T-Nation Elections

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pookie wrote:

I’m readily in favor of anything that could reduce abortions; but I note that many, if not most, of the “pro-lifers” never consider what happens to the child after it is born. It seems sufficient to ensure he makes it out the birth canal alive, and then nobody cares what happens after.

What I find interesting is how often the people who are the most adamant opponents of abortion are also the most ardent supporters of the death penalty.

It would be the height of ironies if abortion was made illegal, and many of those extra million unwanted babies, born into poverty and neglect, grew up to commit heinous crimes. Then the very people who pleaded for their lives while they were still fetuses would likely be clambering for their deaths just two decades later.[/quote]

Perhaps we should just kill everyone. Imagine the drop in crime rate!

122

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
"
I’m not all that fond of elevating one race over another. And I think at this point we, as a country need to ditch black history month. That doesn’t do one single positive thing for black people. But it does irritate whites and other racial groups.

That’s what I meant.

The bigger question: Why does it “irritate” whites and other racial groups that there is a Black History Month? So what is it about Black History Month that negatively affects so many lives?? Your posts tend to allude to the reasons as to why we ever needed a black history month in the first place. “I’m not all that fond of elevating one race over another”…LOL.[/quote]

Why have a month and then ignore it for the other 11? Why not integrate history and teach about all important historial figures and actions, Black, White, Asian, Indian (both kinds), etc.

123

[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
lixy wrote:

I take responsibility for my actions, thank you very much. What we are talking about here is empowering women versus keeping them subservient to the seed dropping rascals.

You’d fit right in the Dark Ages.

That is precisely what we are talking about. He would prefer however if the woman were a non entity in the equation. She is to accept that her life is secondary regardless, and that she is a mere vessel for man, and must forfeit rights to her body.

This whole thing will unfold predictably. Same bullshit from people who call themselves ‘pro lifers’. My stance won’t change, I doubt anybody elses will either.

Here ya go Pat, heres your ‘facts’. Spark up your joint and enjoy.

http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm#fetus

[/quote]

No, he is talking about the outright murder of an unborn child. You (and others) are trying to rationalize it away. The mother doesn’t have to raise an unwanted child. She can walk away. Others can handle it.

124

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Varq, you’re nothing if not a determinist.

The arguments are completely different, of course, and whether or not death is visited is a matter of criminal culpability, thus forfeiting your right to life. I think there are hard questions involved in coming to answers on both, but there is nothing inconsistent about being pro-life and pro-death penalty.

And, don’t get too far afield with the Freakonomics argument that all these “unaborted” kids go on to lives of crime. It isn’t a valid one.[/quote]

I have zero interest in Freakonomics, nor am I arguing that all these “unaborted” kids go on to lives of crime. I said that it would be ironic if the same folks who pled for these people’s lives then ended up demanding their deaths. Irony doesn’t always require inconsistency, after all.

As it happens (and I’ve said this before), I approve of capital punishment, in some cases. I also see the need for abortion, in some cases. I guess that makes me moderately Pro-Death.

And a determinist? Maybe. After all, shit happens, whether we want it to or not.

125

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps we should just kill everyone. Imagine the drop in crime rate!
[/quote]

It’s already in place, and is called the Bush doctrine.

126

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps we should just kill everyone. Imagine the drop in crime rate!

It’s already in place, and is called the Bush doctrine. [/quote]

Not this nonsense again.

127

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps we should just kill everyone. Imagine the drop in crime rate!
[/quote]

Not to mention that you’d never have trouble finding a parking space again.

128

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps we should just kill everyone. Imagine the drop in crime rate!

Not to mention that you’d never have trouble finding a parking space again.[/quote]

I just hope they don’t all come back to life.

129

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps we should just kill everyone. Imagine the drop in crime rate!

Not to mention that you’d never have trouble finding a parking space again.

I just hope they don’t all come back to life.[/quote]

There was a Steven Wright joke like that: “last night I had a dream that all the babies prevented by the pill showed up. They were pissed.”

130

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps we should just kill everyone. Imagine the drop in crime rate!

Not to mention that you’d never have trouble finding a parking space again.

I just hope they don’t all come back to life.

There was a Steven Wright joke like that: “last night I had a dream that all the babies prevented by the pill showed up. They were pissed.”[/quote]

HA! That’s the first thing I thought of when I read that. I love Steven Wright.

“It’s a small world, but I wouldn’t want to have to paint it.”

131

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
None of which speaks to what the fetus is. Say, for the sake of argument only, that I am right and it is a person. Does it matter that we don’t have a plan as to what to do with them? If I am wrong it doesn’t anyway. Is not having a plan as to what to do with somebody justify killing them off.

What do we do with them, I don’t know, maybe make the people who fucked responsible for it?
Responsibility for ones actions, now that is an idea whose time has come!

I see. It’s a foot-in-the-door to push your “abstinence” agenda.

Diabolical!

Actually, I am quite the fan of fucking. So no, I am not talking about abstinence. But, if you aren’t adult enough to take responsibility for you actions then you have no business doing those actions.

I take responsibility for my actions, thank you very much. What we are talking about here is empowering women versus keeping them subservient to the seed dropping rascals.

You’d fit right in the Dark Ages.[/quote]

Good for you. And for the record, covering women up in veils, keeping them at home and punishing them for interacting with another man is is empowering?

For the record, it’s not the women, it’s the children they carry that I am concerned about. If a woman wants to cuyt her arm off shove it up her own ass, far be it from me to stop her.

If she wants to kill off another human being that has done nothing to her, I have a problem with that.

132

[quote]pat wrote:
For the record, it’s not the women, it’s the children they carry that I am concerned about. [/quote]

What happened to “Fuck the Children”?

133

[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
lixy wrote:

I take responsibility for my actions, thank you very much. What we are talking about here is empowering women versus keeping them subservient to the seed dropping rascals.

You’d fit right in the Dark Ages.

That is precisely what we are talking about. He would prefer however if the woman were a non entity in the equation. She is to accept that her life is secondary regardless, and that she is a mere vessel for man, and must forfeit rights to her body.

This whole thing will unfold predictably. Same bullshit from people who call themselves ‘pro lifers’. My stance won’t change, I doubt anybody elses will either.

Here ya go Pat, heres your ‘facts’. Spark up your joint and enjoy.

http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm#fetus
[/quote]

That’s the same propaganda horseshit I have seen for ages and it does not wash. A baby born at 40 wks is a person, so is one born at 36wks, so is one born at 30wks, so is one born at 25 wks, etc. What is the difference between the that 25 wk old baby and the 40 other than developmentally it has not caught up. Is it less human? I thought not.

As I said before you can only take a stance on the issue if you can define what it is you are talking about.
If you are arguing that a “fetus” or embryo is not a person then what the fuck is it?
What is a “person” and how is it different from the fetus?

You aren’t making any sort of argument. You are spewing crap about “rights” and “dark ages” which lend absolutely nothing to your argument. Or am I to conclude that you agree that the child in womb is in fact a person, but you don’t give a flying fuck, you should have the right to kill it off and eliminate it if you feel so inclined?

134

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

Varq, you’re nothing if not a determinist.

The arguments are completely different, of course, and whether or not death is visited is a matter of criminal culpability, thus forfeiting your right to life. I think there are hard questions involved in coming to answers on both, but there is nothing inconsistent about being pro-life and pro-death penalty.

And, don’t get too far afield with the Freakonomics argument that all these “unaborted” kids go on to lives of crime. It isn’t a valid one.

I have zero interest in Freakonomics, nor am I arguing that all these “unaborted” kids go on to lives of crime. I said that it would be ironic if the same folks who pled for these people’s lives then ended up demanding their deaths. Irony doesn’t always require inconsistency, after all.

As it happens (and I’ve said this before), I approve of capital punishment, in some cases. I also see the need for abortion, in some cases. I guess that makes me moderately Pro-Death.

And a determinist? Maybe. After all, shit happens, whether we want it to or not.[/quote]

I am against the death penalty too, there are better ways to hurt them.

135

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps we should just kill everyone. Imagine the drop in crime rate!

It’s already in place, and is called the Bush doctrine. [/quote]

Oh, damn, I thought it was call the Koran.

136

[quote]malonetd wrote:
pat wrote:
For the record, it’s not the women, it’s the children they carry that I am concerned about.

What happened to “Fuck the Children”?[/quote]

Hmmm, yea, I seem to have a conflict…Let me find a way to spin it and I’ll get back to you.

137

[quote]pat wrote:
Does it matter that we don’t have a plan as to what to do with them? If I am wrong it doesn’t anyway. Is not having a plan as to what to do with somebody justify killing them off. [/quote]

If you’re going to eventually reach the goal of (near) zero abortions, wouldn’t it be better to think it through and at least have something in place for those kids?

It’s great that you care about the life of all those unborn; it’d be nice if you gave a damn about the quality of that life. Spending your childhood being abused and made to feel unwanted makes for a miserable life.

I think quality of life should be even more of a preoccupation than just quantity of life. We’re not roaches.

Be serious. If those people were responsible to begin with, they wouldn’t be in the situation of having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.

Personally, I think the best way to curb abortion rates is through sex education and widely available (and affordable) birth control.

That’d be nice… It’s unlikely to happen anytime soon, though. More realistic plans would be in order.

138

[quote]pat wrote:
malonetd wrote:
pat wrote:
For the record, it’s not the women, it’s the children they carry that I am concerned about.

What happened to “Fuck the Children”?

Hmmm, yea, I seem to have a conflict…Let me find a way to spin it and I’ll get back to you.[/quote]

Fuck the children is not kill the children. Big difference between not wanting to change your life out of concern that children will be offended and just killing them because they are a bother.

It is still funny.

139

[quote]pat wrote:
Well, I am a man and having anything stuck in my ass I find unappealing. Which is usually the way it goes if you are male.[/quote]

And let a perfectly good prostate go unused?

I can. I suggest you leave aside farm implements and use something smaller.

Well, let’s say it’s Janet Reno who has her way with you and then holds you down while Hillary takes her turn.

Worse, you later find out that somehow, through some freak occurrence of nature (and a hefty dose of poetic justice) you have an embryo growing in your small intestine.

Doctors inform you that they can save the kid, but that the procedure will cost you 50,000$ (not covered by your health plan because “experimental”) and that the final C-section is most likely to leave you sterile and impotent for life.

OR, they can also get rid of it in 20 minutes with full coverage of costs.

What would you do?

That’ll teach you to be nice. Remember: Always be evil.

You know, it would be nice of you to consider that the owner of the uterus is also a person. What about her life? Why doesn’t she get a say in the situation? Especially if she finds herself in that situation through no fault of her own?

Weren’t you just arguing that is wasn’t important how the embryo go there, that they were all equally deserving of life?

If you’re allowing these, then the difference between us is simply where your “tolerance” bar is set.

[quote]I think, to answer the question, we have to define what a person is. So pook, what is your definition of a person? What makes a human being a human being? No bullshit.
For the record,I asked first…[/quote]

A person… let’s see. A personality certainly helps. Self-awareness. A sense of identity. We probably need to specify that it has to be human, unless we want to consider self-aware, personable computer AIs as “persons” in the future. Can’t wait for those debates.

An embryo doesn’t qualify as a person. While there is certainly a growing human in the uterus, I don’t see a person there during the 1st and maybe 2nd trimester. About 85% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks… so while a life has effectively been ended, there was yet no “person” there to “know” they were being killed.

As for asking first, I don’t need to ask if I already know your answer, now, do I?

140

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
<----
If I were to be sexually assaulted by a female, who knows how I’d feel; guess it depends on what she looked like. :slight_smile:

Well, let’s say it’s Janet Reno who has her way with you and then holds you down while Hillary takes her turn.

Worse, you later find out that somehow, through some freak occurrence of nature (and a hefty dose of poetic justice) you have an embryo growing in your small intestine.

Doctors inform you that they can save the kid, but that the procedure will cost you 50,000$ (not covered by your health plan because “experimental”) and that the final C-section is most likely to leave you sterile and impotent for life.

OR, they can also get rid of it in 20 minutes with full coverage of costs.

What would you do?
[/quote]
Damn you know how to paint a picture…Janet Reno? Come on! You could have at least chosen Rosie or Oprah…Hillary is bangable for an old hag…Anyway, you know of course I would answer that I have to keep the kid despite how much it would suck to do so.

Most of the time they did have a say in the beginning. And besides I am not discounting the woman, I am saying that killing her off-spring isn’t an option.
If she found herself pregnant from a forced act, I still cannot say killing it isn’t tantamount to murder in that case. If I am arguing for the personhood of the embryo, the method of conception doesn’t play into it. Sounds cold, but it would not follow logically to say otherwise.

I was arguing from a utilitarian stand point. Numbers matter. If I could get rid of the vast majority of abortions, but had to keep some around for mitigating circumstances, I would sacrifice.
For instance, if I were a legislator trying to pass a bill and I know that if I included banning all abortions period would not pass, but a bill excluding the conditions or rape, incest, or other extreme circumstances would pass; then that’s what I would do.

Most animal are self-aware and have personality. And some people either through trauma or mental defect are not aware, or have personality, but are arguably still people. I work with some people, whom I’d argue have no personality, actually.

So you’d concede that third trimester fetuses are people and hence aborting them would be killing a person? That�??s a start. I won’t do it to you because we’ve been over it before, but you know I could start regressing the questions “What is it a week before point X?”

I actually was surprised you were choosing metaphysical properties such as “awareness” or “personality” to describe what persons are.

I said I asked first so you couldn�??t throw the question back in my face. BTW, what do you think, I think a person is?