Quote :

"You're taking that quote out of the context of the rest of the statement. I acknowledged that religious folks use their reasoning as a means to end abortion - and I didn't say I thought that was right."

And the rest of it was almost as bad.

Quote :

"Sure, a lot of people use religion as a reason against abortion, but some, deep down, might just be living by Darwin. You know the guy that says a species will do pretty much anything to protect the longevity of a species."

So highly secular people, in your view, should be against abortion.

It's great to see you people apply the fallacious reasoning to science that you do with religion. You've taken a childish, archaic, book and argued it to support the pro-life position. It's not surprising that you'll take our matter-of-fact understanding of natural history to support the position too.

In the bible, God did terrible vengeful things to people. In Earth's history, animals lived terrible and painful lives. The ethics of abortion are irrelevant of both these things.

2/6/2014 10:23:17 AM

its not really just about the Bible, its also about shaming sluts

2/6/2014 10:32:58 AM

They know in their gut what's right. We just assume Jesus put that feeling there.

2/6/2014 11:04:24 AM

Read: I'm not even religious. I'm not pointing to the Bible as to why it is right or wrong.

You're killing your own offspring. Don't you people believe in Darwin?

2/6/2014 1:48:27 PM

abortion is natural, lots of species do it

2/6/2014 2:14:16 PM

Lol "believe in Darwin"

2/6/2014 2:17:23 PM

Condoms are spitting in Darwin's face! So is retirement. Euthanize grandma and put that money into more babies.

2/6/2014 2:27:36 PM

Everyone in the news has these long analysis about why teen pregnancies and abortions are down.

I think its free internet porn....these days teenage males are too busy playing video games and jerking off to actually date and have sex with a female.

2/6/2014 2:52:42 PM

snapchat and cell phones with cameras

2/6/2014 2:57:26 PM

Appeals court rules 'Choose Life' plates unconstitutional

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/02/11/3612005/appeals-court-rules-choose-life.html#storylink=cpy

Quote :

"A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that North Carolina’s attempt to offer a “Choose Life” license plate and not offer an abortion-rights plate was unconstitutional. It is the third court ruling that has gone against the Republican-led General Assembly’s anti-abortion efforts over the past three years. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in a 3-0 opinion written by Judge James Wynn of North Carolina. “Chief amongst the evils the First Amendment prohibits are government ‘restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others,’” Wynn wrote, quoting an unrelated U.S. Supreme Court decision. “In this case, North Carolina seeks to do just that: privilege speech on one side of the hotly debated issue — reproductive choice — while silencing opposing voices.” The license plates had never been offered, because U.S. District Court Judge James Fox in November 2011 temporarily blocked the law from going into effect. Then he ruled in December 2012 that the plates were unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The state attorney general appeal, and the case was heard by the appeals court in Richmond, Va. Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/02/11/3612005/appeals-court-rules-choose-life.html#storylink=cpy"

2/11/2014 12:24:09 PM

That's going to disappoint all the Wham! fans

2/11/2014 7:51:43 PM

^^what a ridiculous way to clog up our courts... with lawsuits over a damn license plate.

2/11/2014 9:49:06 PM

they could have avoided the tie-up by not denying the pro-choice plate, or by approving it when the ACLU sued

2/11/2014 10:12:15 PM

^^ lol

2/11/2014 10:49:23 PM

license plates are serious business

2/12/2014 11:55:46 AM

Quote :

"Even the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes' words in their own defense."

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php#page-3

Sounds like most of the pro-choicers' arguments in here. "It's for the best of those poor blackies! helpless things!" Progressive stuff there, folks.

3/11/2014 10:52:55 PM

Eugenics is a pseudoscience.

Abortion is a personal convenience/choice/whatever.

Not even remotely related nowadays.

3/11/2014 11:57:22 PM

Can't we just let this thread go quietly unto the night?

3/12/2014 7:56:28 AM

Quote :

"Sounds like most of the pro-choicers' arguments in here."

nope, wrong again

3/12/2014 8:20:20 AM

It's a little more progressive than believing that a 2000 year old fairy tale is true.

3/12/2014 8:32:20 AM

Quote :

"Sounds like most of the pro-choicers' arguments in here"

lol wat?!

3/12/2014 9:07:18 AM

this guy has shown that he's pretty nutty.

3/12/2014 12:05:01 PM

I want someone to elaborate on how evolution argues against abortion.

We're not talking about aborting your own child. We're talking about laws allowing or not allowing other people to abort. The less they reproduce, the more prevalent your own genes will be.

3/13/2014 10:23:36 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "Sounds like most of the pro-choicers' arguments in here" lol wat?!"

I'm not going to look through all 42 pages, but people have definitely made arguments that it's better the babies be killed than end up living disabled, poor, or in prison.

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind"

Yeah, the language these days is more "politically correct" and the ideology more subtle, but it's the exact same underlying aim and ethics.

The main difference from the eugenicists and progressives today is that pro-choicers have made (not necessarily intentionally or maliciously) a society where abortion is so prevalent, on-demand, and repackaged as a "free choice" for individuals, that they've been able to convince themselves they're not complicit. Just bombard low-income, undereducated neighborhoods with ideological propaganda of how good abortion is for them, it'll make their lives so much easier (true...if only ease were all we had to consider), and then you don't have to feel guilty. "They've made their own choice" after all. Nevermind ideology, lack of access to resources, external political and structural pressures, etc. that convince them that murdering their offspring is the "right choice".

But that's never part of the debate. The other thread about pro-life propaganda, though, is evidence that you only notice the propaganda when you disagree with it.

For as pragmatic as so many progressives claim to be, you would think news like this would be alarming...
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/371704/more-black-babies-aborted-born-new-york-city-alec-torres

[Edited on March 13, 2014 at 11:25 AM. Reason : ]

3/13/2014 11:23:37 AM

HEY GUYS, I'M GONNA IGNORE EVERYTHING YOU SAID AND POST A NATIONAL REVIEW LINK

BITCHES LOVE THE NATIONAL REVIEW

3/13/2014 11:30:22 AM

Quote :

"that it's better the babies fetuses/embryoes/lump of cells be killed eliminated than end up living disabled, poor, or in prison. "

Fixed it for you.

Quote :

"The main difference from the eugenicists and progressives today is that pro-choicers have made (not necessarily intentionally or maliciously) a society where abortion is so prevalent, on-demand, and repackaged as a "free choice" for individuals, that they've been able to convince themselves they're not complicit. Just bombard low-income, undereducated neighborhoods with ideological propaganda of how good abortion is for them, it'll make their lives so much easie"

Your logic is seriously misguided. If anything liberals would want more low income babies being born as this is their future voting base. On the flip side conservatives should be the ones rallying for pro-choice in order to reduce welfare babies, future criminatls (potentially), and minorities (I know a lot more good ole boy racist conservatives than racist liberals).

Also, why is more black babies being aborted an issue. Perhaps they have more common sense to not want to bring another child into the world they can't afford versus the 17 yr old pregnant white girl who rationalizes jesus wants her to have a baby so she devolves into a high school educated waitress making $10/hr the rest of her life instead of waiting until she graduates college and has one at 25 to a stable home.

[Edited on March 13, 2014 at 11:57 AM. Reason : a]

3/13/2014 11:54:32 AM

Quote :

""They've made their own choice" after all. Nevermind ideology, lack of access to resources, external political and structural pressures, etc. that convince them that murdering their offspring is the "right choice"."

Absolutely. Poor people can't make choices. That's why Republicans need to make the choices for them.

Don't listen to what a woman says she wants to do with her body. Listen to what you feel that she wants. Then after you've prayed to Jesus, and consulted your local GOP representative, let her know what she's decided. Know that her protests aren't actually hers, but the liberal propaganda that's infected her.

3/13/2014 12:03:34 PM

Quote :

"The main difference from the eugenicists and progressives today is that pro-choicers have made (not necessarily intentionally or maliciously) a society where abortion is so prevalent, on-demand, and repackaged as a "free choice" for individuals, that they've been able to convince themselves they're not complicit. "

Guilty. I'm absolutely complicit in abortions. The only problem is that they aren't available enough because ideologues such as yourself infect our public policy. Your fairy tales are not convincing, your logic is not convincing. You can compare us to the Nazis if it'll make you feel better and you'll still be making 1st century arguments in a 21st century world.

3/13/2014 12:38:15 PM

Quote :

"Don't listen to what a woman says she wants to do with her body. Listen to what you feel that she wants. Then after you've prayed to Jesus, and consulted your local GOP representative, let her know what she's decided. Know that her protests aren't actually hers, but the liberal propaganda that's infected her."

lol

3/13/2014 1:04:14 PM

Quote :

"HEY GUYS, I'M GONNA IGNORE EVERYTHING YOU SAID AND POST A NATIONAL REVIEW LINK BITCHES LOVE THE NATIONAL REVIEW"

Haha, google anything at all with the words abortion and nyc, and you'll get thousands of hits. but by all means, keep ad homineming!

Quote :

"Your logic is seriously misguided. If anything liberals would want more low income babies being born as this is their future voting base. On the flip side conservatives should be the ones rallying for pro-choice in order to reduce welfare babies, future criminatls (potentially), and minorities (I know a lot more good ole boy racist conservatives than racist liberals)."

There are a lot of pro-lifers who don't fit into your categories and stereotypes. You just won't see them on Fox News. A future voting base of poor people who are educated enough to implement real systematic change is something I would love. But killing more of them than are born, and keeping just enough of them around to not really change anything, and giving them enough handouts so that they are forced to depend on big brother but can't rise beyond their circumstances, is straight out of 1984. Neoliberalism at its finest.

Quote :

"17 yr old pregnant white girl who rationalizes jesus wants her to have a baby so she devolves into a high school educated waitress making $10/hr the rest of her life instead of waiting until she graduates college and has one at 25 to a stable home."

By that logic, the mother's life is so miserable she seems unfit. Kill them both? Reduce the goal of life to convenience, and of course you can legitimize killing babies. Peter Singer's already justified killing two-year olds. I mean..."eliminating lumps of cells that haven't yet achieved full personhood." All you have to do is change the language. HUR just gave a great example of this. Eugenics Abortion is a pseudoscience.

Quote :

"Don't listen to what a woman says she wants to do with her body. Listen to what you feel that she wants."

It's not about feelings. It's about shoulds. It's about moral absolutes. Moral absolutes are legislated into almost every law we have and they trump personal choice.

It's about moral absolutes, just like anti-discrimination laws are based on a moral absolute. Just like criminalizing homicides and sex trafficking is based on a moral absolute. Just like welfare to provide for the poor is a moral absolute. Every single legislative act is based on a moral absolute. But when it comes to abortion? Many liberals pretend moral absolutes are passé, the thing of conservatives, and pretend it's about choice.

The debate is over which moral absolutes do we legislate into law. And specifically, with regards to abortion, when does one attain personhood (or for some, utility). So the arguments regarding personhood and science and such, I'll entertain. But the arguments that this is primarily a matter of personal choice? Weak sauz.

Sorry, I know many of you are way past this, and this has been covered ad nauseum, but I still cringe when people try to spin this strictly as a morally neutral tale of choice.

[Edited on March 13, 2014 at 1:28 PM. Reason : ]

3/13/2014 1:27:13 PM

Quote :

"Guilty. I'm absolutely complicit in abortions. The only problem is that they aren't available enough because ideologues such as yourself infect our public policy. Your fairy tales are not convincing, your logic is not convincing. You can compare us to the Nazis if it'll make you feel better and you'll still be making 1st century arguments in a 21st century world."

Yeah, I wasn't so much addressing you, because you stand out as someone who is a fierce ideologue, but aware of his ideology and how it infects public policy, and is proud of it. You're just passionate about an ideology very different from mine. It's like you're a Nazi who at least knows he's a Nazi.

3/13/2014 1:32:42 PM

Quote :

"A future voting base of poor people who are educated enough to implement real systematic change is something I would love. But killing more of them than are born, and keeping just enough of them around to not really change anything, and giving them enough handouts so that they are forced to depend on big brother but can't rise beyond their circumstances, is straight out of 1984."

Facts that this diatribe contradicts:

1. The birth rate (not the pregnancy rate) of the low-income class is higher than the average
2. Abortion lowers the birth rate, because it prevents a pregnancy from leading to a birth
3. Even with legal abortion (any degree of legality), low-income people still have a higher birth rate

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem that the Republican policies would grow the population of the "welfare class" faster than the Democrats.

3/13/2014 1:35:12 PM

Oh, how I've missed this thread

3/13/2014 1:57:03 PM

Quote :

"It's not about feelings. It's about shoulds. It's about moral absolutes. Moral absolutes are legislated into almost every law we have and they trump personal choice. It's about moral absolutes, just like anti-discrimination laws are based on a moral absolute. Just like criminalizing homicides and sex trafficking is based on a moral absolute. Just like welfare to provide for the poor is a moral absolute. Every single legislative act is based on a moral absolute. But when it comes to abortion? Many liberals pretend moral absolutes are passé, the thing of conservatives, and pretend it's about choice. The debate is over which moral absolutes do we legislate into law. And specifically, with regards to abortion, when does one attain personhood (or for some, utility). So the arguments regarding personhood and science and such, I'll entertain. But the arguments that this is primarily a matter of personal choice? Weak sauz."

Laws are not based on moral absolutes. A simple refutation of this is that laws change. Laws are based off of subjective value judgments which are presently societally acceptable. There's no good evidence that moral objectivity actually exists.

3/13/2014 2:03:36 PM

Quote :

"But the arguments that this is primarily a matter of personal choice? "

Further, you're conflating "personal choice" with "bodily autonomy". The moral that guides "pro-choicers" is not in fact "it is a matter of personal choice" but rather "it's her body, she should be able to choose what to do with it."

You can't just write off bodily autonomy as irrelevant. It's ultimately relevant.

[Edited on March 13, 2014 at 2:56 PM. Reason : whoops]

3/13/2014 2:36:01 PM

Wait, I realized I didn't read close enough:

Quote :

"But killing more of them than are born, and keeping just enough of them around to not really change anything"

So this clarifies it all. If we did more abortions, then poor families would have the resources to get educated and improve their lot. But if we allowed fewer abortions, the poor would grow their numbers to critical mass, pull themselves up by their bootstraps and rely on each other to create economic less government individual responsibilitunity. It's only the Marxist Democrats that want to cause the right number of Obamabortions to affect maximum socialism.

3/13/2014 2:44:44 PM

Quote :

"By that logic, the mother's life is so miserable she seems unfit. Kill them both? "

What is this shit? Who kills them both and how does that logically follow from anything?

And stop with convenience, as if pregnancy is like having to wait in line. Have you had a single empathetic thought about this issue? How would you like to be forced, by the government, to be pregnant and give birth against your will? Your condom breaks. Oops! Your college education is fucked. Bye bye Columbia! Hello working retail to pay the babysitter/daycare, and changing diapers on your days off. Naw, not you. You have wealthy parents who would take care of things wouldn't they? No? You would put it up for adoption. Because you would have no emotional attachment. It's just a baby. My life is more important, and it will ruin my life.

3/13/2014 10:46:22 PM

Quote :

"Have you had a single empathetic thought about this issue?"

lol. coming from the person who legislates murder.

3/13/2014 11:55:00 PM

Quote :

"It's about moral absolutes, just like anti-discrimination laws are based on a moral absolute. Just like criminalizing homicides and sex trafficking is based on a moral absolute. Just like welfare to provide for the poor is a moral absolute. Every single legislative act is based on a moral absolute. But when it comes to abortion? Many liberals pretend moral absolutes are passé, the thing of conservatives, and pretend it's about choice. "

Most conservatives would agree to an exemption for rape, and other medical necessities. So there aren't any absolutes for the most people, it's a tiny minority that insists on the black-and-white non Nuanced absolutes. Which I'm guessing you are one of them...

Quote :

"The debate is over which moral absolutes do we legislate into law. And specifically, with regards to abortion, when does one attain personhood (or for some, utility). So the arguments regarding personhood and science and such, I'll entertain. But the arguments that this is primarily a matter of personal choice? Weak sauz."

One of your critical flaws is thinking everyone thinks like you. To many people, the world is not about absolutes, or strict ideologies, but about Nuance, and practicality.

But you're right that laws come down to one group of people imposing their morality over other, and at this point in time, people who are against abortion are losing. However, there really is no universal reason why a strict opposition to abortion is a superior position to allowing choice up to a certain point. It just comes down to a personal bias, and a single person's perception of what is best for society.

3/14/2014 12:43:27 AM

^You're right. I didn't mean moral absolutes in the sense that there are never exceptions in reality. I meant in the sense that there are values that we should always strive for to the best of our ability.

But yes, I agree we must exist and legislate in the world of nuances. And yeah, my point was more about imposing morality on others (a "standard" of morality would have been better than moral absolute).

[Edited on March 14, 2014 at 12:57 AM. Reason : ]

3/14/2014 12:55:46 AM

Quote :

"But you're right that laws come down to one group of people imposing their morality over other, and at this point in time, people who are against abortion are losing."

Legislatively, at the state level, pro-life has gained way more ground in the last decade.

Also, pro-life isn't against abortion. To be against abortion would mean that if you, yourself, are unintentionally pregnant, you would give it up for adoption or otherwise not abort. Pro-life, as a political position, is a prohibition of abortion.

And exceptions for rape are still legally incoherent. You'll have a judge decide if it's rape or not? Or maybe the DA? Drag your feet enough, and she's having the child either way.

3/14/2014 8:13:17 AM

If abortion is murder, then exemptions for rape are not just legally incoherent they are also logically and ethically incoherent.

3/14/2014 10:57:37 AM

^^ the issue of abortion seems to ebb and flow more than most, in terms of what people consider themselves (pro life pro choice).

The issue doesn't really affect me personally, I don't feel strongly either way.

My only concern is that the anti-abortion crowd tends to pass legislation that trumps what a doctor would recommend in medical situations, which is unacceptable.

3/14/2014 11:58:17 AM

^ depends on the doctor doesn't it? Ron Paul certainly things otherwise.

^^I know. I'm one of the crazy ones who thinks there shouldn't be exemptions even for rape. Which, if the fetus has acquired personhood at that point, makes full coherent sense (so I feel like that is what should be debated, and often is, but there isn't scientific "proof" either way, just lots of ideologies, so in that case I think it's always better to play it safe, then to later find out we've killed 55 million people).

I think a lot of pro-lifers who make the exemptions, although under the guise of empathy (i respect their intentions) do a disservice to the rationality of the position. Because you're right, it is incoherent.

[Edited on March 14, 2014 at 2:11 PM. Reason : ]

3/14/2014 2:07:28 PM

I just don't see how you could rationalize requiring a woman carry a baby for 9 months that resulted from a rape.

3/14/2014 2:21:24 PM

Don't get raped.

3/14/2014 2:23:39 PM

It's God's will

3/14/2014 5:30:11 PM

Lol. If the pro-lifers think they are going to affect policy with "women have to give birth to rape babies" then pro-choicers don't have much to worry about.

3/14/2014 5:53:02 PM

Quote :

"I'm one of the crazy ones who thinks there shouldn't be exemptions even for rape. "

If your wife was brutally raped and did not want to have the baby, would you force her to? Divorce her if she refused? If abortion was illegal, would you report her to the police and send her to jail for having one?

What if you found early on that carrying it to term would pose a high risk of complications or death for her? Are you going to gamble with your wife's life so some rapist's baby can exist? Do you want the government legally mandating this, determining for itself whether or not your wife's life is worth it with no regard for you?

3/14/2014 7:19:23 PM

Quote :

" How would you like to be forced, by the government, to be pregnant and give birth against your will? "

Wait, the gov't is forcing women to have sex now? damn

Quote :

"And stop with convenience... It's just a baby. My life is more important, and it will ruin my life."

Isn't that kind of a statement about the "convenience" of the baby? yeah, it is...

3/15/2014 11:55:02 PM