86 replies to this topic

[JKT]

Talk about abortion here, and for gosh sakes please keep it civil.

I'm all for people making their own choices, but this is one I have a really hard time coming to a solid stance on. I used to say "hell, live and let die" about the issue, but then a friend of mine brought up a very compelling point. Here's a brief synopsis.

Say a woman was going to a clinic to have an abortion, but some homicidal maniac shot her dead as she was approaching the door. The perpetrator would face two murder charges: one for the woman, and one for her unborn child (see here). Whereas if the woman had made it in unharmed, the unborn child would have been disposed of in a quiet and legal manner.

While this is approaching the topic from more of a factual rather than moral perspective, it still seems like an enormous fallacy. If we value it as a human life for purposes of prosecution, then why not from a medical standpoint?

I in no way intend to instill guilt in those who are pro-choice, as I can see practical applications for abortion (eg: rape victims).

[urvile]

Talk about abortion here, and for gosh sakes please keep it civil.

Yeah, that's going to happen

I give this thread 3 days TOPS

[arise_shine]

I think the problem is in trying to make black & white rules about something that is so not black & white. It's pretty clear to me that considering any sperm-and-egg combo a human being with full legal rights is pretty stupid. But it's also pretty clear to me that aborting a perfectly healthy and sentient 8.9-month fetus is pretty stupid (unless it's for the health of the mother). But ... where's the line? Is there one that isn't completely arbitrary (two months? heartbeat? brain waves?)?

Like was mentioned in the Religion thread, anyone who thinks there's some hard and fast rule is either delusional or arrogant (or both?).

[Eric Dude]

Fuck this thread and fuck you.

There, civility is already out the window!

[JKT]

Fuck this thread and fuck you.

There, civility is already out the window!

Wow... ignore a couple SSFIV invites and look what happens.

TheShizz is way too immature for this thread, apparently.

[TV's Frink]

Fuck this thread and fuck you.

There, civility is already out the window!

I lol'd.

[Spookmeister C]

[Tim 200X]

One side: Abortion is murder!

Other side: Women have the right to choose!

repeat ad nauseum.

/thread

[JKT]

I like how everyone is shitting on this thread, but you guys had no problem carrying on page-long diatribes about it in the 420 discussion.

I guess abortion discourses are fine and good here-- but god help you if you're not off-topic.

[Klatrymadon]

I refuse to acknowledge subjectivity and personhood before the age of 40.

[raubhimself]

I like how everyone is shitting on this thread, but you guys had no problem carrying on page-long diatribes about it in the 420 discussion.

I guess abortion discourses are fine and good here-- but god help you if you're not off-topic.

Don't get all bent out of shape about it. Nobody's shitting on it or anything like that. Things like that flare up, people are bored at work or whatever. We either get it out of our system or get sick of it. At least that's how I am and I assume others are.

And honestly I'd rather have an abortion topic that goes way off course into humor land than one that's just pages and pages of the same arguments over and over, but that's just me

[JKT]

I like how everyone is shitting on this thread, but you guys had no problem carrying on page-long diatribes about it in the 420 discussion.

I guess abortion discourses are fine and good here-- but god help you if you're not off-topic.

Don't get all bent out of shape about it. Nobody's shitting on it or anything like that. Things like that flare up, people are bored at work or whatever. We either get it out of our system or get sick of it. At least that's how I am and I assume others are.

And honestly I'd rather have an abortion topic that goes way off course into humor land than one that's just pages and pages of the same arguments over and over, but that's just me

I just decided to give people a designated place to post about it so they didn't have to derail countless other threads. I guess people are pretty indignant about that kind of thing.

The greatest irony here is that even an abortion thread that essentially has nothing to do with abortion has created so much ill will. I should never have dabbled

[Spookmeister C]

I like how everyone is shitting on this thread, but you guys had no problem carrying on page-long diatribes about it in the 420 discussion.

I was going to ask how the hell abortions were brought up again on The Shizz of all places but I assumed it was spawned from another wacky debate thread that I gave up on back when it started. I'm so smart.

[Rize]

Alright, here you go:


continued from the 420 thread on the minibosses board: http://theshizz.org/...ost__p__1055365 (edit: link corrected)

In a perfect world, instead of abortion, a fetus would be separated from the mother and raised on machines until it can survive on its own (at which point it would be put up for adoption if the father doesn't want it either). Until we reach that point of technology though, I think abortion ought to be legal.

haha what? that doesn't sound like a perfect world. wtf? that sounds horrible.

What would be so horrible about allowing a mother to terminate a pregnancy whenever a woman wants on the condition that the child's development be continued in an artificial womb? Naturally, in my ideal world this procedure would be perfectly safe. Once the technology gets there, I imagine this will be the compromise between women who insist on the right to terminate a pregnancy (a reasonable right to have) and people who insist that human life begins at conception (a reasonable belief to have).

abortion is not murder. and if you are going to frame a debate in that way that it's not a debate i want to be involved in.

and fyi we do let individuals decide to murder people. they are called soldiers.

Right.. not acknowledging the diverse population... that's why he wants to return as much power from federal to state governments as possible.

this makes no sense to me. he's not acknowledging the diverse population by vowing to end personal/individual choice for women. doesn't matter if he's saying its federal vs state. it's still government meddling in your individual choice for your personal health care. how can a government (big or small, federal or state) anticipate what will happen to each and every woman when it comes to their reproductive systems in the united states?

I never said abortion was murder. I said it's murder if you believe that human life begins at conception. Personally, I don't think that really matters. What I think matters is protecting the rights of individuals and minimizing the suffering of conscious beings (two sides of the same coin really). I don't think a developing human can be considered an individual until they've at least developed a nervous system and a brain.

you mean for illegal immigrants

no for "legal" ones too. if he's against birthright citizenship he's against people who are born in this country. in arizona we just had our state senate president try to take away birthright citizenship for (brown) people born in the United States. for some fucked up (xenophobic/racist) reasons this is an issue to conservatives, taking away citizenship from legal U.S. citizens. it's actually rooted in scaring whitey so they focus their anger and misery of a failed democracy on anyone but the very people that made the mess.

You had written: "he's still against birthright citizenship and amnesty for immigrants (i.e. hispanic people, he's ok on it if it's white european immigrants)". The suggestion that Ron Paul is racist in the second sentence is completely uncalled for (unless you have some real evidence) and is what motivated my reply. So you're saying Ron Paul supports birthright citizenship and amnesty for legal and illegal European immigrants?

Here's Ron Paul's actual position on birthrate citizenship: http://www.lewrockwe...ul/paul346.html

It appears he supports it in the case of people who are already American citizens, end of story. I don't see anything about a white/European exception.

If you're going to discuss the abortion issue in a manner that's helpful to your cause, you need to chill out a bit and use reasonable rhetoric.

he's co-authored the Sanctity of Life bill that recognizes "personhood" at conception, meaning anyone who has a miscarriage or loses their pregnancy against their will could be charged with homicide.

this is a bit hysterical don't you think? I'd be shocked if your worst case scenario came about even with this bill passed and abortion outlawed in every state. to be charged with homicide, a prosecutor would have to show negligence or intent (assuming laws weren't crafted to make this kind of charge impossible). Meanwhile, how much damage does the war on drugs cause? How many deaths? Let's put that on the scales and take the lesser of two evils (i.e. supporting Ron Paul)

you're absolutely right it is hysterical but that's how zealous and over-reaching anti-choice/freedom people are. and if you dont think that can be a reality, look around you:
Abortion Foes Push to Redefine Personhood
"The bill is written so broadly that it could easily impact other major life decisions in reproductive health care, including birth control and emergency contraception,"
These proposals would ban abortion in all cases, including incest and rape, and criminalize some forms of contraception.
What is certain is that "personhood" measures would provoke many years of legal battles in legislatures and courts, ensnaring women and their partners and doctors in expensive, time-consuming, and potentially liberty-infringing civil or criminal proceedings.
Alabama Alliance Against Abortion Director James Henderson is encouraging the Republican-controlled legislature to dust off a pre-Civil War statute that would make aiding and abetting abortion a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail. That is, if you drive someone to get an abortion in Alabama, you could go to jail.

I know what the most extreme abortion foes want, but I don't think they're going to get it. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure marijuana will be legalized relatively soon.

Personhood bills intend to enshrine into law what I call the male-centric view of baby-making, the belief that a man creates a baby by ejaculating and that a woman’s contribution of nine months of pregnancy and childbirth are just a delivery system for the man’s efforts.

Men and women have roughly the same opinion on abortion law, and in fact more women than men think it should be outlawed completely. It's easy to understand why. Men have nearly as strong an incentive to keep abortion legal as women (although for different reasons I'm sure).

http://en.wikipedia....y.2C_and_region

Your male-centric spiel is pretty much a straw man. No doubt there was a time in human history where some (or even most) men believed precisely what you say, but I'm pretty sure most of us are now aware that the man and woman each contribute 50% of the genetic material. After that point, the woman quite obviously is a "baby incubator" if you want to be insensitive about it. And I think that's the main reason abortion is mostly legal and not even severely restricted right now and will very likely stay that way even if Ron Paul was elected.

[Tim 200X]

I think you had proper motivation to create this thread. I guess I shouldn't let my being jaded on the subject prevent anyone else from debating it, if that's what you choose to do. Carry on.