NationStates Jolt Archive

You're LG; you're certifiably insane, so your opinion matters because the doctors need it in order to give you the right medicine. ;)

:eek: AAAHHH!!! MEDS! *runs*

No, they need the rest of the body to survive. They too are a part of the body. Really people, self-body recognition shouldn't be so hard, but I supposed once you started from a bad premise you were forced to argue from that position...
Ah, but you don't see anything morally wrong with someone chopping off their fingers, presumably. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with suicide, even, in a moral sense only of course. So, why do you have a problem with abortion, when it's clearly part of the mother? :p

QFT.

LG and I are in the same boat.



eww........why's it muddy in here?!

Opps... sorry about that! I opened the wrong canal gate!

*looks around and finds Lower NSG Ward, home of the Trolls to be severely flodded* Opps!

QFT.

LG and I are in the same boat.



eww........why's it muddy in here?!

<_<

>_>

I don't know.

*shuffles feet awkwardly*

...
Obviously, I have an opinion, beliefs, moral guidelines and voices in my head that tell me right from wrong. They're even correct from time to time. But they're mine. They guide ME. I don't like abortions (slavery) . I believe that every aborted fetus (Slave) is the loss of a potential Einstein, DaVinci or Dave Thomas. I'll even share that opinion if asked. But who the fuck am I to decide that abortions (Slavery) are wrong for anybody else? What makes my opinion so special?
...

Straight out of the pro-slavery argument guidebook for what to say against the northern states abolutionists... :rolleyes:

QFT.

LG and I are in the same boat.



eww........why's it muddy in here?!
Are you sure it's mud? Perhaps it's just what some people here have...

Never mind. I won't finish that sentence.

Ah, but you don't see anything morally wrong with someone chopping off their fingers, presumably. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with suicide, even, in a moral sense only of course. So, why do you have a problem with abortion, when it's clearly part of the mother? :p

A part of the mother? Really?

Well, if that argument holds water then I supposed we need to lock these people up for their own protection, self induced mutilation is a psychotic condition, they need help.

Masturbation is manslaughter!

Straight out of the pro-slavery argument guidebook for what to say against the northern states abolutionists... :rolleyes:

Even though one of the amended lines says that:

I don't like abortions (slavery) .

So, they would have told the northern states abolitionists that they too hates slavery? :rolleyes:

While the last line works, this one does, not does the one after.

A part of the mother? Really?

Well, if that argument holds water then I supposed we need to lock these people up for their own protection, self induced mutilation is a pschotic condition, they need help.

Misspelling of psychotic is a sure sign of mental instability. Your parents were'nt cousins were they?

Masturbation is manslaughter!

Well, it took 34 pages, but someone finally had the guts to say it.

Straight out of the pro-slavery argument guidebook for what to say against the northern states abolutionists... :rolleyes:

Interesting argument. That's where consensus comes in. Now, for better or worse, consensus did not favor the abolition of slavery in the United States for quite some time. In fact, consensus didn't favor slaves even having the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They didn't have equal rights as a minority because the consensus didn't recognize their existence as a consitutionally protecte minority. Obviously we know that's wrongheaded. But back then, it took a consensus to change that from opinion to law. Once it became the consensus in the United States that All Men Are Created Equal, regardless of ancestry, and the Constitution was applied, everything that followed up until the present simply became academic. The evolution of the consensus.

Perhaps one day, a unviable fetus will be seen as a human being. Perhaps one day, the right of a human being to survive will trump the right of a human being to control one's own body. That'll be fun, because people waiting for kidney donations will be able to legally bonk people on the head with a baseball bat, steal a kidney and they can claim 'right to life' in court. :)

But without the consensus, a unviable fetus is not a human being. It's rights do not trump the right to control one's own body. And to be honest, as interesting as life would become, I hope that consensus doesn't change.

Masturbation is manslaughter!

Well, it took 34 pages, but someone finally had the guts to say it.

Damn now I'm a criminal pobably among the U.K's most wanted! :D

Who the fuck are you?

See, that's one of the first questions I ask myself when I think of something that other people should or shouldn't be allowed to do; I ask myself, 'Who the fuck am I?'.

Obviously, I have an opinion, beliefs, moral guidelines and voices in my head that tell me right from wrong. They're even correct from time to time. But they're mine. They guide ME. I don't like abortions. I believe that every aborted fetus is the loss of a potential Einstein, DaVinci or Dave Thomas. I'll even share that opinion if asked. But who the fuck am I to decide that abortions are wrong for anybody else? What makes my opinion so special?

And so I ask that of you; Who the fuck are you? What makes your opinion so special that it deserves the weight of law?
So I take it you have little problem (other then that of your opinion) with murder, rape etc. So long as it's not done to you. You also them must have really big problems with all the laws against such things. After all, even if people feel they're wrong, it's just their opinion and who the fuck are they?

Yeah that kind logic would work nice in the real world...

Next!

Yeah that kind logic would work nice in the real world...
But this isn't the real world. This is NSG; you need a different type of logic to survive here.

So I take it you have little problem (other then that of your opinion) with murder, rape etc. So long as it's not done to you. You also them must have really big problems with all the laws against such things. After all, even if people feel they're wrong, it's just their opinion and who the fuck are they?

Yeah that kind logic would work nice in the real world...

Next!

I don't think you get to lecture people on logic. :p

So I take it you have little problem (other then that of your opinion) with murder, rape etc. So long as it's not done to you. You also them must have really big problems with all the laws against such things. After all, even if people feel they're wrong, it's just their opinion and who the fuck are they?

Yeah that kind logic would work nice in the real world...

Next!

That's where consensus comes in, my fine fettered friend.

If the consensus is that murder is wrong(as I believe is the case unless you're a soldier, a policeman or your victim is gay), then if you commit murder, the police will lock you up. You will go to trial and if found guilty you will either spend a long time in jail or get voted off the island of life.

Right and Wrong are a matter of perspective.
Legal and Illegal are a matter of consensus. And there is the difference between murder and abortion.

Who the fuck are you?

See, that's one of the first questions I ask myself when I think of something that other people should or shouldn't be allowed to do; I ask myself, 'Who the fuck am I?'.

Obviously, I have an opinion, beliefs, moral guidelines and voices in my head that tell me right from wrong. They're even correct from time to time. But they're mine. They guide ME. I don't like abortions. I believe that every aborted fetus is the loss of a potential Einstein, DaVinci or Dave Thomas. I'll even share that opinion if asked. But who the fuck am I to decide that abortions are wrong for anybody else? What makes my opinion so special?

And so I ask that of you; Who the fuck are you? What makes your opinion so special that it deserves the weight of law?
For me, it's pretty much all about the idea that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.

I believe that I do not have any rights that over-ride your rights to your own body. I do not have the "right" to use your body in any way that you don't consent to, no matter how much I want or need to do so. You don't have the right to use my body in any way I don't consent to, no matter how much you need or want to do so.

If I have a "right to life," it does not include the right to use another person's body to prolong my life or health against their wishes.

This is why I support the right to abortion even if we choose to recognize a fetus as a full human person. I don't believe that any human person has any "right to life" that includes the right to use another person's body against their wishes. So no fetus would have the "right" to use a woman's body to sustain its own life against the wishes of that woman.

If I require a kidney to survive, my "right to life" does not include the right to bonk you over the head and take your kidney. If I require a blood transfusion to survive, I must use donations from willing donors rather than simply taking what I want from anybody who happens along.

I believe that ALL PEOPLE are entitled to this respect. Even women. Even children, who aren't legally allowed to make most of their medical decisions in the first place. Even illegal immigrants. Even convicted criminals. I believe that all people have the right to decide how their own body will be used.

For me, it's pretty much all about the idea that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.

I believe that I do not have any rights that over-ride your rights to your own body. I do not have the "right" to use your body in any way that you don't consent to, no matter how much I want or need to do so. You don't have the right to use my body in any way I don't consent to, no matter how much you need or want to do so.

If I have a "right to life," it does not include the right to use another person's body to prolong my life or health against their wishes.

This is why I support the right to abortion even if we choose to recognize a fetus as a full human person. I don't believe that any human person has any "right to life" that includes the right to use another person's body against their wishes. So no fetus would have the "right" to use a woman's body to sustain its own life against the wishes of that woman.

If I require a kidney to survive, my "right to life" does not include the right to bonk you over the head and take your kidney. If I require a blood transfusion to survive, I must use donations from willing donors rather than simply taking what I want from anybody who happens along.

I believe that ALL PEOPLE are entitled to this respect. Even women. Even children, who aren't legally allowed to make most of their medical decisions in the first place. Even illegal immigrants. Even convicted criminals. I believe that all people have the right to decide how their own body will be used.

FEMNAZI!!! :mad:


:D

:p

;)

That's where consensus comes in, my fine fettered friend.

If the consensus is that murder is wrong(as I believe is the case unless you're a soldier, a policeman or your victim is gay), then if you commit murder, the police will lock you up. You will go to trial and if found guilty you will either spend a long time in jail or get voted off the island of life.
So much for the idea of human rights in your world I guess then..


Right and Wrong are a matter of perspective.
Legal and Illegal are a matter of consensus. And there is the difference between murder and abortion.
Wait, wait, wait! Your using a relativist argument and arguing an absolutist point?! :rolleyes:

Wait, wait, wait! Your using a relativist argument and arguing an absolutist point?! :rolleyes:
Erm, it's not "relativist." It is an objective fact that abortion and murder are not the same thing. Abortion is the unlawful killing of a human person. Given that abortion is legal in many places, it is not inherently murder. Therefore, abortion =/= murder. Factually speaking.

So much for the idea of human rights in your world I guess then..



Wait, wait, wait! Your using a relativist argument and arguing an absolutist point?! :rolleyes:

Right or wrong, we have the rights the consensus says we have. Hence difficulties with the public accepting gay marriage. As senseless as it is to say that two men have less right to enter into a legal contract than a man and a woman do, or that the christian rite of marriage is more legitimate than any other, that's the consensus. Fortunately, the consensus on gay rights is on the balancing point right now, and like civil rights and women's rights, once the momentum gets going, everything else that follows will be academic.

Erm, it's not "relativist." It is an objective fact that abortion and murder are not the same thing. Abortion is the unlawful killing of a human person. Given that abortion is legal in many places, it is not inherently murder. Therefore, abortion =/= murder. Factually speaking.
You know what meant damn it. I was talking about his overall argument. And I didn't take the last part (murder) as meaning literal. I took it in more of a general way. (Murder, killing, ending a human life etc.) If I was wrong then sorry.

You know what meant damn it. I was talking about his overall argument. And I didn't take the last part (murder) as meaning literal. I took it in more of a general way. (Murder, killing, ending a human life etc.) If I was wrong then sorry.
Fair enough. :D

Ah, live and let live.

You disagree with the procedure because of what it means, but believe that women have the right to make a choice.

I can respect something like this.

New Ritlina should take note of your stance and consider adapting it. That is if he wants to appear even remotely reasonable.

Thats about the strenght of it. I mean being 100% selfish about it I'm glad I'm a bloke so that I don't have to make that kind of desicion. Wether that makes me a coward, heh well I can live with that.

In all seriousness, even if I don't like it, I have nothing but admaration for the women that have made the choice, it can't be an easy one.

Thats about the strenght of it. I mean being 100% selfish about it I'm glad I'm a bloke so that I don't have to make that kind of desicion. Wether that makes me a coward, heh well I can live with that.

I don't think it makes you a coward to be glad that you won't face a horrid choice in your life, as long as you are understanding and respectful of the people who DO face it. Which you appear to be. :D

I'm glad that I will never have to deal with being kicked in the nuts.


In all seriousness, even if I don't like it, I have nothing but admaration for the women that have made the choice, it can't be an easy one.
One of the best parts of volunteering at a clinic was how great it was to see the strength and courage in average people. Totally normal people, who you'd pass on the street any day and not think twice about it, will show incredible character, kindness, and love. People will make heartbreaking decisions with dignity and courage. People show remarkable judgment and rationality in the face of very difficult situations. It's really wonderful to see.

I'm glad that I will never have to deal with being kicked in the nuts.

Ohhh my God! I can't say that I blame you either.:(

You obviously don't know many "pro-choice" groups then. And the point here is that someone is having an abortion after she chose to have a fertilized egg implanted in her. After she chose to have a 100% chance of becoming pregnant.

And you really think that happens often? When women who have chosen to become pregnant then decide to have an abortion, it is most often for medical reasons - and it is a harrowing choice. Women who have testified before legislatures about late-term abortions have been painted as dirty, dirty whores and murderers even though they desperately wanted to carry to term, and found that they could not for medical reasons.

Because they know there is still a risk. There is a risk the pill could not work. If they don't know, it's because they didn't read the label like they should've.

....or because they never received proper sex education.

And don't be an ass. Just because I want something which is on the road to becoming a human to live, and because I want to take away one right from women in order to do so doesn't make me somehow evil.

The bold is mine. That is precisely the problem. You want to gives something that might become a human person rights over someone that is already a human person. It is one thing to think that the most moral thing for that woman to do is to carry to term. In most cases, I do believe that - and I believe Smunkee does as well. It is quite another thing to remove her right to make her own moral choices just because you personally place value on that potential.

At least the children are living in semi-decent homes.

What do you consider "semi-decent"? Have you heard about some of the atrocities committed by foster parents? Do you know what the rate of abuse at some orphanages is?

Aborted children are, well, wherever. Most religions, I think, would put them in hell or limbo since they were never baptised.

Hardly. Limbo is pretty much exclusively a Catholic concept - and one rejected by the current church as it is. Most religions - even most Christian denominations - don't think that embryos, fetuses, or infants will go to hell simply because they are unbaptized.

When you consent to sex you consent to the risk of becoming pregnant. If you don't, that is highly irresponsible. You know that everytime you have sex, no matter how much protection you use, there is still the chance of becoming pregnant.

You don't know many teenagers who live in areas where sex education is lax, do you? I've heard all sorts of ways that were supposedly going to keep a girl from getting pregnant - methods that she completely and fully believed in. I had a friend in high school look at me with complete sincerity and tell me that it was ok that she had just had unprotected sex because, she said, "You can't get pregnant when you're on the rag." She was 15 and fully believed it. There are men and women who believe that, if a man does not actually ejaculate into a woman, she cannot become pregnant. Many women think that, if they take a bath directly after sex, they'll wash out all the sperm and cannot get pregnant. And so on.....


actually I was told by my doctor that it was a less than 2% chance, and we got pregnant. after that I took more precaution and was told by my doctor that it was "virtually impossible" to get pregnant, and I did, for the second time. I used birth control with the first kid, and birth control and a condom with the second. Apparently sometimes no matter what you do, you still get pregnant.

Indeed. I have a friend who got pregnant the first or second time she and her partner ever had sex. They were using pretty much every form of birth control they could get their hands on. She was on the pill, he wore a condom, she put in a diaphragm (IIRC, this is the only one I may be remembering incorrectly), and they used a sponge. She still got pregnant, and had the cutest little alien-headed baby you've ever seen (no kidding, this kid had a gigantic head, but she grew into it =)

Indeed. I have a friend who got pregnant the first or second time she and her partner ever had sex. They were using pretty much every form of birth control they could get their hands on. She was on the pill, he wore a condom, she put in a diaphragm (IIRC, this is the only one I may be remembering incorrectly), and they used a sponge. She still got pregnant, and had the cutest little alien-headed baby you've ever seen (no kidding, this kid had a gigantic head, but she grew into it =)

my first child looked like an 80 year old man for at least 3 days, once my milk came in her skin smoothed out and she looked more like the baby I thought I was supposed to have. :p

Ok. Say that if the government took away your right of privacy in order to catch a large number of suspected terrorists. They find this large number of suspected terrorists, and they number in the hundreds. They were planning to, on one day, hijack as many planes as humanly possible, and fly them into every monument they can find, and as many tall buildings they can find. The government has taken away one of your rights (or more), but has saved the lives of countless people. Without them taking away your rights there would've been no way to stop said terrorists, and countless lives would have been lost. Do you consider what the government did to be wrong? That's the same idea if your right to abortion is taken away, just on a smaller scale.

That would be abuse of the power of the government. They are trying it right now, and I am opposed to it. Sure, they *might* find terrorists - or people they can say are terrorists. But I am not a terrorist, and they have no business snooping in my private life without damn good reason to think that I am.

Meanwhile, it isn't the same thing. Stopping terrorists keeps human beings from killing other human beings. You have already admitted that you don't see the embryo/fetus as a human being, but instead as "something on its way to becoming a human being."

Once again: They consented to have sex, therefore consenting to the risk of becoming pregnant, therefore consenting to the consquences if they fail the risk. I myself, of course, would gladly see some kind of better "materinity leave" for women if they get pregnant, so that the government pays them the same amount they would normally get from working, and when they are able to work again their employers MUST give them back their job.

At least here you are addressing the real problem, instead of trying to take rights away from competent adults.

The number of abortions could be cut down significantly by better sex education, easier access to contraceptives and other health care, and better support for parents who do decide to carry unplanned pregnancies to term. Improving these conditions could virtually wipe out elective abortions. But you'd rather take the easy route and simply remove rights from women.

And frankly, if they're so ashamed of being pregnant during school so that they have to drop out, they should've realized the consquences that sex with her boyfriend might get her.

It has little to do with shame. Some schools, even now, will actually kick a student out, or push heavily for her to leave, if she becomes pregnant. My mother became pregnant during high school (albeit in the 70's). In order to avoid getting kicked out of school, she had to constantly lie to the administrators at her school, insisting the entire time that she was simply getting fat like her sister.

Also: I don't know about where you live, but the homeless shelters around her are suprisingly nice.

Surprisingly nice as in what? They're actually livable?

But you consented to the risk. If you don't consent to the consquences of that risk, then you are irresponsible.

That may be true. You may see a woman who chooses to abort a pregnancy as irresponsible. But do you really see a woman who carries to term with the sole purpose of abdicating her responsibility for that child and handing it off to someone else who *might* properly take care of it as a responsible action?

Sometimes, once someone is in a situation, the only options left to them are irresponsible.

I think you need to get educated on this topic. And I don't mean book larnin', I mean real-world experience. I think you need to volunteer at a free clinic or hospital. I think you need to have honest, non-accusatory conversations with real women who have had abortions. I think you need to learn to put a human face on your theories.

I think everyone can actually benefit from that, no matter what their current opinion is. I was in high school when I formed my first opinions on the abortion debate. I was pro-choice, but I didn't really have a face to put to people who would have abortions (save my born-again super-anti-choice aunt who had a secret abortion and its a big family secret that none of her children know). And, when the subject came up, what I would always say is, "I'm pro-choice, but it's something that I would never do." Deep down, I think I had a pretty bad opinion of women who would choose such a course of action. Then, in college, I met the first woman who was actually open with me about her own experiences. When I made the above comment, she replied with, "Yeah, that's what I always said," and proceeded to tell me her story. I still think that I would never have an abortion outside of medical necessity, but I don't say it with the same kind of certainty I once did. I realized that, until a person is in that situation, they really can't tell you what they would do.

I know a neonatal ICU nurse who fairly recently had her first encounter with a women's clinic that routinely provided abortions. She's seen too many awful things to not be politically pro-choice (although it's not an issue she really votes based on), but is morally opposed to abortion. Her son's girlfriend, however, was threatening to do harm to herself if she was not able to have an abortion, so this woman helped her set it up and took her to the clinic. She told me later that she learned quite a bit simply by stepping in the door. She had expected the place, even though it was recommended by doctors she knew, to look shady and unsanitary. She had expected to see a bunch of low-income, possibly drug-addicted women sitting in the waiting room. Instead, she saw women who looked to be middle to upper-class professionals - some older than she would have expected. She saw a young teenage girl who was obviously terrified and, when they called her name, shakingly looked at her mother and said, "Mom, I just can't do this." Her mother replied, "Honey, we remember we decided this is the best thing," and proceeded to spend 10 minutes convincing her to go in. The whole experience really shattered her view of women who have abortions - and why they do it.

We could all learn from a little real-life experience and we could all do better by empathizing with those faced with a difficult situation, whether we agree with their choices or not.

Straight out of the pro-slavery argument guidebook for what to say against the northern states abolutionists... :rolleyes:

Interesting that you would bring up slavery, considering that removal of personal autonomy is precisely what slavery is. Removing a woman's right to make her own medical decisions - forcing her to continue a pregnancy against her will - is as close as modern law (in most places) gets to slavery these days.

I am sick and tired of this argument that unique DNA makes you a person. By that standard, twins are not individual people, while cancer is. DNA does not make you a person, a thinking mind does. That's the difference between a person and a wad of flesh.

In Abortion, there is no child being murdered. A child is being prevented from ever coming into being. Something like 98% of abortions happen before the fetus even has a working nervous system. this is no more murder than putting on a condom before, or even just abstaining from sex.

If you believe that embryos have souls, and you believe in God, then you must believe him a complete bastard, for killing 80% of these "children" before the mother even knows about it. Why does god perform abortions?

(edit: Oh, I forgot. You don't "consent to the risk of becoming pregnant" when you have sex anymore than you "consent to the risk of being injured" when you get into a car, or walk down a flight of stairs. It certainly doesn't mean you should be refused treatment.

Injured Man: "Doctor, my legs are broken, please help me, or I'll never walk again."
Doctor: "I'm sorry, but you have no right to be helped."
Injured man: What are you talking about? I was just in a car accident!"
Doctor: "Exactly. When you stepped into that car, you accepted the risk that this might happen, and so gave up any right to be treated for it.")