please can we all talk about abortions? that would be nice.

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Rat
Rattus Trolleri
Posts: 929
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Rat » Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:56 pm UTC

Narsil wrote:I don't think that guys should not have an opinion on the matter, but let me just say if you're a pro-life guy, you are a pompous ass-hat and I would be amazed if you found the brain power necessary to pull your pants down before sitting on the can. To think that someone would have the sheer audacity to tell someone to unwillingly go through an experience of unimaginable pain to conform to beliefs that she may or may not agree with only because someone higher up than her believes something and feels entitled to force it on others as well....

Some people are idiots. Let's leave it at that. It's when those idiots breed, vote and operate large machinery, then we get problems.


so, you think guys should have an opinion on the matter but if it's pro life then they suck?

also, are you saying that all men are higher up that women?? (im just yankin yer chain with that one)

anyway, its a good thing im pro killchildren or i might be offended by what you said

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:01 pm UTC

Rat wrote:
Narsil wrote:I don't think that guys should not have an opinion on the matter, but let me just say if you're a pro-life guy, you are a pompous ass-hat and I would be amazed if you found the brain power necessary to pull your pants down before sitting on the can. To think that someone would have the sheer audacity to tell someone to unwillingly go through an experience of unimaginable pain to conform to beliefs that she may or may not agree with only because someone higher up than her believes something and feels entitled to force it on others as well....


so, you think guys should have an opinion on the matter but if it's pro life then they suck?


As Rat notes, this seems...off. Firstly because you claim you shouldn't have an opinion, and yet give it anyway. Secondly because you seemingly claim that your viewpoint is the only logical/smart/good one. And wrongly so. Besides the fact that your argument would also work on women, as it would again be pro-life women telling "someone to unwillingly go through an experience of unimaginable pain to conform to beliefs that she may or may not agree with" as you so put it. How is that any different? It isn't, but you were too busy arbitrarily dismissing half the debate to realize that. While I am pro-choice, I can't get behind your argument.

Narsil wrote:Some people are idiots. Let's leave it at that. It's when those idiots breed, vote and operate large machinery, then we get problems.

You left a couple cases off there...one being 'use the internet'.
9 x 6 = 42

Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T526268 4971339 (NAD 83)

Postby ivnja » Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:44 pm UTC

Narsil wrote:I don't think that guys should not have an opinion on the matter, but...


I think you guys misread? Unless he typo'ed, he's saying that guys shouldn't not have an opinion, not that they shouldn't have one...i.e. they should be able to have and voice an opinion.

I agree with you (Rat and Tractor) on the rest of what you said though.
Hi you.
she/her

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:06 pm UTC

ivnja wrote:
Narsil wrote:I don't think that guys should not have an opinion on the matter, but...


I think you guys misread? Unless he typo'ed, he's saying that guys shouldn't not have an opinion, not that they shouldn't have one...i.e. they should be able to have and voice an opinion.

I agree with you (Rat and Tractor) on the rest of what you said though.


-50 to Narsil for poor use of double negatives. -10 to me for missing it. The rest of my point stands.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
Framling
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:58 am UTC

Postby Framling » Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:16 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Point of clarification: The abortion ban never became law in South Dakota.

The (asshole) legislators passed it, the (douchebag) governor signed it, but before it could take effect, enough angry people signed petitions to get it put on the ballot last fall, where it was shot the hell down.

Not that it would have suprised me in the least had they passed it. It's really not like them to pass up an opportunity to look like backwoods retards in front of the rest of the world.


They may still have the chance


GOD DAMN IT.

I'm sorry to bump this thread like this, but this kind of shit is exactly why my wife and I moved from South Dakota to Seattle. "Hey, let's enact the most ridiculous religio-conservative legislation we can, despite the wishes of our constituents and the best interests of the people most affected by the legislation. Then let's put that aside and take a moment to wonder why all our promising college graduates are fleeing the state likes rats from a sinking ship."

Let me point out the worst bit of this legislation, for those who didn't follow the link: The law bans abortions except to save the life of the mother, or in the case of rape or incest, but only if the rape or incest are reported to police, and only after a DNA match.

You got raped, but they never caught the guy? Too bad! Got raped, but you didn't report it out of fear of the very real social stigma attached? Too bad! Victim of incest, but you didn't report it because life isn't that fucking simple? Too bad! Enjoy your hate baby!

The worst part is, this past Halloween, my college town was home to a five-man gang rape of a friend of one of my wife's closest friends, a block off main street, and not only was no one ever caught, the cops didn't acknowledge that it took place for months, apparently because "That kind of thing doesn't hppen [there]."
your = belonging to you
you're = you are
their = belonging to them
they're = they are
there = not here

User avatar
Lani
Has Boobs (Probably)
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:07 am UTC
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Contact:

Postby Lani » Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:08 am UTC

Reminds me of this.

While she was behind bars, a jail worker refused to give her a second dose of the morning-after contraceptive pill because of the worker's religious convictions, the college student's attorney said.


It's old news, but it still pisses me off. I hope she sues the shit out of them.
- Lani

"They think they're so high and mighty, just because they never got caught driving without pants."

User avatar
digitrev
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:22 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby digitrev » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:13 pm UTC

A few quick things I would personally like to say on the matter.

Disclaimer: I have been raised Catholic, and have a very Catholic family. I still attend weekly mass. I plan to vote Conservative in the next federal election, I plan to vote Conservative in the next provincial election, and I voted for the most conservative mainstream candidate (Larry O'Brien) in the last municipal election. I am also a math and physics major attending Carleton University, a university with a fairly liberal bias. I am male, 18, of Caucasian descent, and live in a fairly well-to-do suburb of Ottawa. I consider myself pro-life. Long story short, I'm a young, male, WASP.

I'm telling you this so you can judge my bias, and attempt to remove it from the following logic of my argument.

In Canada, in 2003, 104 248 abortions occurred. I not aware of the total cost this incurred, but at a fairly conservative estimate of roughly $10 for the procedure, and $20 incurred over the recovery time, this incurs a cost of roughly $3 million. Factor in an amount of time spent in a hospital while recovering (56 429 abortions while at hospitals) which could be used for people who have a higher need of this space and time. This is a fairly high cost, with respect to money, space, and time.

To be fair, that cost is partially offset by the money earned by the woman in question who can now go to work for the time she would have had to take off for the birth.

However, I personally believe that this time, money, and space would be much better spent on drastically improving the adoption system. However, I do not know the numbers behind this, so I can't say for sure whether or not this would have a large effect on the quality of life in adoption clinics.

On the other hand, if we are to disregard the moral aspects of abortion, and look upon it only as a choice of the mother, then we are left with an imbalance.

I have often heard the argument that the father has no right to tell the mother what to do with her body. I.E. the father has no right to make a decision directly affecting the mother. However, these same people often also wish for the father to somehow provide for the mother and her child. The mother's decision not to abort requires that the father be financially responsible for the mother and the child. I.E. the mother has a right to make a decision directly affecting the father.

I personally believe that the father should absolutely be responsible for the mother and child, but the hypocrisy of those two statements is absurd.


Finally, I would ask you fellow forum goers to refrain from any ad hominem arguments, and deal strictly with what I said.
Together we will make the octopus nervous.
Image

User avatar
Rat
Rattus Trolleri
Posts: 929
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Rat » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:23 pm UTC

digitrev wrote:In Canada, in 2003, 104 248 abortions occurred. I not aware of the total cost this incurred, but at a fairly conservative estimate of roughly $10 for the procedure, and $20 incurred over the recovery time, this incurs a cost of roughly $3 million. Factor in an amount of time spent in a hospital while recovering (56 429 abortions while at hospitals) which could be used for people who have a higher need of this space and time. This is a fairly high cost, with respect to money, space, and time.


bah, how much would it cost to raise 104,248 motherless and fatherless children? how much time would mothers spend at the hospital giving birth?

the need for a woman to get an abortion can be just as great as the need for someone else to get a heart transplant

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:53 pm UTC

digitrev wrote:I have often heard the argument that the father has no right to tell the mother what to do with her body. I.E. the father has no right to make a decision directly affecting the mother. However, these same people often also wish for the father to somehow provide for the mother and her child. The mother's decision not to abort requires that the father be financially responsible for the mother and the child. I.E. the mother has a right to make a decision directly affecting the father.


Agreed. See my statements regarding the male-equivelent of abortion (essentially disavowing any bond, rights, and responsibilities associated with the child prior to its birth) in the thread above.

In Canada, in 2003, 104 248 abortions occurred. I not aware of the total cost this incurred, but at a fairly conservative estimate of roughly $10 for the procedure, and $20 incurred over the recovery time, this incurs a cost of roughly $3 million. Factor in an amount of time spent in a hospital while recovering (56 429 abortions while at hospitals) which could be used for people who have a higher need of this space and time. This is a fairly high cost, with respect to money, space, and time.


I'm not sure what point you're making here. That abortion is too costly for society? That gets into a whole slew of arguments, for example "What the hell is the purpose of a prosperous society except to provide for the needs and wants of its citizens." But before we even get that far, consider:

Giving birth takes up a vastly larger amount of all of the above assets. Medical resources, money, recovery time, and so on. A birth procedure costs more, the mother is hospitalized longer, more doctors are tied up for a longer period of time, the bed is occupied longer, space in the nursery is occupied "longer" (i.e., "at all"), and then you have maternity leave, family leave, etcetera, sapping potential money from the collective workforce.

Add to that the cost of feeding and housing the child, who may or may not grow up to be a productive adult, and in fact has a lower probability of doing so as it will not receive the same degree of care, given that its parent(s) will, on average, be younger, less prepared, less skilled, less wealthy, and generally will want the kid less.

Then add the cost to the criminal justice system for handling the offspring of these "unwanted" pregnancies, which are statistically more likely to engage in both petty and major crime.

If you're arguing from a financial/resources point of view, abortion is a godsend, and giving birth borders on being unpardonably selfish and destructive.

digitrev wrote:However, I personally believe that this time, money, and space would be much better spent on drastically improving the adoption system. However, I do not know the numbers behind this, so I can't say for sure whether or not this would have a large effect on the quality of life in adoption clinics.


See the money, time, and space I refer to above. Apply the same principle.

Finally, I would ask you fellow forum goers to refrain from any ad hominem arguments, and deal strictly with what I said.


In the future, know that such a statement is an implied assumption that we otherwise *would* engage in such arguments, and can be considered insulting.
Last edited by Belial on Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:15 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Framling
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:58 am UTC

Postby Framling » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:00 pm UTC

digitrev wrote:In Canada, in 2003, 104 248 abortions occurred. I not aware of the total cost this incurred, but at a fairly conservative estimate of roughly $10 for the procedure, and $20 incurred over the recovery time, this incurs a cost of roughly $3 million. Factor in an amount of time spent in a hospital while recovering (56 429 abortions while at hospitals) which could be used for people who have a higher need of this space and time. This is a fairly high cost, with respect to money, space, and time.

To be fair, that cost is partially offset by the money earned by the woman in question who can now go to work for the time she would have had to take off for the birth.

However, I personally believe that this time, money, and space would be much better spent on drastically improving the adoption system. However, I do not know the numbers behind this, so I can't say for sure whether or not this would have a large effect on the quality of life in adoption clinics.


Wait wait wait wait. Are you seriously trying to argue that abortions are more expensive?

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html wrote:In 2001, the average charge for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks’ gestation was $468; but since most abortions in the United States are performed at low-cost clinics, women on average paid $372 for the procedure.


Going by this calculator, the cheapest I could get it to spit out, after playing around with the settings for a while, was $171,270. (This is for a baby born in 2001, to match the prior statistic.)

Any math majors in here?

Additionally, I'm no abortionologist, but I'm pretty sure that most of the time, it's an out-patient procedure, meaning no hospital bed is being used.
your = belonging to you
you're = you are
their = belonging to them
they're = they are
there = not here

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:04 pm UTC

Framling is, of course, correct about the out-patient nature of most abortions, assuming no complications. In fact, they usually don't even occur at hospitals, so much as "clinics" which are specialized for that purpose. The idea that this is pulling from the same resource pool as the rest of society's medical needs is a misdirection, whether intentional or otherwise.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
aldimond
Otter-duck
Posts: 2665
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: Uptown, Chicago
Contact:

Postby aldimond » Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:38 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
digitrev wrote:Finally, I would ask you fellow forum goers to refrain from any ad hominem arguments, and deal strictly with what I said.


In the future, know that such a statement is an applied assumption that we otherwise *would* engage in such arguments, and can be considered insulting.


A few people in the last few pages of this thread have been insulting pro-lifers, saying that any pro-lifers are assholes or morons or whatnot. I don't think that's exactly an ad-hom attack, because an ad-hom attack discredits a position based on its proponents rather than its proponents because of their position, but I imagine that's what digitrev was talking about. I think there have been some actual ad-hom attacks from both sides in this thread on both sides, and the frequent ad-hom attacks in debates of this issue in general are subtle and often unintentional, but still very divisive.

So asking people to please take care not to argue ad-hom is in my opinion perfectly appropriate.
One of these days my desk is going to collapse in the middle and all its weight will come down on my knee and tear my new fake ACL. It could be tomorrow. This is my concern.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:17 am UTC

Aldimond, a couple things...

First, I fixed my embarassing typo. "applied assumption" indeed.

Second, you and I seem to be reading different threads, as I found this thread to more or less stick to the issues and the logic, and I haven't noted any sort of personal attacks or general hostility, which is unusual for an issue this divisive.

Can you point to these ad hominem attacks?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
aldimond
Otter-duck
Posts: 2665
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: Uptown, Chicago
Contact:

Postby aldimond » Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:45 am UTC

Bel:

Narsil wrote:I don't think that guys should not have an opinion on the matter, but let me just say if you're a pro-life guy, you are a pompous ass-hat and I would be amazed if you found the brain power necessary to pull your pants down before sitting on the can.


That's one of the ones that's not an ad-hom but is a personal attack on people for their opinion.

The major ad-hom arguments on each side of this debate tend to be along the lines of, "abortions are mostly had by irresponsible people" on the pro-life side and "anti-abortionists don't care about women" on the pro-choice side. Both have appeared in this thread, though after looking through it not nearly to the extent I had previously thought.
One of these days my desk is going to collapse in the middle and all its weight will come down on my knee and tear my new fake ACL. It could be tomorrow. This is my concern.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:54 am UTC

The major ad-hom arguments on each side of this debate tend to be along the lines of, "abortions are mostly had by irresponsible people" on the pro-life side


For reference, that's on the pro-choice side too, at least in my case. By and large, most abortions are avoidable. That doesn't mean I think we should outlaw them. In fact, that's a reason to keep them, in my mind. I don't want irresponsible people having kids. Do you?

And "most" doesn't mean "all" by any means. Or even "more than 51%".

But yes, I suppose you could classify what you stated as ad hominem attacks. I just didn't have my hostility and personal attack meter honed that sensitively.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
aldimond
Otter-duck
Posts: 2665
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: Uptown, Chicago
Contact:

Postby aldimond » Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:03 am UTC

The problem is when someone riles up people against "irresponsible, immoral women having abortions" or "meddling philistines that hate women"... so that people react against those stereotypes rather than for or against real arguments. And there really wasn't as much of that here as I'd previously thought.

I heard a story on the radio recently about some people in Boston that had laid out some ground rules and had a civil, productive debate on abortion. I think it's this; I only caught the last half of the discussion, though.
One of these days my desk is going to collapse in the middle and all its weight will come down on my knee and tear my new fake ACL. It could be tomorrow. This is my concern.

User avatar
Framling
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:58 am UTC

Postby Framling » Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:19 am UTC

This doesn't directly apply to the current state of the conversation, but it is relevant, and South Dakota had been mentioned earlier, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to point out that the abortion bans the state keeps considering are very nearly acedemic.

I say this because (last I knew) there is one clinic in the entire state where abortions are performed. This clinic is in Sioux Falls, in the southeastern corner of the state, far from most of the poorest counties in the state (including Buffalo County, the poorest county in the nation). And they are only performed the once a week or so that the clinic can fly in one of the four doctors from Minnesota who will perform it, since no doctors in the South Dakota will do so. State law forbids any funding of the operation, even in the case of rape or incest. Even in the event an emergency abortion is necessary, to save a life, Sioux Falls has the only hospital that will perform it.

Meaning that if a woman in Rapid City (the second largest city in the state, after Sioux Falls, located on the western side of the state) needs an abortion, it means $450 dollars out of pocket and a 700-mile round trip for the procedure, carefully planned to fit in with the clinic's shifting schedule. (Each of the four doctors from Minnesota has a different schedule.)
your = belonging to you
you're = you are
their = belonging to them
they're = they are
there = not here

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:50 pm UTC

I do love that this title name suggests that talking about abortions is "nice" :P

I might reply more properly to this later, for now, I am pro abortion
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:10 am UTC

rpoulin wrote:2. Abortion. Yes, I'm against it. I guess I think people should take responsibility for their actions. Feel free to flame as need. It won't bother me.


Because this is the thread where this conversation should have taken place, let's put my proper reply to this here.

If I do something stupid with a hammer (or even if I am using the hammer properly. Accidents happen), and break my hand as a result, I have to face the consequences of my action, take responsibility, and so forth. How do I do this?

I go to the hospital and get it fixed. Often by paying money out of my own pocket or my company's health insurance, usually both.

Discuss.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
aldimond
Otter-duck
Posts: 2665
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: Uptown, Chicago
Contact:

Postby aldimond » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:31 am UTC

What if I was doing something stupid with a hammer and some old wood and I accidentally put together part of a cradle... but since I live in an apartment and I'm moving in a few months and I don't have a baby anyway I don't really want a cradle, so I just throw it out on the curb (which is hard because I broke my hand while fooling around with the hammer, but I'm a tough guy, and I can always go to the hospital afterwards)... then some dude driving by sees it and garbage-picks it, but he doesn't want a cradle either, he rips it apart and uses the scrap wood to build a rocking chair for his father. Who broke his hand when he was younger, but lived out in the country where there weren't any hospitals, so his hand was permanently fucked -- AND NOW HIS SON BUILT HIM A ROCKING CHAIR WHAT NOW!?!?!

Life is so confusing! :?
One of these days my desk is going to collapse in the middle and all its weight will come down on my knee and tear my new fake ACL. It could be tomorrow. This is my concern.

User avatar
rpoulin79
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Michigan

Postby rpoulin79 » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:34 am UTC

Get it fixed? Is that what you call an abortion?

Anyway, your argument isn't exactly apples and apples. Let's say you wait a week before you realize your hand is broken, then go to get it fixed. Similarly, let's say that when you were one day old, your parents decide, "Woah, this was a bad idea!" and kill you. That's murder, right? What about the day before? The week? The month? Where does one draw the line as to when life begins?

Here's a link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2017117,00.html


22 weeks and the baby survived. In many states and countries, this fetus could have been aborted. Also, some murderers who have killed pregnant woman that far along have been also charged with the death of the fetus.
26.2 (If you have to ask why, you'll never understand)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:35 am UTC

Is it sad that I was able to read metaphorical importance, all of it on-topic, into every aspect of what you just said, Aldimond, and I'm still not certain if you intended it?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:41 am UTC

Get it fixed? Is that what you call an abortion?


Yes. A solution to a problem.

Anyway, your argument isn't exactly apples and apples. Let's say you wait a week before you realize your hand is broken, then go to get it fixed.


Then the fix is probably more involved. My hand may even need to be rebroken.

It is a more complicated procedure. I still get it fixed.

At no point does anyone tell me I should just leave it broken, because I made a mistake and now I have to live with it.

Similarly, let's say that when you were one day old, your parents decide, "Woah, this was a bad idea!" and kill you. That's murder, right? What about the day before? The week? The month? Where does one draw the line as to when life begins?


Birth is a pretty convenient place to put that line. That way you don't have to worry about "well, gametes are potential humans, is menstruation murder?".

22 weeks and the baby survived. In many states and countries, this fetus could have been aborted.


And? It was born, so no one loses anything by just putting it up for adoption. While it's still in you, you still have to carry it around and let it wreck your body, health, career, etcetera. So maybe you want it gone.

Are you saying we should just induce labor on any woman that doesn't want the kid anymore, and give the kid a coinflip as to its sickly survival?

Also, some murderers who have killed pregnant woman that far along have been also charged with the death of the fetus.


And some people get arrested for sodomy for having consensual sex with their boyfriends. Find me the part where that makes it a valid viewpoint. [/quote]
Last edited by Belial on Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:43 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
aldimond
Otter-duck
Posts: 2665
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: Uptown, Chicago
Contact:

Postby aldimond » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:41 am UTC

@Bel: "Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot." - Mark Twain :D

OK, fine, I meant every bit of that. And that's why I could never be a true dadaist, everything I say always has some dumb ass-meaning.
One of these days my desk is going to collapse in the middle and all its weight will come down on my knee and tear my new fake ACL. It could be tomorrow. This is my concern.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:46 am UTC

Good quote anyway. God I love Mark Twain
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:46 am UTC

Belial wrote:
rpoulin wrote:2. Abortion. Yes, I'm against it. I guess I think people should take responsibility for their actions. Feel free to flame as need. It won't bother me.


Because this is the thread where this conversation should have taken place, let's put my proper reply to this here.

If I do something stupid with a hammer (or even if I am using the hammer properly. Accidents happen), and break my hand as a result, I have to face the consequences of my action, take responsibility, and so forth. How do I do this?

I go to the hospital and get it fixed. Often by paying money out of my own pocket or my company's health insurance, usually both.

Discuss.


I SO wanted that sentence to go "If I do something stupid with a hammer (or even if I am using the hammer properly. Accidents happen), and end up pregnant..."

Yes, but playing with a hammer is never considered morally unacceptable, and setting a broken hand is never considered murder.

The situations are only analogous from your moral standpoint. He doesn't mean the consequences of having sex, as I understand it, he means the consequences of amoral behavior.

(I've always found saying "Discuss." at the end of a post extraordinarily condescending. It doesn't lower my opinion of you or anything, it just bugs me)
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:52 am UTC

Owijad wrote:I SO wanted that sentence to go "If I do something stupid with a hammer (or even if I am using the hammer properly. Accidents happen), and end up pregnant..."


I admit, that would have been funnier, but wouldn't quite have carried the same message...

Yes, but playing with a hammer is never considered morally unacceptable, and setting a broken hand is never considered murder.


That's fine. But then it's about the humanity-status of fetii and infants (a pretty much unknowable quantity that people generally need to decide for themselves), and not about personal responsibility. Framing it as a question of personal responsibility is dodging the problem and attempting to make it more black and white than it is, and ignores the humanity question entirely.

And if he wants to ignore the humanity question and talk about personal responsibility, I will ignore the *fuck* out of it, and talk about some personal responsibility.

The situations are only analogous from your moral standpoint. He doesn't mean the consequences of having sex, as I understand it, he means the consequences of amoral behavior.


Married sex is moral, by most moral codes I've ever heard of. What if I'm married but don't want kids? It's okay then, since my sex was moral?

So it would work better as "Suppose I do something stupid with a hammer that I'm totally married to..."

I don't terribly think that's the viewpoint he's putting forth, but he can feel free to correct me.

(I've always found saying "Discuss." at the end of a post extraordinarily condescending. It doesn't lower my opinion of you or anything, it just bugs me)


I was feeling condescending.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
rpoulin79
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Michigan

Postby rpoulin79 » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:55 am UTC

Belial wrote:Birth is a pretty convenient place to put that line.


Birth? So those few inches of skin wrapped around a fetus a day before its born somehow negates the fact that its alive?

Do you ever wake up in the morning and give thanks you weren't aborted? A fetus will develop into a life. Menstration won't. People say its not alive, because its not 'concious' or 'aware'. Well, I say how much do you recall about being 3 months?

By the way, this isn't a religious argument for me. I'm very much an atheist actually.

But hey, I'm not going to convince you and your not going to convice me.
26.2 (If you have to ask why, you'll never understand)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:01 am UTC

Do you ever wake up in the morning and give thanks you weren't aborted?


No. No more than I give thanks that I happened to be the lucky sperm. Or that my species happened to evolve. At any point in the past ten billion years, a simple toss of the dice could have negated my existence before I even experienced it.

And I wouldn't have known the difference.

Or depending on your thoughts on the soul, perhaps I would have found a different body and mind.

A fetus will develop into a life. Menstration won't.


Not if you don't do the things that will make it develop. If you inseminate an ovum, it will develop into life. If you gestate a fetus, it will develop into life. Failing to do either of these, it won't. It's all just a series of lines, whose importance is entirely subjective.

You like to draw your line at conception, I suppose.

Others draw it at birth.

Some even draw it before conception, and ban birth control and masturbation to stem the tide of lost gametes.

Some peoples, historically, have drawn the line substantially after birth.

Does it not seem odd to you to try to impose your own subjective line on others, when there is so much disagreement?
Last edited by Belial on Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:05 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
rachel
Witch (?)
Posts: 2478
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby rachel » Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:03 am UTC

Belial wrote:wins.



You are my favourite.




On a more serious note, yes, if you find yourself in such a situation and you know, for a fact, that you are not ready for that child, then by all means have the abortion. Don't wait until the very last second, but please do it. That is not to be confused with people who use abortion as a form of birth control. (Please do not give me the snarky response that abortions control whether or not the baby is born, thus making it a form of birth control.) Using abortion as a cop-out to fix your mistakes over and over again is unhealthy and it is your own goddamn fault you're pregnant anyway, so just deal with it. But if you have legitimate reasons for aborting the fetus then it is up to you. Whether that reason is that you were raped or whether that reason is that carrying a child to term will disrupt your life, it is ulitimately up to you. There are a lot of people who do not need to have children or do not want to have children, and forcing those people to do so is wrong. Even if they will just give the child up for adoption, nine months of pregnancy is a long time for someone who does not even want a child in the first place.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I played "porn" against my sister last night.
Meaux_Pas wrote:So in otherwords, it's like the best cake ever, covered in bees.


j&r-bffl

User avatar
rpoulin79
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Michigan

Postby rpoulin79 » Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:06 am UTC

Belial wrote:Does it not seem odd to you to try to impose your own subjective line on others, when there is so much disagreement?


No. I think in 100 or 200 years, people will look back onto abortion as the horrible perversion of semantics that it is ("its not a life, its a fetus!")

How much disagreement was there about slavery in the 1860's? At the time a lot of people took for granted that it was okay, didn't they?

And yes, I draw the line at conception. I believe the intangible thing that makes a person truly alive begins when the embryo forms. And no, I can't prove it, nor can you disprove it.
26.2 (If you have to ask why, you'll never understand)

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:08 am UTC

@Belial: I just feel like you two are discussing separate issues here, is all. *shrugs*

[EDIT]And you beat me to the punch Q_Q


rpoulin79 wrote: Do you ever wake up in the morning and give thanks you weren't aborted? A fetus will develop into a life. Menstration won't.


Well, what if I'm right about to ejaculate into a fertile woman (I have NO idea how to phrase that hypothetical politely :P), and we're not using protection? Any non-action on my part will result in a human life. Wouldn't pulling out be killing that potential life?

How doesn't that follow?



Also, my goal isn't to convince you, it's to get you to admit that your argument is irrational, and vice versa.
Last edited by Owijad on Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:11 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:10 am UTC

You are my favourite.


Aww. I feel loved.

There are a lot of people who do not need to have children or do not want to have children, and forcing those people to do so is wrong. Even if they will just give the child up for adoption, nine months of pregnancy is a long time for someone who does not even want a child in the first place.


QFT. For example, Girlâ„¢ feels, and I tend to agree, that having a several pound creature *growing in you* like a tumor with limbs is one of the creepiest and most disgusting things that could happen to you. If she were forced to do it for nine months, not only would it, I believe, drive her completely fucking insane, but I think even if she gave the child away, she would not be okay for a long, long, long time.

You'll excuse me if a clump of cells as developed as a rather crappy frog fails to move me with its plight.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Toeofdoom
The (Male) Skeleton Guitarist
Posts: 3446
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:06 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Toeofdoom » Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:13 am UTC

I agree with most of what belial and his supporters said. abortion, in fairly early stages, is perfectly acceptable in my view. My view also reminds me that humans have fucked up the planet enough, and we dont really need more of them. My general problem with murder is that it makes alot of people unhappy to lose friends/family etc., and is also bad if that person was doing good stuff for the planet. Also, they dont get to do whatever they wanted to do with their life, which matters mainly to them, possibly in whatever afterlife there may be, if there is one.

Fetuses generally dont have friends, and arent particularly helping the planet, and dont have goals for life. If the father didn't want the fetus aborted, then he may be unhappy, but in general, a fetus has much less connection to the world than a baby that has actually been born.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:15 am UTC

rpoulin wrote:No. I think in 100 or 200 years, people will look back onto abortion as the horrible perversion of semantics that it is ("its not a life, its a fetus!")


I never said it wasn't a life. I just ate dinner. That was a life too. A chicken, specifically. Work it out.

In 100 or 200 years, we'll have the luxury of calling both practices barbaric, because we'll have some neat birth control implant that's 100% effective and we can turn off and on with our brains, and we'll grow all of our meat on cell lattices in vats.

rpoulin wrote:And yes, I draw the line at conception. I believe the intangible thing that makes a person truly alive begins when the embryo forms. And no, I can't prove it, nor can you disprove it.


No. I can't disprove the existence of god, either. But given that there's no evidence to support either ideas, I can ignore them both as irrelevant.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
rpoulin79
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Michigan

Postby rpoulin79 » Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:19 am UTC

rachel wrote: nine months of pregnancy is a long time for someone who does not even want a child in the first place.


If you don't want a child don't have sex. Or do it responsibly. And many claim the falibility of birth control, but if a woman is on the pill and the guy is using a condom, really, what are the chances? I think you'll find that most abortions are the results of carelessness

from http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp

When does the unborn baby's heart begin to beat?

The heartbeat begins on the 21st day after conception. (More Details)

What about cases of rape and incest?

Pregnancy from rape is extremely rare
26.2 (If you have to ask why, you'll never understand)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:24 am UTC

And besides, most women don't get raped anyway. We probably shouldn't worry about doing *anything* for rape victims, since they're in the statistical minority, and probably aren't you, anyway.

And the heart probably isn't an organ that we've invested with loads more symbolic importance than it actually bears.

Leaving behind the irony for a moment, I always hated that little sympathy play. Your heart is exactly as vital as your liver, but it hasn't been invested with all these centuries of mistaken anatomy and false significance. No one gets a tear in their eye when you say "a fetus's liver starts working at 3 months" or whenever. The heart statistic is a blatant plea for people to stop thinking and start responding with their gut.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Fluff
See You Next Tuesday
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:27 am UTC
Location: The Departure Lounge

Postby Fluff » Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:28 am UTC

Belial wrote:
QFT. For example, Girlâ„¢ feels, and I tend to agree, that having a several pound creature *growing in you* like a tumor with limbs is one of the creepiest and most disgusting things that could happen to you. If she were forced to do it for nine months, not only would it, I believe, drive her completely fucking insane, but I think even if she gave the child away, she would not be okay for a long, long, long time.

You'll excuse me if a clump of cells as developed as a rather crappy frog fails to move me with its plight.



I agree with everything you have just said, 100% wholeheartedly. Couldn't have said it better myself. Especially the crappy frog bit. Image

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:29 am UTC

Belial wrote:And besides, most women don't get raped anyway. We probably shouldn't worry about doing *anything* for rape victims, since they're in the statistical minority, and probably aren't you, anyway.

And the heart probably isn't an organ that we've invested with loads more symbolic importance than it actually bears.

Leaving behind the irony for a moment, I always hated that little sympathy play. Your heart is exactly as vital as your liver, but it hasn't been invested with all these centuries of mistaken anatomy and false significance. No one gets a tear in their eye when you say "a fetus's liver starts working at 3 months" or whenever. The heart statistic is a blatant plea for people to stop thinking and start responding with their gut.


Not technically true. Your heart is more vital than most any organ not related to your nervous system.

You lose your liver you get sick and die. Lose your heart and you pass out and die.

It doesn't invalidate your point, I'm just sayin'
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:32 am UTC

I chose the liver because you're equally dead without either of them, and you can't use artificial substitutes for either like you can the kidneys. Whether it's a minute or an hour, you're still dead. That puts them on the same shelf of vitality, from where I sit.

Lungs also would have worked, except those *don't* start working until the fetus emerges from a fluid environment.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests