On this topic? There will be no breakthrough.

11/1/2013 1:07:25 PM

The divination of humanity by conservatives is terrifying to me.

Both sides actually have pretty good consistency. It's just that liberals share their consistency with the universe we live in. The logic that protects a fertilized human egg is the same logic that says it's perfectly okay to torture apes, dolphins, and the other most intelligent species on Earth. I'm sure they won't give a damn when we can produce a full brain emulation either. What does it matter if it's not human?

11/1/2013 1:08:53 PM

wat?

11/1/2013 1:11:22 PM

Quote :

"[quote]birth control prevents conception so you aren't killing anything."

but why draw the line there? if you use a condom, you're altering the timeline in which a human might have existed. you took someone's chance at life.

conception is so arbitrary

11/1/2013 1:12:48 PM

There they go again, thinking that their supposed higher intellect is on a whole different plane than those god loving country bumpkins.

11/1/2013 1:16:56 PM

^^^^so many false assumptions about Conservatives or Christians packed into that paragraph it's terrifying to me.

Understandably, though, you're judgment is probably based on lots of them who have done a poor job of representing anything sensical, consistent, believable, much less Biblical. But no, it's not the same logic, and I know many devout conservative Christians who don't meet your stereotype.

also...

Quote :

"Human embryos are not . . . some other type of animal organism, like a dog or cat. Neither are they a part of an organism, like a heart, a kidney, or a skin cell. Nor again are they a disorganized aggregate, a mere clump of cells awaiting some magical transformation. Rather, a human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of his or her natural development. Unless severely damaged, or denied or deprived of a suitable environment, a human being in the embryonic stage will, by directing its own integral organic functioning, develop himself or herself to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage. The embryonic, fetal, child, and adolescent stages are stages in the development of a determinate and enduring entity—a human being—who comes into existence as a single-celled organism (the zygote) and develops, if all goes well, into adulthood many years later. But does this mean that the human embryo is a human person worthy of full moral respect? Must the early embryo never be used as a mere means for the benefit of others simply because it is a human being? The answer . . . is “Yes.” -Robert P. George, Princeton Professor, President's Council on Bioethics "

[Edited on November 1, 2013 at 1:23 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2013 1:18:54 PM

No one said anything about Christians.

Actually, that's a very revealing assumption. Think about the "life begins at conception" statement. The authors of the bible didn't know what the fuck conception was. They didn't know what cells were.

This is a clear case of bro-religion. Think about opposition to stem cell research. Yeah, it's consistent with the pro-life position. That's the problem. This criteria for human life emerged extremely recently in human history, and people are defending it with religious zeal.

[Edited on November 1, 2013 at 1:29 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2013 1:23:52 PM

You know now that I think about it, it really is scary, all these conservatives attempting to tell the future.

11/1/2013 1:27:21 PM

I have no problems whatsoever with stem cell research. If they can use stem cells from fetuses, cord blood, wherever, let them have at it. I don't see how stem cell research goes against religion.

11/1/2013 1:38:24 PM

Quote :

"No one said anything about Christians."

Don't be a turd.
1) Most conservatives who talk about the divinity of humanity in America identify as Christians.
2) This thread is full of references to Christians. Lots of people have said a lot about Christians.
3) I admittedly don't know enough about stem cell research, so I'm not posing an argument for or against it. I'd also rather not derail the thread. The quote I posted is clearly applicable to abortion, though.

Quote :

"You know now that I think about it, it really is scary, all these conservatives attempting to tell the future."

Lol. And liberals never do that. They never make predictions based on current trends, relate cause and effect, and try to fight for a better society. That's like...democracy and stuff.

[Edited on November 1, 2013 at 2:01 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2013 1:59:41 PM

i bet we are sure to have a conclusion now that mrfrog has posted on this page, definitely for sure if he makes his same point again.

11/1/2013 2:37:30 PM

Quote :

"Lol. And liberals never do that. They never make predictions based on current trends, relate cause and effect, and try to fight for a better society. That's like...democracy and stuff."

How many wrongs make a right again?

Oh and your quote from Robert P. George was for what purpose? Embryos should be considered morally the same as adults because some guy says so? <clap>

11/1/2013 2:38:41 PM

ohmy must be new, quoting me and taking it for anything other than sarcasm. Just so you know ohmy, I'm one of the most retardedly conservative folks posting in TSB right now.

11/1/2013 8:02:45 PM

Quote :

"1) Most conservatives who talk about the divinity of humanity in America identify as Christians."

And the best kind of link they can give to their savior's philosophy is a vague statement of "help the meek". Again, this is applied to something that (depending on the conversation) doesn't have a functioning brain yet.

Life beginning at conception is Mormon-kind of insane. Really, that's what it comes down to. It's an ethical revelation that people had in response to science gaining new capabilities that their holy book was 100% unequipped to deal with. Safe and professional abortions haven't always been a thing. That idea that we should protect an unborn child who is less than 20 weeks old was inspired by the same kind of spontaneous "morality" in recent history that Mormonism and Scientology were.

If you want to protect the meek you should start with saving the whales. Or livestock. These are dramatically more sophisticated than a fetus. No pro-life person has even attempted to respond to this criticism. While there might be some "love the Earth" vegan pro-lifers, I doubt that includes any of them who post in this thread.

A fetus is an unsophisticated, unintelligent, animal. They are not the "meek" that Jesus wanted you to protect.

11/2/2013 11:12:21 AM

Quote :

"The logic that protects a fertilized human egg is the same logic that says it's perfectly okay to torture apes, dolphins, and the other most intelligent species on Earth."

WHAT THE HELL DID I JUST READ?

How is that the same logic? Fertilized human egg should be protected == OK to torture intelligent animals?

THE FUCK?

I can't even see both those viewpoints existing in one individual, but even if you do know millions of such people, it still doesn't mean it is the same logic. Logic itself says that's not the same logic.

I believe abortion is murder and I am also against animal cruelty (intelligent or otherwise), hunting for fun, destruction of plants and trees, destruction of the environment, torture of small animals for fun by stupid children, killing of household bugs except mosquitos and flies, etc. Deforestation, poaching of elephants, rhinos, tigers, etc., killing of whales, dolphins, sharks, etc., dumping of waste into seas and rivers, etc. are some of the worst things human do today. If I was a leader of a country, all such acts would mean automatic life imprisonment.


[Edited on November 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM. Reason : And my position has nothing do with religion; I follow none.]

11/2/2013 12:46:14 PM

Quote :

"I can't even see both those viewpoints existing in one individual, but even if you do know millions of such people, it still doesn't mean it is the same logic. Logic itself says that's not the same logic."

Those were two pointless sentences. The logic referred to was that a human embryo deserves protection because it's a human, and not because of any definable property such as cognition, ability to feel, etc.

Hope that's cleared up now.

11/2/2013 1:18:45 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/10/01/chinese-boy-gives-birth-to-twin-brother-after-doctors-find-fetus-growing-in-his/?intcmp=obnetwork.

Weirdly, I was pondering a thought experiment just like this yesterday. What do the pro-lifers think about this? Is the removal of the ingrown fetus murder (presuming it was alive)?

[Edited on November 2, 2013 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2013 2:06:50 PM

mrfrog has been posting, so obviously we have all come to the same conclusion now

11/3/2013 9:01:58 AM

We got this on page 32. Then we'll declare the national debate over.

11/3/2013 10:15:13 AM

my GF's parents have this turtle that lives in a pan on the floor in their kitchen. it's like over 10 years old. well one day it escaped it's pan and laid an egg under the couch. they fished it out and cooked it up and ate it.

11/3/2013 12:06:09 PM

Eeeeeeeh

11/3/2013 11:54:06 PM

Quote :

"Life beginning at conception is Mormon-kind of insane. Really, that's what it comes down to. It's an ethical revelation that people had in response to science gaining new capabilities that their holy book was 100% unequipped to deal with. Safe and professional abortions haven't always been a thing. That idea that we should protect an unborn child who is less than 20 weeks old was inspired by the same kind of spontaneous "morality" in recent history that Mormonism and Scientology were. If you want to protect the meek you should start with saving the whales. Or livestock. These are dramatically more sophisticated than a fetus. No pro-life person has even attempted to respond to this criticism. While there might be some "love the Earth" vegan pro-lifers, I doubt that includes any of them who post in this thread. A fetus is an unsophisticated, unintelligent, animal. They are not the "meek" that Jesus wanted you to protect. "

Are you joking? This is kinda of ranty, and doesn't well characterize the source of pro-lifers beliefs.

It's easy to see why someone can be against abortion, it's killing babies, and babies are cute. Pretty simple. Some people have different reasons, but I would wager most people don't think more deeply than that. You've giving americans too much credit to presume it's some serpentine response to science.

11/4/2013 12:42:12 PM

Pigs are cute. and delicious.

11/4/2013 12:48:32 PM

Quote :

"It's easy to see why someone can be against abortion, it's killing babies, and babies are cute. Pretty simple."

They still will rationalize their views. If someone winds up obviously holding two contradictory positions, then you won't convince them to abandon them, but they'll be forced to live with a realized hypocrisy.

In debating, this isn't overtly recognized. Defeat is rarely ever recognized, with the possible exception of scientific discourse. The idea in science is that you discuss consistent logic frameworks, which have an ultimate obligation to observation, so there's no room to have a strong emotional connection to a given logic that can't be severed. Or, at least that used to be the idea.

Practically, they'll just go silent. Possibly after rehashing a talking point which has already been directly attacked. They're not convinced, but no one is ever convinced right away. No one is ever satisfied with dumb rationalizations like "babies are cute", unless they just don't think about it. To the extent that someone ever uses their brain, inconsistencies and emotional preferences are revealed to be unappealing. The only way to avoid that is to shut off the logic, and you just can't do that while still seriously engaging other people on the issues. The only workable middle ground is being something like a heckler.

11/4/2013 1:24:54 PM

Quote :

"If someone winds up obviously holding two contradictory positions, then you won't convince them to abandon them, but they'll be forced to live with a realized hypocrisy."

not everyone thinks like this

11/4/2013 1:29:28 PM

i can't roll my eyes any bigger to mrfrog's post, it sounds like something a freshman says in his first debate or philosophy course.

way to be enlightened, dude.

[Edited on November 4, 2013 at 1:59 PM. Reason : high school freshman]

11/4/2013 1:58:49 PM

Sorry to go backwards here.. but...

Quote :

"The first question that needs to be asked: Is it morally sound to prevent a person from removing a foreign body from their own body on the basis of that foreign body's rights being most important?"

This is massively begging the question! it's avoiding the entire heart of the issue. That's why I went apeshit about calling a fetus a body part. It's fundamentally different from a body part, so starting any argument on that premise is inherently fallacious. Likewise, referring to a fetus as an abstract "foreign body" also ignores the larger questions in play, namely what rights do the unborn have? Saying "foreign body" skips entirely past that, as if it's just a splinter or a bullet lodged in a person's body. That's a gross oversimplification of the issues at play. I'm not going to go back and respond to everything else that's been said in the past week, but this particular point can't be stated enough.

Quote :

"imagine how traumatic it would be if you had an unwanted creature inside you, and were forced to carry it for 9 months and birth it?"

Now imagine being able to damned near 100% prevent that by *gasp* not having sex in the first place or using birth control and condoms!!! Why is it that the only place in your mind where a woman is able to decide upon having a child is when the decision requires contemplating the explicit killing of the unborn child! I don't know if you were aware of this, but fetuses don't just magically appear inside a woman. There's kind of a few things have to happen before that point, all of which are largely preventable. If we follow this logic through to other areas, though, we end up with the absurd proposition that ANY action a person undertakes should be entirely divorced from the consequences of that action if those consequences are negative. Hey, I just blew all my money on a fast car. It'd be serious pain and suffering for me to be kicked out of my house because of that, so we won't let the landlord kick me out when I don't pay my rent.

Quote :

"if you believe that abortion is wrong, but make an exception for rape, then its because you believe that pregnancy is punishment or a deserved burden. in simple language its slut shaming."

Or maybe you think that all possible choices suck for everyone involved, and you're then just seeking to minimize damage.

Quote :

"regardless of whether those risks are high or not, a woman should not be FORCED to endure a pregnancy against her will."

You're right. DON'T GET FUCKING PREGNANT and you don't have to worry about that!

Quote :

"If you want to protect the meek you should start with saving the whales. Or livestock. These are dramatically more sophisticated than a fetus. No pro-life person has even attempted to respond to this criticism."

That's because it's completely, 100% unrelated. Why waste time arguing points that are solely invented to divert the topic at hand? Hey, let's talk about the Packers while we're at it!

Quote :

"The financial cost alone, not to mention the potential for harm to her body is substantial. And massive mental harm as well."

Then consider that BEFORE you engage in behaviours that might make you pregnant! That's what we tell men who don't want to pay child support, right? Don't want a baby? DON'T GET PREGNANT! Why is that so hard to comprehend? and I'm stopping with that

11/8/2013 11:48:44 PM

Let's track track ladies vaginas.

11/9/2013 1:09:00 AM

aaronburro is against casual sex

also, this is how he responded to someone talking about women being forced to keep a baby that was conceived during rape:

Quote :

"You're right. DON'T GET FUCKING PREGNANT and you don't have to worry about that!"

[Edited on November 9, 2013 at 10:40 AM. Reason : he actually did it twice]

11/9/2013 10:36:46 AM

Quote :

" Hey, I just blew all my money on a fast car. It'd be serious pain and suffering for me to be kicked out of my house because of that, so we won't let the landlord kick me out when I don't pay my rent."

quite possibly the dumbest metaphor i've read all week

11/9/2013 11:03:52 AM

I guess the result of no one having sex with you is hating sex and those that have it.

11/9/2013 1:10:30 PM

Those that have it irresponsibly. As in four fucking abortions worth of irresponsible.

11/9/2013 3:54:04 PM

So let me get this straight. Say after the third abortion, she decides to 'be responsible' and give this whole child rearing thing a go and bring what would have been the fourth aborted baby into this world. In your eyes, she's a 3x murderer, and you want her being a single mom and raising a child? So is this is what people mean by 'God's plan' ?

11/9/2013 5:00:48 PM

why should it be any of our business how many abortions a person has or hasn't had?

11/9/2013 5:06:23 PM

i'm not saying it should be. just pointing out how absurd it is for pro-lifers to think that women who choose to carry their babies to term without any resources to support them are somehow more 'responsible' than women who have abortions, for whatever reason they wish.

[Edited on November 9, 2013 at 5:28 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2013 5:27:12 PM

probably been posted

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

11/9/2013 5:45:14 PM

it would not surprise me one bit if some of the pro-life posters in this very thread have had gfs/wives who got abortions

11/9/2013 6:49:14 PM

Quote :

"DON'T GET FUCKING PREGNANT"

I agree with this completely, really, in the sense that both parties should be careful and use at least two types of BC if they don't want to get pregnant

there should be comprehensive, open and honest sex education in schools

ironically, the very same religious groups against abortions are usually against comprehensive sex ed or family planning

but this thread was originally about the fallout if that stuff doesn't work (condom breakage, etc) and she does end up pregnant

railing at a woman after the fact, "Sucks to be you, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant! Now carry it to term!" does not help her in any way, and is a means of punishing her

especially in the case of rape, where she did nothing "irresponsible"

[Edited on November 9, 2013 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ,]

11/9/2013 6:59:40 PM

Quote :

"also, this is how he responded to someone talking about women being forced to keep a baby that was conceived during rape:"

That's not even remotely what I said about rape. If you even bothered to read anything I've posted, you'd know that, considering that I've posted several times that I'm ok with abortions in the case of rape. Jeez, if you can't make a point without distorting the hell out of someone's words, then just quit. Likewise, I'm not "against casual sex." I'm against abortions for pregnancies that result from unsafe casual sex.

^ I agree that we should have open and honest sex ed in schools, since it very plainly works. But I can't agree that "having a child because you had sex" is a "punishment." The intent is not to "punish." If I wanted to do that, I'd we throw the woman in jail. Instead, we're saying you should not be able to kill an innocent human life just because you didn't think about the consequences of your actions. You must have a very strange definition of "punishment" if you think a pregnancy is a punishment, though I can understand how you might think that some pro-lifers intend it that way; I certainly don't intend it that way. My entire stance is that there most certainly is a time to think about whether or not you want a child, but that time is NOT when that child already exists and your "choice" is to kill it.

11/9/2013 9:09:40 PM

Quote :

"I'm against abortions for pregnancies that result from unsafe casual sex."

How do you feel about abortions for pregnancies that result from safe casual sex?

11/9/2013 10:15:03 PM

Quote :

"^ I agree that we should have open and honest sex ed in schools, since it very plainly works. But I can't agree that "having a child because you had sex" is a "punishment." The intent is not to "punish." If I wanted to do that, I'd we throw the woman in jail. Instead, we're saying you should not be able to kill an innocent human life just because you didn't think about the consequences of your actions. You must have a very strange definition of "punishment" if you think a pregnancy is a punishment, though I can understand how you might think that some pro-lifers intend it that way; I certainly don't intend it that way. My entire stance is that there most certainly is a time to think about whether or not you want a child, but that time is NOT when that child already exists and your "choice" is to kill it."

Question begging, question begging, tra-la-la-la-la.

11/10/2013 1:24:38 PM

Quote :

" I agree that we should have open and honest sex ed in schools, since it very plainly works. But I can't agree that "having a child because you had sex" is a "punishment." The intent is not to "punish." If I wanted to do that, I'd we throw the woman in jail. Instead, we're saying you should not be able to kill an innocent human life just because you didn't think about the consequences of your actions. You must have a very strange definition of "punishment" if you think a pregnancy is a punishment, though I can understand how you might think that some pro-lifers intend it that way; I certainly don't intend it that way. My entire stance is that there most certainly is a time to think about whether or not you want a child, but that time is NOT when that child already exists and your "choice" is to kill it."

This is why I pointed out a few pages ago that women who really are afraid of getting pregnant are more likely to be super careful about their contraceptive choices - I know I am, personally

My next question is the same one that was just posted: what if you have careful sex and the BC fails? You can't point the finger at the woman or man (because the condom broke, or it's that 1% of the time that correctly-taken BC doesn't work), but she's still the one who has to take on that burden. If you force her to carry it to term, it is a form of slut shaming: you're punishing her for having sex, even though both parties took all precaution.

Quote :

"You must have a very strange definition of "punishment""

No, a rather normal one. Let's say a woman who never wanted a child, and was careful trying not to have one, is suddenly forced into giving birth to one.

Of course you're defining all phases of a fetus as a "child," so I don't really expect you to understand what I'm arguing here.

11/10/2013 2:47:16 PM

Some people may be cool with putting a cucumber up their butt. Others may think its punishment.

[Edited on November 10, 2013 at 3:14 PM. Reason : !!!]

11/10/2013 3:14:04 PM

Quote :

"Let's say a woman who never wanted a child, and was careful trying not to have one, is suddenly forced into giving birth to one."

This exact point was already brought up pages ago. Apparently, if you use multiple forms of birth control and still somehow manage to wind up pregnant, not only are you a slut that needs to own up to your wanton ways and stop being so irresponsible, your unborn baby is also miraculous gift from God himself who wanted you to have the baby all along! Time for you to pony up to the responsibility ranch, and while you're at it, stop being such an irresponsible slut and ONLY have sex to procreate when married.

11/10/2013 5:10:36 PM

The point is of course as stated many times now that if aaronburro or anyone has an exception for rape then obviously their idea that the fetus is an innocent human being is flawed. If it truly was innocent and needed to be protected as any other person then how would the way that it got there matter at all?

Of course, this is begging the question how an mass of alive human cells that doesn't have a mind counts as a "being" or "person" or "a human" or whatever. Keeping banging the assumption drum, aaronburro and I'll keep calling you out.

11/10/2013 5:11:28 PM

pregnancy is a divine gift from God*














*except in cases of rape or the safety of the mother.

11/10/2013 5:14:43 PM

Oh man sluts!

Amirite!

11/10/2013 10:00:18 PM

I wonder if God intends for ectopic pregnancies to occur? What am I saying, of course he does!

11/10/2013 11:43:48 PM

Quote :

"birth control prevents conception so you aren't killing anything"

that's not even true, anyway.

[Edited on November 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM. Reason : ]

11/11/2013 1:35:04 AM

Look, I'm sure a lot of anti-abortion folks really don't like to make exceptions, but they make several - rape/incest and harm to the mother. And now you are using those exceptions in your arguments against them.

Rape is a trauma that I couldn't ever imagine going through, and I certainly wouldn't want to carry around a daily reminder. But shit, if pro lifers said no abortions for any situations, you would certainly attack the shit out of them, and now your attacking them for the exceptions they make.

To change topics a little, there's something that isn't much debated when it comes to the abortion issue, and that is the rights of the father. Biology has worked itself out that the female carries the full burden of childbirth, but I think its kinda shitty that the father has no say whatsoever.

11/11/2013 7:17:47 AM