The Abortion Thread

[Makavali]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Someone can be pro-choice while being against abortions personally.
Just like someone could be against trans fats but also be against regulating behaviors (banning TF in restaurants let say).[/quote]

Killing babies and eating trans fat is like the same thing. Great analogy.

Eating trans fat is not morally wrong. We should do good and avoid evil. Doing good can mean preventing evil to be done unto the defenseless.[/quote]

Do you not understand what an analogy is?

[Makavali]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Someone can be pro-choice while being against abortions personally.
[/quote]
False dichotomy. Whether or not you are for personal abortions is irreverent. If you are for the practice, you are pro-abortion. It’s binary.

Just like someone could be against trans fats but also be against regulating behaviors (banning TF in restaurants let say).

You are still pro-transfat, you just don’t want to consume them,

[quote]
Its all semantics anyway. Call it pro-choice and pro-taking away choice
With the logic process Pat is using there would be no such thing as a pro-life person that supported the death penalty for felons.[/quote]

The logic process pat is using is that abortion is murder. It’s a position you cannot disprove, whether you like it or not. The rest is a red herring, a diversion.
To be ‘pro-life’ you technically must be against the death penalty, which I am. But it does not matter, I am anti-abortion, as a least common denominator. [/quote]

The logic process pat and many anti-choicers on this board are using is the same as a two year old who sees the world in black and white.

Doesn’t work that way.

I didn’t make the rules.

[Makavali]

[quote]kamui wrote:
ok.
i can’t use the term “pro-choice”, because it’s a fallacious euphemism.
i can’t use the term “pro-abortion” because it starts multiple pages of false analogies and various semantical diversions.

So, from now on, i will use “pro-abortion-as-a-right” to describe most of you.
And “personally-anti-abortion-but-pro-abortion-as-a-right” to describe the rest.

Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V for the win

[/quote]

Or just use the term pro-choice, which is what it is.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
ok.
i can’t use the term “pro-choice”, because it’s a fallacious euphemism.
i can’t use the term “pro-abortion” because it starts multiple pages of false analogies and various semantical diversions.

So, from now on, i will use “pro-abortion-as-a-right” to describe most of you.
And “personally-anti-abortion-but-pro-abortion-as-a-right” to describe the rest.

Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V for the win

[/quote]

Pro-abortion in terms of this thread is just pro-abortion movement or pro-abortion rights but its easier to say the 1 word version. Or do you want to argue there is a difference?[/quote]

I’m not one to argue against semantics, because semantics matters. But, this just seems to be side-stepping the issue at this point, unless I’m missing the point. If I remember right, you believe that abortion is not morally wrong, so why wouldn’t you be pro-abortion. I believe wine and beer are morally neutral…I’m pro-wine and burr (not a big fan of the taste of wine, though).

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]

Same thing anymore. [/quote]

It’s not the same and you know this, so don’t be a little bitch like certain others on this board.[/quote]

I’m not the one whining like a stuck pig about what people call me.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Someone can be pro-choice while being against abortions personally.
Just like someone could be against trans fats but also be against regulating behaviors (banning TF in restaurants let say).[/quote]

Killing babies and eating trans fat is like the same thing. Great analogy.

Eating trans fat is not morally wrong. We should do good and avoid evil. Doing good can mean preventing evil to be done unto the defenseless.[/quote]

Do you not understand what an analogy is?[/quote]

Do you not understand what a bad analogy is?

[sufiandy]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
ok.
i can’t use the term “pro-choice”, because it’s a fallacious euphemism.
i can’t use the term “pro-abortion” because it starts multiple pages of false analogies and various semantical diversions.

So, from now on, i will use “pro-abortion-as-a-right” to describe most of you.
And “personally-anti-abortion-but-pro-abortion-as-a-right” to describe the rest.

Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V for the win

[/quote]

Pro-abortion in terms of this thread is just pro-abortion movement or pro-abortion rights but its easier to say the 1 word version. Or do you want to argue there is a difference?[/quote]

I’m not one to argue against semantics, because semantics matters. But, this just seems to be side-stepping the issue at this point, unless I’m missing the point. If I remember right, you believe that abortion is not morally wrong, so why wouldn’t you be pro-abortion. I believe wine and beer are morally neutral…I’m pro-wine and burr (not a big fan of the taste of wine, though). [/quote]

If someone told me they were “pro-wine”, I would just think they were weird. Accepted term for this political stance is not pro-abortion so lets not use it anymore.

[kamui]

the accepted term for “accepted term” is “politically correct term”.

[TigerTime]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Let’s say a man litters. Let’s say he is fined for his crime. Let’s say he doesn’t pay it. From there, he may receive a letter calling him to court. Let’s say he doesn’t show up. Perhaps he gets a few more letters, but eventually officers will be at his door to take him downtown personally. Let’s say he resists further, the officers will have to get forceful and if he resists any more they will have to shoot him.

This same line of reasoning applies to all crimes. If the police aren’t willing to violently and eventually lethally enforce the law, then all any criminal would have to do is resist up to that point and the law will back down. It is in this way that all laws are ultimately enforced by the threat of death. Without that, these ‘smaller punishments’ hold no power.

I don’t know where you live. But i do live in a democratic republic, not in a dictatorship or totalitarian country.
Here, the officers won’t use a gun if you don’t use a gun (or another weapon) first.
You’re not shot because you’re a criminal, but because you’re an imminent threat.

Moreover, each of your “let’s say” is another choice.
the “barrel of a gun” is not the consequence of “he choose to litters” here.
it’s the consequence of “he choose to forcefully resist”.

The gun is not involved because the man broke the law, but because he broke the social contract by putting himself above the law.
As long as you don’t do that, there is no gun involved in the legal process. At all.

In regard to abortion, whatever the punishment a woman will receive for aborting her child in a country where abortion is illegal, it will have to be backed by progressively worse punishments in order to force the woman into compliance. So, when you say she still has the choice to get an abortion under these circumstances, you’re right, she does, she has the choice to get an abortion or not to get an abortion… at the barrel of a gun.

That’s the same thing here :
She has the choice to get an abortion at the “cost” of a punishment, or not to get an abortion. No gun involved at this point.
The gun becomes involved if and only if she refuses to face the consequences of her choice, and make a long serie of other choices. The gun is the consequence of the last one.

Now that I’ve made the connection, I have a question for you; do you agree with this? That is, do you agree that, should this ‘criminal’ not comply with the punishment given (whatever it may be), is it justified for the punishment to eventually be termination, should the criminal persist and resist as much?[/quote]

In a republican context, yes, i do agree with this.
Anarchist rebels who try to shoot officers should be terminated.

I missed this earlier.

• Then it’s a matter of them turning you into a violent criminal, then shooting you. Yes, each “let’s say” is another choice. That’s the point I’m making. Each “choice” is backed by a progressively worse punishment until they have to kill you over it. Eventually, the only way to not comply is to violently defend yourself, to which the police will use as justification to get violent right back.

Maybe you think this guy deserves it for breaking a “social contract” (I don’t remember ever signing one of these, but whatever) or putting himself above the law, but that doesn’t change the fact that ultimately the punishment for not complying with the law is death.

• Pushing the gun back behind several progressively less ‘free’ choices doesn’t mean the guns aren’t there, they’re just hidden. The problem here is that this choice is not a free choice, well it is right now, but you don’t like that. It’s a choice that you want to see backed by an artificial punishment and you think if if these women absolutely refuse to be punished for not meeting your personal standards, then they should be killed. You say it’s a long series of choices, and in a way it is, but really it’s the same choice over and over again, it’s just that the threats get worse and worse until that choice becomes “accept the punishment or die”.

• And what if they’re only shooting at police because they don’t want to go to prison for smoking marijuana? – The assumption here is that he’s refused punishment as a form of protest until the point has been reached where he either violently defends himself himself or get hauled away forcefully.

[pat]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Someone can be pro-choice while being against abortions personally.
[/quote]
False dichotomy. Whether or not you are for personal abortions is irreverent. If you are for the practice, you are pro-abortion. It’s binary.

Just like someone could be against trans fats but also be against regulating behaviors (banning TF in restaurants let say).

You are still pro-transfat, you just don’t want to consume them,

[quote]
Its all semantics anyway. Call it pro-choice and pro-taking away choice
With the logic process Pat is using there would be no such thing as a pro-life person that supported the death penalty for felons.[/quote]

The logic process pat is using is that abortion is murder. It’s a position you cannot disprove, whether you like it or not. The rest is a red herring, a diversion.
To be ‘pro-life’ you technically must be against the death penalty, which I am. But it does not matter, I am anti-abortion, as a least common denominator. [/quote]

The logic process pat and many anti-choicers on this board are using is the same as a two year old who sees the world in black and white.

Doesn’t work that way.

I didn’t make the rules.[/quote]

All you’ve done is succeeded in elevating the logical prowess of 2 year-olds. If a 2 year old can figure it out, why can’t yall?

[pat]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I agree and I think pat is just performing mental gymnastics here so he can attack pro-choicers.
[/quote]

It’s the same thing as the people who make it a point to use the word “murder” whenever possible when talking about abortion. Dumb trick that only tries to play to peoples emotions and to appear as morally superior than your opponent.[/quote]

Fine, I will settle for the killing of a human life…Murder is just shorter, either is just honest.[/quote]

Just like the death penalty is the killing of a human life.[/quote]

Correct.

[pat]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I am playing mental gymnastics?[/quote]

Yes
[/quote]
That’s rich, I am not the one trying to attach pretty words to abominable practices. It is what it is.

[quote]pat wrote:
I cannot think of anything more retarded than saying you oppose it personally, but are for it for everybody else.[/quote]

Well I’m personally against eating yourself stupid and becoming 500lbs. I would go as far as saying it’s immoral to make yourself a burden on the system.

But because I’m against prohibiting such practises does not mean I’m Pro-obesity.

Lousy analogy. Getting fat and killing somebody other than yourself are very different things. I am not concerned with what people do to themselves, I am concerned what people, callously, do to others.

[quote]pat wrote:

This is human life we are talking about. It’s intrinsic worth is not a matter of opinion or which way the wind blows a particular day.

If you know it’s personally wrong, you know it’s wrong. This isn’t a personal choice though, it involves somebody else whose not being considered as worth even living. So it’s a choice for somebody else. [/quote]

Actually, what I think is wrong and what I think people should have a choice for are two different things. I think it’s wrong to cheat on one’s wife but I think people should have the choice to do so.

[quote]pat wrote:

If you won’t personally do it, you know it’s wrong, you’re just to chicken shit to take a stand for what’s right, because it may not be popular. Whoopie, somebody may not like you for speaking the truth! Wow, it may not be popular!

Shit or get off the pot. Abortion is right or it’s wrong. It’s not wrong for you and right for somebody else. It’s inconsistent at the very least.

I don’t need popularity or approval, the shit is murder and that shit is wrong.

Don’t like me? I guess I’ll try not to cry myself to sleep tonight.

This shit is weak.[/quote]

For the last time, not everything that is wrong is illegal. Stop conflating the two.

Killing is wrong and it is illegal already. Some immoral things, like killing, should be illegal. The law has established in many places already that killing an unborn child outside the confines of an abortion clinic will land your ass in prison for murder. So there is already a legal precedent set. I am not for legislation morality either, but killing should be outlawed as it already is.

[pat]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
False dichotomy. Whether or not you are for personal abortions is irreverent. If you are for the practice, you are pro-abortion. It’s binary.
[/quote]

Why?

Because you say so?[/quote]

That and because just because you don’t personally want to do something doesn’t mean you aren’t for it. Just because you don’t play the game doesn’t mean you don’t cheer for the team.

[pat]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Go over it again it is…

I am not pro-abortion. Do you want to eat pizza right now? No? Then I guess you’re anti-pizza. Do you see the problem with that? Just as I don’t try to forcefully stop women from getting abortion, I don’t avidly attempt to get them to have abortions either. To say I’m “pro-abortion” is a deliberate semantical manipulation of facts.
[/quote]
Incorrect. Man you sure know how to paint yourself into corners. This isn’t really hard. You are pro-abortion because you support the practice. You falling into the fallacy of false alternatives. Not wanting a pizza today, isn’t anti-pizza. Being against the existence of pizza is anti-pizza. You are pro-abortion because you support the existence of the practice and people right to use it. This is not a divisive term if you are for the practice of abortion.
The stupidity here is getting deep.

[quote]
The purpose of labels is to describe something constant. You consistently oppose abortion, you are anti abortion. You are not consistently pro life (as you’ve admitted there are such scenarios) so you are not pro life. Does that make you anti-life? No. That’s equally retarded, just in the opposite direction. So too is it the case that saying I’m pro-abortion is equally retarded as saying I’m anti-abortion. The fact of the matter is, neither one applies to me because the constant here isn’t my personal desire to see abortions either happen or not happen, but my desire to see the option left up to the mothers. The term for that is pro-choice.

If you don’t want to use that term, then fine. Feel free to use the term “pro-abortion” like the manipulative weasel you are, but in the interest of fairness I too will use an equally manipulative and misguiding term, anti-freedom. You oppose the freedom of choice when it comes to abortion, hence you are anti-freedom. It follows equally as well as your term.

You disagree? I can’t wait to hear why…[/quote]

Choosing to murder is not a tenet of freedom. Again, fallacy of false alternatives. Wake me when you have a point.[/quote]

I’m not for the practice of abortion, I’m for the option. Like how I’m not “for” boob-jobs (the surgery, not the other kind), but I am “for” the option. It’s only a difference in emphasise, granted, but if you insist on changing my title to suit your view, then you have no right to complain when I do the same. I can make the same argument you’re making for why you are anti-X as well.

You say I’m pro-abortion because I’m “for” the practice of abortion, but this is only true in some cases. I’m not “for” the practice of abortion when the mother wants the child. In that case I’m anti-abortion, because it would be involuntary. Am I anti-abortion now? No? Then your label lacks consistency.

The fact is we have two labels here; pro-choice and pro-abortion. Pro-abortion is only adequate to describe me when I’m for the option of abortion, it doesn’t make sense in the circumstances where I am not for abortion, which do come up believe it or not. However, I’m always pro-choice, so this is clearly the more accurate label and the only reason for you to pick the former over the later is if you have an agenda requiring semantical manipulation.

Fine, I’ll just call you anti-freedom then. are you always anti-freedom? No, but you are when it comes to people killing you, and using your logic if a label describes you some of the time, then that label is adequate. More adequate, in fact, than a label that describes your position with consistency. Therefore, you are actually more anti-freedom than you are anti-abortion.

The difference in accuracy of these two labels is the same as the difference in the two labels for my position and I’m so generous I even allow you to pick which set of rules we go by, but I’m not generous enough to be inconsistent for you, sorry.

Finally, freedom doesn’t end at the things you don’t like. If we only have freedom to the extent that we don’t do things you don’t like, then we don’t actually have freedom at all. You’re a catholic, so I know that idea doesn’t quite click with you, but having freedom means having the freedom to kill other people and if you don’t want to be killed, then you are anti-freedom at least to the extent that you don’t want other people killing you. Is calling you anti-freedom an accurate title given this? Fuck no, but then neither is calling me pro-abortion when I’m only “pro-abortion” to the extent that mothers willingly choose to exercise such a right. [/quote]

Quit while your behind, you’re pro-abortion. Grow a pair and deal. I am not “anti-freedom” because I don’t agree with the freedom to kill. Like I said ‘fallacy of false alternatives’… You’re trying so super hard for a ridiculous end. You can’t change what things are by sheer will. These things are not in your control.[/quote]

Wrong. You’re the try-hard here. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You are anti-freedom to the extent that your support for freedom stops at murder. How about you grow a pair and deal? Or are you all talk and no walk?

You don’t like this term? Fine, agree to my terms and I’ll agree to yours. I think it’s a fair deal, especially when I’ve shown your proposed label (pro-abortion) to be less accurate than my proposed label (pro-choice).

If terms that only apply part-time are adequate in your eyes, then anybody can be labelled as anything. You’ve defeated the purpose of labelling things with your nonsense.[/quote]

I don’t have to try… You’re the one all frazzled and hung up on labels and terminology, in order to sound less bad. Writing pages of tortured logic to support a phony label. It doesn’t bother me, not one bit… Whether you call me pro-life or anti-abortion or whatever, doesn’t actually matter. You can call me ‘Sally’ for all I care.

You’re pro-abortion, act like a man and own it.

[TigerTime]

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t have to try… You’re the one all frazzled and hung up on labels and terminology, in order to sound less bad. Writing pages of tortured logic to support a phony label. It doesn’t bother me, not one bit… Whether you call me pro-life or anti-abortion or whatever, doesn’t actually matter. You can call me ‘Sally’ for all I care.

You’re pro-abortion, act like a man and own it.[/quote]

If you’ll remember, I had non-semantic based arguments too, you just stopped responding to them and instead focused on this.

I agree to your terms. I’ll be pro-abortion and you’ll be anti-freedom.

Now can we continue, Sally?

[sufiandy]

[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t have to try… You’re the one all frazzled and hung up on labels and terminology, in order to sound less bad.
[/quote]

So is it fair to say, you’re all frazzled and hung up on labels and terminology in order to make your opponent sound more bad?

[storey420]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Someone can be pro-choice while being against abortions personally.
Just like someone could be against trans fats but also be against regulating behaviors (banning TF in restaurants let say).[/quote]

Killing babies and eating trans fat is like the same thing. Great analogy.

Eating trans fat is not morally wrong. We should do good and avoid evil. Doing good can mean preventing evil to be done unto the defenseless.[/quote]

Do you not understand what an analogy is?[/quote]

Do you not understand what a bad analogy is? [/quote]

Eating it may not be but I do think the companies putting into our food supply are doing something they are well aware of and it is morally wrong. I think we should defend everyone by banning it outright personally but I also recognize the right to choice.

It doesnt really matter though its all semantics, the root of the whole thing is I dont think that human life magically begins at conception, I think before it develops into an embryo it is not a human, so before such time (as best I can tell up to about 3-4 weeks before its anywhere near resembling a human) I’m not barring another adult human from making a serious choice that they will have to deal with the rest of their life no matter how much against it I may be, bottom line.

[pat]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t have to try… You’re the one all frazzled and hung up on labels and terminology, in order to sound less bad. Writing pages of tortured logic to support a phony label. It doesn’t bother me, not one bit… Whether you call me pro-life or anti-abortion or whatever, doesn’t actually matter. You can call me ‘Sally’ for all I care.

You’re pro-abortion, act like a man and own it.[/quote]

If you’ll remember, I had non-semantic based arguments too, you just stopped responding to them and instead focused on this.

I agree to your terms. I’ll be pro-abortion and you’ll be anti-freedom.

Now can we continue, Sally? [/quote]

Prove I am anti-freedom.

[pat]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t have to try… You’re the one all frazzled and hung up on labels and terminology, in order to sound less bad.
[/quote]

So is it fair to say, you’re all frazzled and hung up on labels and terminology in order to make your opponent sound more bad?[/quote]

No. I don’t have to try to make my opponents sound bad, they are doing an ample job of that without me.

[kamui]

[quote]
I missed this earlier.

• Then it’s a matter of them turning you into a violent criminal, then shooting you. Yes, each “let’s say” is another choice. That’s the point I’m making. Each “choice” is backed by a progressively worse punishment until they have to kill you over it. Eventually, the only way to not comply is to violently defend yourself, to which the police will use as justification to get violent right back.

Maybe you think this guy deserves it for breaking a “social contract” (I don’t remember ever signing one of these, but whatever) or putting himself above the law, but that doesn’t change the fact that ultimately the punishment for not complying with the law is death.

• Pushing the gun back behind several progressively less ‘free’ choices doesn’t mean the guns aren’t there, they’re just hidden. The problem here is that this choice is not a free choice, well it is right now, but you don’t like that. It’s a choice that you want to see backed by an artificial punishment and you think if if these women absolutely refuse to be punished for not meeting your personal standards, then they should be killed. You say it’s a long series of choices, and in a way it is, but really it’s the same choice over and over again, it’s just that the threats get worse and worse until that choice becomes “accept the punishment or die”.

• And what if they’re only shooting at police because they don’t want to go to prison for smoking marijuana? – The assumption here is that he’s refused punishment as a form of protest until the point has been reached where he either violently defends himself himself or get hauled away forcefully. [/quote]

-you have no right to “not comply” to the law. Because it’s the law. By definition.
-no one turn you into a violent criminal. If you do, it’s your choice, and your fault.
-laws are not “personal standards”.

that being said, you’re right : if we legalize everything, violent crime would instantly disappear.