someone who is against abortions but hold choice at a higher value would argue for the depenalization of abortion, not for its legalization.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?
Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]
I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]
And I’m the King of France.[/quote]
Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]
Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]
No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]
Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…
Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]
I am very anti-abortion.
Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
An abortion is a single event, to be pro-abortion you are in favor of it in 1 particular case. Since there are apparently millions of these you cannot have an opinion on each individual case without knowing all the facts. This is why the term pro choice is used so the person most qualified to make this decision is able to (the mother). By saying someone who supports abortion in most cases is pro-abortion is not true because it implies they support it in all cases.[/quote]
It’s not about 1 abortion or millions of abortions.
it’s about a law that legalize abortion.
Once the law is passed, there can be 1 abortion or millions of abortion. It’s legal in both cases. Under this law, abortion is a right, and this right can be freely used.
So, if you support this law, you support de facto the possibility of billions of abortions.
And more importantly, your own position leaves you with nothing to say and nothing to oppose against a single abortion.
That, or you are inconsistent.
Btw, we are all “pro-choice”. Myself included.
As far as i know, no one supported forced abortions in this thread.
“Pro-lifers” are absolutely “pro-choice”, they simply think that people should face the moral, legal and penal consequences of their choices.[/quote]
What about the fact you can be against abortions but hold choice at a higher value?[/quote]
Well you devalue life as less important than a person’s decision. It’s a strange hierarchy. The decision a person makes is more valuable than the person?
[quote]kamui wrote:
“Pro-lifers” are absolutely “pro-choice”, they simply think that people should face the moral, legal and penal consequences of their choices.[/quote]
Sp I guess drug warriors are “pro choice” too.
I mean, they might jail or kill you, but the choice is yours.
I would be very careful with that logic because there is always a third option.
Putting a bullet in the brainstem of the person offering it.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
An abortion is a single event, to be pro-abortion you are in favor of it in 1 particular case. Since there are apparently millions of these you cannot have an opinion on each individual case without knowing all the facts. This is why the term pro choice is used so the person most qualified to make this decision is able to (the mother). By saying someone who supports abortion in most cases is pro-abortion is not true because it implies they support it in all cases.[/quote]
It’s not about 1 abortion or millions of abortions.
it’s about a law that legalize abortion.
Once the law is passed, there can be 1 abortion or millions of abortion. It’s legal in both cases. Under this law, abortion is a right, and this right can be freely used.
So, if you support this law, you support de facto the possibility of billions of abortions.
And more importantly, your own position leaves you with nothing to say and nothing to oppose against a single abortion.
That, or you are inconsistent.
Btw, we are all “pro-choice”. Myself included.
As far as i know, no one supported forced abortions in this thread.
“Pro-lifers” are absolutely “pro-choice”, they simply think that people should face the moral, legal and penal consequences of their choices.[/quote]
Then it’s ‘pro-choice’ at the barrel of a gun.
Nice choice.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?
Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]
I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]
And I’m the King of France.[/quote]
Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]
I like how you guys use the term “pro-abortion” as though we go around with coat-hangers pro-actively engaging in ‘feticide’.
It’s telling of your manipulative, emotionally driven argument tactics; but I guess that’s only to be expected from the ‘anti-freedom’ side of the debate. See? I can play games too.
On a more personal level, I was under the impression that you are not religious, so what’s your beef with abortion?[/quote]
You’re either for abortion or against it. If you are for it, you are pro-abortion. The term pro-choice technically doesn’t mean anything, you could be talking about ice cream. If you are for abortion then be proud and definitive of your stance, don’t hide behind silly words or slogans that have no real meaning. [/quote]
Wrong right off the bat. There’s a difference between being always ‘for’ abortion (pro-abortion) and being ‘for’ the woman’s choice (hence, pro-choice).
It’s actually pretty simple so long as you’re not a stubborn jack-ass about it.
I’m “pro-abortion” in the same way you’re “anti-freedom”. Both labels are equally inaccurate. While ‘pro-abortion’ implies I am always in favour of abortion and not simply in favour of the freedom for a woman to choose for herself, ‘anti-freedom’ implies you are always against freedom and not just against a woman’s freedom to chose to get an abortion or not.
If you want to call me ‘pro-abortion’, so be it, but then you have no right to complain when I say you’re ‘anti-freedom’. [/quote]
When it comes to killing a human life, I am very anti-freedom. If you determine freedom by the restrictions or lack there of when it comes to the taking of human life, I am as anti-freedom as you can get.
Labels are bullshit. You are either for or against killing the unborn, bottom line.[/quote]
Then we agree. I am pro-abortion and your are anti-freedom. [/quote]
So you consider the word ‘freedom’ as being defined on whether you are free to take a human life willy-nilly? That’s odd.
Okay, so in your little bizarre world, where being able to kill people is equivilent with freedom, I am anti-freedom.
In the real world, where freedom doesn’t include the freedom to kill at will I am not anti-freedom.
Fortunately, I live in the real world, and not your little weird world. So you are still wrong, you just don’t know it.[/quote]
And in your bizzare world where ad-hoc decisions represent one’s over-all view on the matter, I am pro-abortion.
As I’ve said, the terms are equally inadequate. If my terminology is wrong, then yours equally wrong.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?
Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]
I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]
And I’m the King of France.[/quote]
Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]
Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]
No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]
Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…
Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]
I am very anti-abortion.
Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]
It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.
You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.
You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?
Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]
I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]
And I’m the King of France.[/quote]
Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]
Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]
No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]
Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…
Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]
I am very anti-abortion.
Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]
It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.
You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.
You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly. [/quote]
I do not support the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not in the conversation…
1.2 million > 20. When the numbers of abortions become as little as the death penalty, I will give it it’s due attention. Abortion is a way bigger problem. The death penalty is morally wrong, in most cases.
And it’s still a Red Herring…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?
Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]
I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]
And I’m the King of France.[/quote]
Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]
Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]
No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]
Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…
Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]
I am very anti-abortion.
Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]
It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.
You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.
You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly. [/quote]
I do not support the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not in the conversation…
1.2 million > 20. When the numbers of abortions become as little as the death penalty, I will give it it’s due attention. Abortion is a way bigger problem. The death penalty is morally wrong, in most cases.
And it’s still a Red Herring…[/quote]
How is it even a problem?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?
Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]
I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]
And I’m the King of France.[/quote]
Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]
Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]
No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]
Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…
Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]
I am very anti-abortion.
Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]
It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.
You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.
You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly. [/quote]
I do not support the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not in the conversation…
1.2 million > 20. When the numbers of abortions become as little as the death penalty, I will give it it’s due attention. Abortion is a way bigger problem. The death penalty is morally wrong, in most cases.
And it’s still a Red Herring…[/quote]
So it’s a matter of numbers for you? Interesting.
Also, you say “in most cases”, meaning it’s not always morally wrong?
Finally, I’ve given my reason as to why it’s not a red herring. If you want to prove it is otherwise you’ll have to carry the idea farther than the declarative stage.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
An abortion is a single event, to be pro-abortion you are in favor of it in 1 particular case. Since there are apparently millions of these you cannot have an opinion on each individual case without knowing all the facts. This is why the term pro choice is used so the person most qualified to make this decision is able to (the mother). By saying someone who supports abortion in most cases is pro-abortion is not true because it implies they support it in all cases.[/quote]
It’s not about 1 abortion or millions of abortions.
it’s about a law that legalize abortion.
Once the law is passed, there can be 1 abortion or millions of abortion. It’s legal in both cases. Under this law, abortion is a right, and this right can be freely used.
So, if you support this law, you support de facto the possibility of billions of abortions.
And more importantly, your own position leaves you with nothing to say and nothing to oppose against a single abortion.
That, or you are inconsistent.
Btw, we are all “pro-choice”. Myself included.
As far as i know, no one supported forced abortions in this thread.
“Pro-lifers” are absolutely “pro-choice”, they simply think that people should face the moral, legal and penal consequences of their choices.[/quote]
Then it’s ‘pro-choice’ at the barrel of a gun.
Nice choice.[/quote]
Choices have consequences, and these consequences are not always nice.
C’est la vie.
Btw, I said “moral, legal and penal consequences”.
Three different things, on 3 different levels.
But I don’t remember speaking about guns.
Regarding death penalty :
i’m absolutely against it, mainly because the very notion of death penalty is absurd.
Strictly speaking, death is not an experience, and as such, it CAN’T be a penalty.
You don’t punish a cadaver. And if he’s not yet a cadaver, then he has not yet experienced death penalty.
That being said, in some cases, the execution of a criminal can be a legitimate securiy measure. Or a form of collective self-defense, so to speak.
but such an execution
-would be a necessary evil, not a moral good.
-should be done by representants of the executive, not by representants of the judicial.
you may think i’m spliting fine hairs again, but morally and politically, the difference is very real.
And it’s the same argument i proposed for abortion : no law should ever make killing a right.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
An abortion is a single event, to be pro-abortion you are in favor of it in 1 particular case. Since there are apparently millions of these you cannot have an opinion on each individual case without knowing all the facts. This is why the term pro choice is used so the person most qualified to make this decision is able to (the mother). By saying someone who supports abortion in most cases is pro-abortion is not true because it implies they support it in all cases.[/quote]
It’s not about 1 abortion or millions of abortions.
it’s about a law that legalize abortion.
Once the law is passed, there can be 1 abortion or millions of abortion. It’s legal in both cases. Under this law, abortion is a right, and this right can be freely used.
So, if you support this law, you support de facto the possibility of billions of abortions.
And more importantly, your own position leaves you with nothing to say and nothing to oppose against a single abortion.
That, or you are inconsistent.
Btw, we are all “pro-choice”. Myself included.
As far as i know, no one supported forced abortions in this thread.
“Pro-lifers” are absolutely “pro-choice”, they simply think that people should face the moral, legal and penal consequences of their choices.[/quote]
Then it’s ‘pro-choice’ at the barrel of a gun.
Nice choice.[/quote]
Choices have consequences, and these consequences are not always nice.
C’est la vie.
Btw, I said “moral, legal and penal consequences”.
Three different things, on 3 different levels.
But I don’t remember speaking about guns.
[/quote]
No, it’s not “C’est la vie” kamui, not at all. We aren’t talking about consequences attached to the situation by necessity, but instead we’re talking about you and your desire to impose punishment on women who get abortions. ‘Such is life’ is the way life is now, where women have the choice and your opinion on the matter doesn’t matter. The problem here is that you don’t think the automatic consequences that life itself provides for abortions are harsh enough as they don’t meet your personal standard of stopping abortions from happening period. If this truly was a matter of “c’est la vie”, then you would be leaving this matter alone.
Furthermore, the connection between guns and legal consequences are obvious. The only reason why anyone accepts any legal ramifications is because if they protest long enough, they will have to be killed. Follow me on this one;
Let’s say a man litters. Let’s say he is fined for his crime. Let’s say he doesn’t pay it. From there, he may receive a letter calling him to court. Let’s say he doesn’t show up. Perhaps he gets a few more letters, but eventually officers will be at his door to take him downtown personally. Let’s say he resists further, the officers will have to get forceful and if he resists any more they will have to shoot him.
This same line of reasoning applies to all crimes. If the police aren’t willing to violently and eventually lethally enforce the law, then all any criminal would have to do is resist up to that point and the law will back down. It is in this way that all laws are ultimately enforced by the threat of death. Without that, these ‘smaller punishments’ hold no power.
In regard to abortion, whatever the punishment a woman will receive for aborting her child in a country where abortion is illegal, it will have to be backed by progressively worse punishments in order to force the woman into compliance. So, when you say she still has the choice to get an abortion under these circumstances, you’re right, she does, she has the choice to get an abortion or not to get an abortion… at the barrel of a gun.
Now that I’ve made the connection, I have a question for you; do you agree with this? That is, do you agree that, should this ‘criminal’ not comply with the punishment given (whatever it may be), is it justified for the punishment to eventually be termination, should the criminal persist and resist as much?
I don’t know where you live. But i do live in a democratic republic, not in a dictatorship or totalitarian country.
Here, the officers won’t use a gun if you don’t use a gun (or another weapon) first.
You’re not shot because you’re a criminal, but because you’re an imminent threat.
Moreover, each of your “let’s say” is another choice.
the “barrel of a gun” is not the consequence of “he choose to litters” here.
it’s the consequence of “he choose to forcefully resist”.
The gun is not involved because the man broke the law, but because he broke the social contract by putting himself above the law.
As long as you don’t do that, there is no gun involved in the legal process. At all.
That’s the same thing here :
She has the choice to get an abortion at the “cost” of a punishment, or not to get an abortion. No gun involved at this point.
The gun becomes involved if and only if she refuses to face the consequences of her choice, and make a long serie of other choices. The gun is the consequence of the last one.
[quote]
Now that I’ve made the connection, I have a question for you; do you agree with this? That is, do you agree that, should this ‘criminal’ not comply with the punishment given (whatever it may be), is it justified for the punishment to eventually be termination, should the criminal persist and resist as much?[/quote]
In a republican context, yes, i do agree with this.
Anarchist rebels who try to shoot officers should be terminated.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?
Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]
I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]
And I’m the King of France.[/quote]
Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]
Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]
No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]
Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…
Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]
I am very anti-abortion.
Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]
It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.
You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.
You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly. [/quote]
I do not support the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not in the conversation…
1.2 million > 20. When the numbers of abortions become as little as the death penalty, I will give it it’s due attention. Abortion is a way bigger problem. The death penalty is morally wrong, in most cases.
And it’s still a Red Herring…[/quote]
So it’s a matter of numbers for you? Interesting.
Also, you say “in most cases”, meaning it’s not always morally wrong?
Finally, I’ve given my reason as to why it’s not a red herring. If you want to prove it is otherwise you’ll have to carry the idea farther than the declarative stage.[/quote]
Numbers do matter. Both are morally wrong, and if all else are equal then they deserve equal attention. But all else is not equal. Death penalty is rarely used, abortion happens every 3 seconds.
It is a red herring because you were trying to divert the topic from abortion being murder, to trying to prove I had an inconsistent stance on life. Even if I had an inconsistent stance on life, it still wouldn’t change the fact that abortion is murder.
I meant ‘in most cases’ because a state has a right and a duty to protect it’s citizens. For instance, sometimes you have people who are leaders or some such, whose existence can stir up followers to do harm or to try and rescue, him or something like that. In such a case, the need to rid the populous of such a risk is greater than need to preserve the other guy’s life.
Think about Bin Laden for instance, taking him in to custody could be a disaster. Terrorist acts or attempted rescues would have been a distinct possibility, hence killing him was the better option.
This type of thing is very, very rare of course, but it’s an exception to the rule that must be accounted for.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?
Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]
I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]
And I’m the King of France.[/quote]
Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]
Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]
No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]
Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…
Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]
I am very anti-abortion.
Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]
It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.
You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.
You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly. [/quote]
I do not support the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not in the conversation…
1.2 million > 20. When the numbers of abortions become as little as the death penalty, I will give it it’s due attention. Abortion is a way bigger problem. The death penalty is morally wrong, in most cases.
And it’s still a Red Herring…[/quote]
So it’s a matter of numbers for you? Interesting.
Also, you say “in most cases”, meaning it’s not always morally wrong?
Finally, I’ve given my reason as to why it’s not a red herring. If you want to prove it is otherwise you’ll have to carry the idea farther than the declarative stage.[/quote]
Numbers do matter. Both are morally wrong, and if all else are equal then they deserve equal attention. But all else is not equal. Death penalty is rarely used, abortion happens every 3 seconds.
It is a red herring because you were trying to divert the topic from abortion being murder, to trying to prove I had an inconsistent stance on life. Even if I had an inconsistent stance on life, it still wouldn’t change the fact that abortion is murder.
I meant ‘in most cases’ because a state has a right and a duty to protect it’s citizens. For instance, sometimes you have people who are leaders or some such, whose existence can stir up followers to do harm or to try and rescue, him or something like that. In such a case, the need to rid the populous of such a risk is greater than need to preserve the other guy’s life.
Think about Bin Laden for instance, taking him in to custody could be a disaster. Terrorist acts or attempted rescues would have been a distinct possibility, hence killing him was the better option.
This type of thing is very, very rare of course, but it’s an exception to the rule that must be accounted for.[/quote]
Wrong. Abortion being murder is a given, that’s not what I’m arguing about. My entire effort is to reveal contradictions in your philosophy, so there is no red herring. Ironically, in your attempt to pull a red herring out of my argument, you’ve committed a red herring.
So, if I understand you correctly, you contend that killing can be moral so long as it serves the ‘greater good’, so to speak?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?
Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]
I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]
And I’m the King of France.[/quote]
Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]
Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]
No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]
Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…
Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]
I am very anti-abortion.
Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]
It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.
You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.
You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly. [/quote]
I do not support the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not in the conversation…
1.2 million > 20. When the numbers of abortions become as little as the death penalty, I will give it it’s due attention. Abortion is a way bigger problem. The death penalty is morally wrong, in most cases.
And it’s still a Red Herring…[/quote]
So it’s a matter of numbers for you? Interesting.
Also, you say “in most cases”, meaning it’s not always morally wrong?
Finally, I’ve given my reason as to why it’s not a red herring. If you want to prove it is otherwise you’ll have to carry the idea farther than the declarative stage.[/quote]
Numbers do matter. Both are morally wrong, and if all else are equal then they deserve equal attention. But all else is not equal. Death penalty is rarely used, abortion happens every 3 seconds.
It is a red herring because you were trying to divert the topic from abortion being murder, to trying to prove I had an inconsistent stance on life. Even if I had an inconsistent stance on life, it still wouldn’t change the fact that abortion is murder.
I meant ‘in most cases’ because a state has a right and a duty to protect it’s citizens. For instance, sometimes you have people who are leaders or some such, whose existence can stir up followers to do harm or to try and rescue, him or something like that. In such a case, the need to rid the populous of such a risk is greater than need to preserve the other guy’s life.
Think about Bin Laden for instance, taking him in to custody could be a disaster. Terrorist acts or attempted rescues would have been a distinct possibility, hence killing him was the better option.
This type of thing is very, very rare of course, but it’s an exception to the rule that must be accounted for.[/quote]
Wrong. Abortion being murder is a given, that’s not what I’m arguing about. My entire effort is to reveal contradictions in your philosophy, so there is no red herring. Ironically, in your attempt to pull a red herring out of my argument, you’ve committed a red herring.
[/quote]
So your stance is that abortion is murder, but that it’s ok to do anyway? That’s interesting and honest and I appreciate that.
I haven’t presented any contradictions in my arguments though. You were pulling from a stereotype where you assumed I was a “typical republican” and against abortion and for the death penalty. That’s simply not the case. Further, you introduced these things, I did not. I was talking about abortion and it’s wrongness because it’s the taking of a human life. From that I have not wavered not one little tiny bit.
[quote]
So, if I understand you correctly, you contend that killing can be moral so long as it serves the ‘greater good’, so to speak? [/quote]
No I do not contend that killing is “moral” at best it’s a morally neutral act. I cannot for see a scenario where killing is a ‘good’ thing, but just in case I will leave it open as a remote possibility.
Sometimes, there really isn’t a choice. If your family is in danger, or there is imminent threat, then you have to protect yourself and others if you are able to do so. Likewise, if there is a scenario where the mother’s life is in danger because of the pregnancy, she really doesn’t have much of a choice other than to abort. These aren’t morally “good”, they are just necessary which makes them neutral.
Why does something necessarily have to be made illegal if its morally wrong? I don’t see the problem with keeping it legal in this case even if 99% of people think its immoral as murder.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Why does something necessarily have to be made illegal if its morally wrong? I don’t see the problem with keeping it legal in this case even if 99% of people think its immoral as murder.[/quote]
Doesn’t that line of reasoning then question why murder itself is illegal?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Why does something necessarily have to be made illegal if its morally wrong? I don’t see the problem with keeping it legal in this case even if 99% of people think its immoral as murder.[/quote]
Doesn’t that line of reasoning then question why murder itself is illegal? [/quote]
Not at all, I think that has been discussed in here before.