Somewhat relevant
http://www.slate.com/id/2275072?wpisrc=obinsite
http://www.slate.com/id/2275256?wpisrc=obinsite
Basically, "whether the fetus is a person or not" is not as important as "what should be done to reduce the need for abortion".
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in commonAgreed.
Banning/legalizing abortion is really only a band-aid.
Though some pro-choice folk are more upset because they want to be able do whatever they want, even if there isn't any reason for it. Though it would be ridiculous to assume such people would get pregnant just to exercise an abortion right.
Of course, abortion-as-birth-control does happen; and strangely frequently as well, given how idiotic it is.
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GODI cannot see a set of premises under which Commando Dude's line makes sense... except for the most pro-choice view possible which I know he doesn't hold.
If you think killing the fetus is morally wrong, the difference between one abortion and many is akin the difference between a normal murderer and a serial killer.
edited 22nd Jan '11 6:54:19 PM by BlackHumor
Since I don't subscribe to that preposterous notion that abortions are like "Killing babies" I'll ask again.
What's the difference between having 1 abortion and having many? Even many pro-choice people become aghast when told that someone regularly has abortions, falling back on that "Abortion as birth control" shtick.
Wait, I Thought that prochoicers were supposed to assume abortion was killing babies and vice versa in this thread?
I'm feeling strangely happy now, contented and serene. Oh don't you see, finally I'll be, somewhere that's green..."I have many, many students who are against the criminalization of abortion, who are pro-sex, pro-birth control, and morally opposed to most or many or even all abortions because of their belief in or their commitment regarding the moral status of fetal life. That's a perfectly coherent argument shared by many. It's no longer an unusual position within the pro-life and pro-choice community."
That.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Prochoice: Women should be able to choose to have an abortion.
Prolife: Abortion is murder.
Prodeath (my personal term, there is no actual term): Abortion is so bad, it shouldn't be allowed even if the baby will kill the woman. They should both die.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.Thing is, not allowing abortions makes the statement of women as sub-human beings who's body, freedom and opportunity might be taken from them at any moment and are for others to use. That woman is nothing but means to bring child to life, and her own person does not matter much. This is pretty much my main problem, but you know this.
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common![]()
![]()
That's a rather large strawman. I have never myself encountered someone supporting the criminalization of abortions in life threatening situations for the mother.
edited 22nd Jan '11 9:57:41 PM by OOZE
I'm feeling strangely happy now, contented and serene. Oh don't you see, finally I'll be, somewhere that's green...Well, that falls foul of Poe's Law.
I've actually heard people argue completely seriously that abortion should never be allowed, even in life threatening cases. I think the idea is that we're not supposed to arbitrarily decide that one life is more valuable than another.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayThing is, not allowing abortions makes the statement of women as sub-human beings who's body, freedom and opportunity might be taken from them at any moment and are for others to use. That woman is nothing but means to bring child to life, and her own person does not matter much. This is pretty much my main problem, but you know this.
That sounds a lot more accurate. I suppose if they passed a law saying I could never go to Venezuela because I'm American, then I would be rather irked, even though I have no intention to ever go there.
I suppose I should bring out that analogy we involved before, just to see what the other think:
There is more to the experiment the meets the eye, however. The scientist has a time machine and traveled forward in time to see which door the subject will go through. Having seen that the subject goes through the green door, the scientist returns and locks the blue door.
The experiment commences, and the subject, of their own free choice, enters the green door.
Now my question is this: was the subject free? The subject freely decided after all, but if they somehow changed their mind then they would be unable to enter. Even so, they felt completely free in the choice to enter the green door."''
If this setup is flawed, I could replace the time machine deal with something else, in order to better it.
edited 22nd Jan '11 10:58:42 PM by TheMightyAnonym
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GODIt had to do with whether or not someone can be free, even when they don't have more than one option. For example, if we somehow eliminated the need for abortions, would it be right to outlaw them then?
It made more sense when I had it going through my head...
What Behloderess was say was that she wanted to be able to choose, if she ever gets in that scenario; even though that is likely to never happen.
Essentially, are you free so long as you don't perceive a lack of choice? "As matter of principal" Beholderess stated that even if the need for abortion is unlikely to ever occur, she wants to be able to do so anyways.
I mentioned this:
Basically, it's nice having rights just for the heck of having rights; even when you have absolutely no intentions of ever using them.
edited 23rd Jan '11 9:37:21 PM by TheMightyAnonym
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GODOh, I see. This is a question about negative vs. positive freedom. Well, if the person in the scenario made life decisions that were in some way dependent upon having the option to go through the other door, then taking that option away without telling them is a form of deceit, which reduced their objective level of negative freedom (freedom from outside interference) even though they never knew the door was locked and ended up not taking that option.
But that's not the same as persuading women not to want an abortion, and then taking the option away, because so few people are making use of it, provided no deceit is involved.
"You want a hamburger or cheeseburger?" "A cheeseburger" "Sorry, all out of cheese."
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.

Hey I like that hostile and chaotic world with uncertainty and death, thankyouverymuch. Don't make me whip out the pink text, italics and ~tildes~!
edited 21st Jan '11 11:58:11 PM by TheMightyAnonym
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD