-choicers don't give two shits about infants or their mothers. They're the ones cheering on the likes of MTG who fucking advocate to starve babies that are in custody at the border. They're also the morons who want to cut funding for programs that help mothers with pre-natal care and care of the infant and child. Not to mention they also advocate for funding cuts to school programs.
So yeah. Anti-choicers are less about concern of the fetus and mother and more about control and their idea of "God's will".
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 15, 2022 15:26:33 GMT
Infanticide is considered murder. However, abortion is not. Nice try at false equivalency. But even I see through your pathetic attempts. Here's a real equivalency. Anti-choicers don't give two shits about infants or their mothers. They're the ones cheering on the likes of MTG who fucking advocate to starve babies that are in custody at the border. They're also the morons who want to cut funding for programs that help mothers with pre-natal care and care of the infant and child. Not to mention they also advocate for funding cuts to school programs.
So yeah. Anti-choicers are less about concern of the fetus and mother and more about control and their idea of "God's will".
Are you stupid or do you really not understand what the pro-life argument is? They consider abortion to be murder since they view life as beginning at conception. The actual legality of the matter is not relevant in the slightest to their argument. It's not a False Equivalency, since it is in fact a valid argument on their side. If you consider life to begin at conception, abortion = murder to you. Also, there's no such thing as an "anti-choicer," unless you too are an anti-choicer for supporting prison for murders. The conservative argument is not, "Hey! I got an idea Fred. Let's find a way to remove choice from women. Which one of these things things do you think we should do. Make it so that they only have one brand of bra? Make it so that they can't get abortions? Or make it so that they can't wear panties?" Choice is no part of their argument, so you are engaging in a Strawman when you try to paint their side as "anti-choice." Or to put it another way, if they are anti-choice, you are pro-baby murder, because being pro-baby murder is the Strawman their side paints you with. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on May 15, 2022 15:29:51 GMT
Infanticide is considered murder. However, abortion is not. Nice try at false equivalency. But even I see through your pathetic attempts. Here's a real equivalency. Anti-choicers don't give two shits about infants or their mothers. They're the ones cheering on the likes of MTG who fucking advocate to starve babies that are in custody at the border. They're also the morons who want to cut funding for programs that help mothers with pre-natal care and care of the infant and child. Not to mention they also advocate for funding cuts to school programs.
So yeah. Anti-choicers are less about concern of the fetus and mother and more about control and their idea of "God's will".
The hypocrisy, it burns... If the fetus is aborted with forceps or a vacuum, you're ok with it. What about when its aborted via gunshot, baseball bat, or pit bull attacks? Because even the blue states consider those to be murder of both mother and fetus resulting in two counts of murder, not one... |
|
|
|
Post by Lanefan on May 15, 2022 23:21:16 GMT
Infanticide is considered murder. However, abortion is not. Nice try at false equivalency. But even I see through your pathetic attempts. Here's a real equivalency. Anti-choicers don't give two shits about infants or their mothers. They're the ones cheering on the likes of MTG who fucking advocate to starve babies that are in custody at the border. They're also the morons who want to cut funding for programs that help mothers with pre-natal care and care of the infant and child. Not to mention they also advocate for funding cuts to school programs.
So yeah. Anti-choicers are less about concern of the fetus and mother and more about control and their idea of "God's will".
Are you stupid or do you really not understand what the pro-life argument is? I understand what the "pro-life" argument is all too well, and consider it to be total BS. Then again, I'm so far pro-choice even the pro-choicers don't like me, in that I see overpopulation as the greatest threat to human survival and to that end I'd like to see a hard cap on the number of children - two - any one person can have (yes, this applies to fathers too - father two kids and you're done). Never mind there's serious talk that once this lot get their way with Roe-Wade one of their next targets will be to de-legalize contraception. Idiots. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 16, 2022 0:22:22 GMT
Are you stupid or do you really not understand what the pro-life argument is? I understand what the "pro-life" argument is all too well, and consider it to be total BS. Then again, I'm so far pro-choice even the pro-choicers don't like me, in that I see overpopulation as the greatest threat to human survival and to that end I'd like to see a hard cap on the number of children - two - any one person can have (yes, this applies to fathers too - father two kids and you're done). Never mind there's serious talk that once this lot get their way with Roe-Wade one of their next targets will be to de-legalize contraception. Idiots. Why do you consider the pro-life argument to be BS? You have no science that says when life begins and neither do they. What makes you so sure that your feelings on the matter are superior to theirs? |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on May 16, 2022 15:13:30 GMT
I really don't think that's a viable point. That "natural disaster" happens fairly often. We really don't know how often, honestly, but we have some idea from how often IVF fails, and miscarriage rates. IVF failure rates are dependent on many things, such as age, reason for infertility, etc. But the failure rate is very high. Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. Never has, never will. It just makes life hard for the poor and lower to middle middle class. The rest of the women will be able to get an abortion when they want, because they will have the ability to travel to where they can get it legally. For those who don't have that capability, they will try things that are much riskier. Which will cause them physical harm. Women will die as a result of this. Making it illegal isn't and never has been the answer. The actual answer is education and access. Education about sex and contraceptives, and how to use those contraceptives. Access to those contraceptives and to abortion. The places with those things have much lower abortion rates. Further, there are proposals that aren't allowing medical exceptions for abortion. Ectopic pregnancy? Too bad, you can't abort it. Non-viable fetus for whatever reason? Too bad. Etc. There are even proposals that not only don't include medical exceptions but specifically disallow abortions for medical reasons. That's fucking ridiculous. To your first paragraph. Of course it's a viable point. It doesn't matter how often nature prevents a pregnancy from taking or ends one early, that doesn't make it okay to deliberately end a life. Bringing up natural failure rates is a Red Herring. You aren't going to abort a pregnancy that has failed naturally. No, it's not a red herring. It's pointing out how useless conception is as the point to choose for when life begins. Because so many conceptions never actually become fetuses and are flushed out of the body during a woman's period. It's not life, it's just a clump of cells that was never and will never become a life. Then there's the fact that that argument removes the pill from the equation, and the morning after pill, and several other birth control methods. Since we don't have birth control that men can take, that's just fucking wrong. EDIT: It also makes IVF illegal. You failed to address the second and most important part of the argument. It harms people who have no ability to go and get an abortion safely and legally. Because that's what happens when you make abortion illegal. The rich are able to access abortion, while the poor aren't. It's not murder. There's no person there. It's not a conscious life. It's a potential person, nothing more. And even in nature, that potential may never fulfill itself. And I honestly wouldn't consider multiple murder charges for murdering a pregnant woman in the first or second trimester. For the same reason. Not that anyone will change that law. What I find interesting here is that you ignored the other part of my point entirely. You care about allowing the abortion if the mother's life is endangered, but don't seem to give a fuck about abortions when the fetus isn't viable. Such fetuses don't, by any stretch, always abort. Though they sometimes die in the womb and endanger the mother's life, that's not always what happens. The body that can't survive outside the womb sometimes survives until birth, when it dies. It's fucking cruel to allow that. Especially when the woman knows for months that that is exactly what IS going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on May 16, 2022 16:52:13 GMT
You just don't like kids that are already here. Gotcha. Once again, your incredulously short memory and inability to conceptualize thoughts that aren't given to you by your Thought Leaders has you off on a completely wrong tangent. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on May 16, 2022 16:59:32 GMT
There is no science that proves when life begins. And there properly never will be as Science is not about Morality, no matter what the New Religion says. Abortion is a question of Morality and Ethics and where we draw those lines. The unprincipled have no morals or ethics and substitute "But science/religion says!" instead of properly identifying it as "But my feelings say!". This is a culture clash between the Old and New Religion, "Science! vs God!", and I'm personally hoping both sides ultimately lose and die away (but they won't, humans are flawed creatures that need something to believe in, some where to hang those magical feelings of faith). |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on May 16, 2022 17:11:35 GMT
Then again, I'm so far pro-choice even the pro-choicers don't like me, in that I see overpopulation as the greatest threat to human survival... Yes, overpopulation is the greatest sin humankind can indulge in (short of self-extinction, or extinctioning others). Two??!?!?! What kind of "Overpopulationist" are you? Point-seven-five mister. 0.75 per person. You want to ensure your genes, your heritage, your "legacy" survives? Find someone and create a kid. Why 0.75? Because it's the only way to actually slow the roll. It also heavily favors capitalism and really cripples those "quiverfull cults". Ah ye olde slippery-slope canard. Mate, their aren't enough of those crazy religionists around anymore to get that one over anywhere, except maybe, maybe Utah or possibly Texas. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on May 16, 2022 18:27:20 GMT
Then again, I'm so far pro-choice even the pro-choicers don't like me, in that I see overpopulation as the greatest threat to human survival... Yes, overpopulation is the greatest sin humankind can indulge in (short of self-extinction, or extinctioning others). Two??!?!?! What kind of "Overpopulationist" are you? Point-seven-five mister. 0.75 per person. You want to ensure your genes, your heritage, your "legacy" survives? Find someone and create a kid. Why 0.75? Because it's the only way to actually slow the roll. It also heavily favors capitalism and really cripples those "quiverfull cults". Ah ye olde slippery-slope canard. Mate, their aren't enough of those crazy religionists around anymore to get that one over anywhere, except maybe, maybe Utah or possibly Texas. They will likely go after many of the decisions that, like Roe and Casey, were ruled on based on privacy. Gay marriage, for example, or even being gay. Several states still have anti-sodomy laws on the books. More than a quarter, if my quick google search is accurate. Contraception was also decided based on privacy. I'm not sure they won't go after that last one, though it wouldn't surprise me. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on May 16, 2022 19:59:44 GMT
Yes, overpopulation is the greatest sin humankind can indulge in (short of self-extinction, or extinctioning others). Two??!?!?! What kind of "Overpopulationist" are you? Point-seven-five mister. 0.75 per person. You want to ensure your genes, your heritage, your "legacy" survives? Find someone and create a kid. Why 0.75? Because it's the only way to actually slow the roll. It also heavily favors capitalism and really cripples those "quiverfull cults". Ah ye olde slippery-slope canard. Mate, their aren't enough of those crazy religionists around anymore to get that one over anywhere, except maybe, maybe Utah or possibly Texas. They will likely go after many of the decisions that, like Roe and Casey, were ruled on based on privacy. Gay marriage, for example, or even being gay. Several states still have anti-sodomy laws on the books. More than a quarter, if my quick google search is accurate. Contraception was also decided based on privacy. I'm not sure they won't go after that last one, though it wouldn't surprise me. And bringing a little morality back into diseased western society would be bad, why? |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 16, 2022 20:01:22 GMT
No, it's not a red herring. It's pointing out how useless conception is as the point to choose for when life begins. Because so many conceptions never actually become fetuses and are flushed out of the body during a woman's period. It's not life, it's just a clump of cells that was never and will never become a life. Then there's the fact that that argument removes the pill from the equation, and the morning after pill, and several other birth control methods. Since we don't have birth control that men can take, that's just fucking wrong. EDIT: It also makes IVF illegal. It's absolutely a Red Herring because it has nothing to do with my position and so it's just a distraction from my argument. It's irrelevant how many conceptions never become fetuses. That's just life ended early. You can claim it's "just a clump of cells," but sine you have no science saying when life begins, all you have are feels and not any sort of factual claim that life does not begin at that point. I did address it. Being poor doesn't excuse murder. I don't get to shoot my kid in the head if I can't afford to feed him. If you view abortion as murder, which is the logical result of the valid view that life begins at conception, then someone's inability to go murder a child safely doesn't matter. It is murder if you believe life begins at conception. Consciousness doesn't matter. There's no scientific requirement for consciousness to be present to be considered life. Bacteria is life. Viruses are life. Algae is life. Those cells are life, and they are human life. Your feels about when life begins are valid, but so are the feels that life begins at conception. What you don't get to do, though, is declare your feels as fact. I didn't respond to it because viable can mean, "Has Anencephaly" or "Is too young to survive on its own" and I wasn't sure what you meant. I'm okay with aborting the former, since it's dead already and is just on life support. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on May 16, 2022 20:35:12 GMT
They will likely go after many of the decisions that, like Roe and Casey, were ruled on based on privacy. Gay marriage, for example, or even being gay. Several states still have anti-sodomy laws on the books. More than a quarter, if my quick google search is accurate. Contraception was also decided based on privacy. I'm not sure they won't go after that last one, though it wouldn't surprise me. And bringing a little morality back into diseased western society would be bad, why? Morality? Being gay is immoral? Two people in love marrying is immoral? Contraception is immoral? If that is morality, I'll be immoral, thanks. Fuck your Victorian version of morality. None of those things is immoral. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on May 16, 2022 20:42:30 GMT
No, it's not a red herring. It's pointing out how useless conception is as the point to choose for when life begins. Because so many conceptions never actually become fetuses and are flushed out of the body during a woman's period. It's not life, it's just a clump of cells that was never and will never become a life. Then there's the fact that that argument removes the pill from the equation, and the morning after pill, and several other birth control methods. Since we don't have birth control that men can take, that's just fucking wrong. EDIT: It also makes IVF illegal. It's absolutely a Red Herring because it has nothing to do with my position and so it's just a distraction from my argument. It's irrelevant how many conceptions never become fetuses. That's just life ended early. You can claim it's "just a clump of cells," but sine you have no science saying when life begins, all you have are feels and not any sort of factual claim that life does not begin at that point. And I don't actually care if it's alive. It's not a person. You can't murder something that isn't a person. Yeah, fuck that. It's not a person. I absolutely disagree with the idea that personhood begins at conception. And so are cancer cells. Cancer cells have DNA that is human, they are alive, and they are different from the person they are in. And you can't force a person to give up their organs to make sure someone else lives, so you should also not be forced to continue a pregnancy. They're not feels about when life begins. They're feels about when that life becomes a person. And until it can survive outside the womb, it's not a person. Honestly, I don't have a problem with aborting any fetus/whatever you want to call it at any time during which it is not viable, because it is not a person. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 16, 2022 21:11:26 GMT
And I don't actually care if it's alive. It's not a person. You can't murder something that isn't a person. In your opinion. Others have different opinions and in their opinion you can murder it before you feel that it's a person. And this is precisely why Roe needs to be overturned. You don't get to force your OPINION on what is or is not a person on others and neither do I. If you feel like it's not a person, vote that way or move to a state that agrees. Others who feel that it is a person will vote their way or move to a state where it is a person. This is a states rights issue. I was waiting for this False Equivalence to show up. Both sides are predictable with their fallacies. As I said earlier, I can draw a line from conception to death by old age and there isn't a spot on the line from 1 second after conception that you can break that line without ending the life of that person. Try that with cancer and see how far you get. Hint: Not far, because it's a False Equivalence. |
|
