First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Abortion: serious & painful ...or no big deal
2029 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

karatecowboy wrote:


MemeMaker wrote:


Their body? The baby inside of the mother isn't the mother. The baby, is it's own person. Why should she decide wether or not another human lives or dies?


I commend you for your efforts to advance human rights. Just keep in mind: when today they say "Why are people so concerned with what others do with their body?" you're dealing with the same bigoted mentality of people before the Civil War when they expressed, with sincere curiosity: "Why are people so concerned what others do with their property?" Of course, the "property" to which they referred were other human beings. But that is the nature of bigotry: to not see others as fellow humans. That's why they refer to them as "worthless clumps of flesh", and when you point out the scientific fact that a new human exists at conception, they start making bigoted appeals about "cognitive development" and "full persons", much as white supremacists did about blacks and Jews in the early 1900's and late 1800's. It's the same progressive bigotry, just a different class of human on the receiving end.

So, if you don't see any progress, remind yourself of the sheer magnitude of what you're dealing with.


Alight, alright. I admit you've bested me this time. But that doesn't mean I'll look at abortion as justified.
5175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / The Cat Empire
Offline
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

Ocale wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Yep, take a life get a card or some shit like that.


We could give cards to kids that are born into or abandoned by families that do not want the child, instead, if that's any better.


Yes!

11000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

MemeMaker wrote:


Alight, alright. I admit you've bested me this time. But that doesn't mean I'll look at abortion as justified.


Erm, I didn't mean to best you. Not sure what you mean.
1909 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sacramento, CA
Online
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

karatecowboy wrote:


MemeMaker wrote:


Alight, alright. I admit you've bested me this time. But that doesn't mean I'll look at abortion as justified.


Erm, I didn't mean to best you. Not sure what you mean.


Your point was made so poorly, he didn't get it.
11000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

DrunkKanti wrote:


He keeps outdoing himself. Bravo sir!


Is there something you find humorous about dehumanizing others? Or, maybe, you just disagree with science when it says a new human individual exists at conception? Or, maybe, you think human rights are bullshit? In any case, I don't see the punchline.
19020 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

karatecowboy wrote:


mramisuzuki wrote:


Lance_Clemings wrote:

I wonder when people will stop caring about what other people do to their own bodies.

~snip


Maybe when legal bias against men in both cases are gone?



You win at hottest avatar on the forums. I completely empathize with your username.


Ha thanks.

I would like to add on your other thought.

Margaret Sanger was quite the eugenicist. One less Irish, Italian, or Black out there was all part of the game.
2029 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

karatecowboy wrote:


MemeMaker wrote:


Alight, alright. I admit you've bested me this time. But that doesn't mean I'll look at abortion as justified.


Erm, I didn't mean to best you. Not sure what you mean.


You have stated your side of the argument in a much more nonpartisan way. Even though your argument was biased, mine however was 100% set on my own thoughts and therefore biased AF. Therefore I believe you have bested me.
11000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

MemeMaker wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:


MemeMaker wrote:


Alight, alright. I admit you've bested me this time. But that doesn't mean I'll look at abortion as justified.


Erm, I didn't mean to best you. Not sure what you mean.


You have stated your side of the argument in a much more nonpartisan way. Even though your argument was biased, mine however was 100% set on my own thoughts and therefore biased AF. Therefore I believe you have bested me.


Ah OK. Well, just to be sure: we're in agreement on human rights for the unborn. I fully support them.
11000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

mramisuzuki wrote:




Margaret Sanger was quite the eugenicist. One less Irish, Italian, or Black out there was all part of the game.


Yup. Planned Parenthood would have Hitler's envy, could he see it today.
1909 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sacramento, CA
Online
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

karatecowboy wrote:


DrunkKanti wrote:


He keeps outdoing himself. Bravo sir!


Is there something you find humorous about dehumanizing others? Or, maybe, you just disagree with science when it says a new human individual exists at conception? Or, maybe, you think human rights are bullshit? In any case, I don't see the punchline.


Associating abortion with slavery and lynching black people is ridiculous at its core. If you can't see that, then I don't have anything else to say to you. Trying to convince you of anything would only be a waste of my time.
11000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

DrunkKanti wrote:]

Associating abortion with slavery and lynching black people is ridiculous at its core. If you can't see that, then I don't have anything else to say to you. Trying to convince you of anything would only be a waste of my time.


Calling an argument ridiculous is irrational; it's a logical fallacy. If something is "ridiculous" it is, quite literally, worthy of ridicule. That means you're not refuting an argument, you're just making fun of it. Your refutation is, in different words: "That idea is OK to make fun of"

Honestly though, I'd rather carry the guilt of lynching some black guy than of murdering my own kid, because at least it's someone else's flesh and blood, not mine. They say "cursed is the kinslayer" for a reason. The lyncher is seriously a better person than the woman who murders her own. Not only that, but the opposite of love isn't hatred like the lyncher has: it's apathy as the abortive mother has.

In both cases, however, you're dealing with the bigoted dehumanization of someone, and the denial of basic human and civil rights. So no, it's not ridiculous; it's quite objectively similar.
55125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M
Offline
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

lorreen wrote:


JanusCascade wrote:

I would think if they go though this, it'll be lifetime regret!

She would be thinking the years that kid could be and what their life would be like.


No.

I imagine that might sometimes happen, but I don't know why you would assume it was the usual case.

Have you known any women who you know have had abortions? Have they shared their thoughts about it with you?

I have known some of those women and some of them have shared their thoughts about it with me. None of them thought it was "nothing" but none of them had "lifetime regrets." It was a decision made seriously after some consideration and was not a choice they took lightly. But they decided it was the best option for them at the time, and moved on, and didn't regret.


The woman was talking about it, I can't remember if it from Dr. Phil show or one of those reality show.. She said thanks god that she didn't go though the abortion, and was saying how she'll feel if she did.. that she'll think about the birthday, first step, first day at school.. about kid life etc.

Also I remember watching the movie, that this woman just pretend it didn't happen but the past keep showing up in her mind..

My Mother got rape by my father when he was drunk and she had thought about Abortion, But she told me she glad she didn't. I was born size of Walnut. I got lucky I didn't lose anything, was healthy.

I assumed it, I was thinking about how they feel...and it got to be hard.. I'm sure it was their toughest choices in life.
24142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

karatecowboy wrote:


DrunkKanti wrote:]

Associating abortion with slavery and lynching black people is ridiculous at its core. If you can't see that, then I don't have anything else to say to you. Trying to convince you of anything would only be a waste of my time.


Calling an argument ridiculous is irrational; it's a logical fallacy. If something is "ridiculous" it is, quite literally, worthy of ridicule. That means you're not refuting an argument, you're just making fun of it. Your refutation is, in different words: "That idea is OK to make fun of"

Honestly though, I'd rather carry the guilt of lynching some black guy than of murdering my own kid, because at least it's someone else's flesh and blood, not mine. They say "cursed is the kinslayer" for a reason. The lyncher is seriously a better person than the woman who murders her own. Not only that, but the opposite of love isn't hatred like the lyncher has: it's apathy as the abortive mother has.

In both cases, however, you're dealing with the bigoted dehumanization of someone, and the denial of basic human and civil rights. So no, it's not ridiculous; it's quite objectively similar.


I think there is a problem with drawing a moral claim from a scientific fact, an ought to from an what is. It may very well be alive, but I think in order to attack the notion that it is wrong to do so, the first step would to attack the inconsistently of some moral guidelines, such as those against the death penalty, or such.

In any case, it is alive, I suppose. The philosophical approach I imagine is different in regards to interpretation of worth, experience of life versus that outside, etc.

runec 
36337 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/26/17 , edited 2/26/17

GrandMasterTime wrote:
So I'm not saying that you don't want this to happen but you don't want this to happen?


If you're not saying that I don't want this to happen you wouldn't have asked this question to begin with. -.-

Saying there's no chance of something happening isn't rendering approval/disapproval of that thing happening. There's no chance I'd win the lottery but that doesn't mean I'm saying it wouldn't be nice if I did.



PeripheralVisionary wrote:
The philosophical approach I imagine is different in regards to interpretation of worth, experience of life versus that outside, etc.


Well, a big problem with taking a moral approach is asking "Whose morals?". Pro-life in the west is rooted considerably in an argument of western religious values. It has a pretty prevalent attitude of moral superiority to it. An appeal to absolute moral high ground.

But its just as easy to shift that if, philosophically or morally speaking, you see suffering ( a more Buddhist view for example ) as the penultimate factor of human existence instead of life itself. In which case, your view of morality would be what avoids or alleviates the most suffering and thus grants the most mercy. That viewpoint looks at the "after" picture beyond birth and quality of life ( or lack there of ) of those involved.

Which is a big reason pro-life in the west faces criticism. There is an overall theme ( morally and politically ) that the value of the life in question only extends till it's born. Those that push most rabidly for TRAP laws for example rarely have any similar level of zealotry for maternity leave, childcare or education and typically also align with an opposition to social welfare.

There's little will to address the problems that led to or will emerge from an unwanted pregnancy. If not active effort, intentional or unintentional, to make those problems even worse. You can't scream about every life being precious then turn around and oppose sex education, access to contraception, maternity leave, childcare and social welfare. You can't continue to push beliefs and policies that are scientifically proven to increase unwanted pregnancies while likewise fighting to restrict choices for dealing with unwanted pregnancies.

Which is why I continue to hold the opinion that if pro-life was actually interested in reducing abortion ( instead of religious crusading or slut shaming ) or the welfare of children they would be pro-choice.




24142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 2/26/17

runec wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:
So I'm not saying that you don't want this to happen but you don't want this to happen?


If you're not saying that I don't want this to happen you wouldn't have asked this question to begin with. -.-

Saying there's no chance of something happening isn't rendering approval/disapproval of that thing happening. There's no chance I'd win the lottery but that doesn't mean I'm saying it wouldn't be nice if I did.



PeripheralVisionary wrote:
The philosophical approach I imagine is different in regards to interpretation of worth, experience of life versus that outside, etc.


Well, a big problem with taking a moral approach is asking "Whose morals?". Pro-life in the west is rooted considerably in an argument of western religious values. It has a pretty prevalent attitude of moral superiority to it. An appeal to absolute moral high ground.

But its just as easy to shift that if, philosophically or morally speaking, you see suffering ( a more Buddhist view for example ) as the penultimate factor of human existence instead of life itself. In which case, your view of morality would be what avoids or alleviates the most suffering and thus grants the most mercy. That viewpoint looks at the "after" picture beyond birth and quality of life ( or lack there of ) of those involved.

Which is a big reason pro-life in the west faces criticism. There is an overall theme ( morally and politically ) that the value of the life in question only extends till it's born. Those that push most rabidly for TRAP laws for example rarely have any similar level of zealotry for maternity leave, childcare or education and typically also align with an opposition to social welfare.

There's little will to address the problems that led to or will emerge from an unwanted pregnancy. If not active effort, intentional or unintentional, to make those problems even worse. You can't scream about every life being precious then turn around and oppose sex education, access to contraception, maternity leave, childcare and social welfare. You can't continue to push beliefs and policies that are scientifically proven to increase unwanted pregnancies while likewise fighting to restrict choices for dealing with unwanted pregnancies.

Which is why I continue to hold the opinion that if pro-life was actually interested in reducing abortion ( instead of religious crusading or slut shaming ) or the welfare of children they would be pro-choice.






In terms of whose morals, I would say decide your own.

Though in response, there is no problem with taking a moral response. That is the problem. My main criticism at Karate was that, one cannot take a scientific fact and deem it moral, or support a moral claim with just facts; you can extrapolate moral claims based on facts, or none at all. The moral claims are subjective, and require a reasoning far beyond what is, but what we should do in regards to it.

I wasn't arguing for or against abortion, due to working out a logically consistent set of morals, I just thought it was stupid to tout just a fact as evidence or reason, or the supposition that scientists agree with him in large numbers due to this fact.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.