Lord Raven Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) Please stop pretending that you want to engage in discourse here when the majority of my post explains what exactly I mean. I edited it once or twice as well, but I don't think you care. Because you are not willing to have an honest conversation. fyi obtusely linking a "let me google that for you" for a perfectly legitimate question to something that is subjective, making a shitty joke, and then repeatedly saying this That's not the point. I don't want to fund necessary evil in any way, shape or form. You can't spin it by saying "well, it's only a portion of their business and your money doesn't go towards THAT". I don't care. I don't want any of my money going to any part of it. It can't be that difficult to understand. ad nauseum, with no rebuttal, just restating your beliefs, is not how an honest conversation works. I don't think you understand this. "I don't want to do this at all" is not a point, it's not evidence, and it's not an argument. It's how you feel, which is not a coherent argument. How does one respond to "I don't want that," without asking "why" and "what do you mean by this"? EDIT: and no, I am not changing a word for my own benefit. The word's definition is very open-ended, and if we fundamentally disagree, then the conversation begins with me asking you what you personally view as the fact of being required or indispensable. This is not changing the definition. This is asking you to put a lot more thought into what you're saying than stating a simple word. Edited December 22, 2016 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Please stop pretending that you want to engage in discourse here when the majority of my post explains what exactly I mean. I edited it once or twice as well, but I don't think you care. fyi obtusely linking a "let me google that for you" for a perfectly legitimate question to something that is subjective, making a shitty joke, and then repeatedly saying this OK, I'll bite. Do you think that abortion is a medical necessity? Aside from the case where it is life-threatening to the mother (which I am all for as I have stated), is it a medical necessity that she have an abortion? If not, then it is medicine of convenience, economic argument aside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Yes I do. Are you going to ask why? Because that's far more important than what I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Yes I do. Are you going to ask why? Because that's far more important than what I believe. I don't think the why matters because you're equating economic necessity with medical necessity. So it is a medical necessity that a woman kill a baby? Is that what you're saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 I think they're a necessity. Full stop. If you don't think the why matters then you're not interested in having a conversation. You're automatically assuming that my reasoning is that I'm equating the two, when you are incorrect, but since you don't care why I won't say why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 I think they're a necessity. Full stop. If you don't think the why matters then you're not interested in having a conversation. You're automatically assuming that my reasoning is that I'm equating the two, when you are incorrect, but since you don't care why I won't say why. The problem is that you're denying science by saying that it is a medical necessity to have a procedure that is less than 50 years old. The economic argument is a separate issue. If you can't separate the two, then we can't have a conversation about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 so first of all, rare is an arbitrary thing. but i'll concede that it isn't as rare as i thought. in any case, you still ignored all of my other points. that is dishonest discourse on your end. The problem is that you're denying science by saying that it is a medical necessity to have a procedure that is less than 50 years old. The economic argument is a separate issue. If you can't separate the two, then we can't have a conversation about it. this reasoning is stupid and you are making yourself look stupid. are antibiotics not a necessity? vaccines? any medical advancement at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) The problem is that you're denying science by saying that it is a medical necessity to have a procedure that is less than 50 years old. The economic argument is a separate issue. If you can't separate the two, then we can't have a conversation about it. 1. How does it deny science? 2. Why is the age of the procedure of relevance? I can see the case of abortion being brought up if the child will have a very brief and painful life (certain catastrophic birth defects). I also support abortion if the child is a product of rape, or if the child has died in utero. EDIT: so first of all, rare is an arbitrary thing. but i'll concede that it isn't as rare as i thought. in any case, you still ignored all of my other points. that is dishonest discourse on your end. this reasoning is stupid and you are making yourself look stupid. are antibiotics not a necessity? vaccines? any medical advancement at all? The history of vaccines is fascinating, and is most definitely over fifty years old. I'd like antibiotics a lot more if they didn't make me sick. I agree with the point you're trying to make, though. Edited December 22, 2016 by eggclipse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) The problem is that you're denying science by saying that it is a medical necessity to have a procedure that is less than 50 years old. The economic argument is a separate issue. If you can't separate the two, then we can't have a conversation about it. I did not say it was a medical necessity. I said it was a necessity. By the way Life, calling me a science denier is hilarious. I'm not even distinctly making a point in favor of one type of issue or another. I never said anything about medical or economic necessities. I'm making a stance strictly toward abortion as a human right. Edited December 22, 2016 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Here's the thing: abortions will be necessary so long as society isn't prepared to help mothers deal with having too many kids. You can be against abortion and for welfare, and that's fine. You can be for abortion and against welfare, and there's no contradiction there either. But if you're going to be against welfare, you need to give poor people a way to control their childbirth. Otherwise, you stick them in a constant downward spiral of poverty. That's why PP is important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Here's the thing: abortions will be necessary so long as society isn't prepared to help mothers deal with having too many kids. You can be against abortion and for welfare, and that's fine. You can be for abortion and against welfare, and there's no contradiction there either. But if you're going to be against welfare, you need to give poor people a way to control their childbirth. Otherwise, you stick them in a constant downward spiral of poverty. That's why PP is important. Or people could learn to control their natural urges. Note, while I do not support abstention-based education in teenagers (for whom it's normal to try and break the rules/rebel); it's a different topic when it comes to adults that should be in their full mental faculties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Or people could learn to control their natural urges. Note, while I do not support abstention-based education in teenagers (for whom it's normal to try and break the rules/rebel); it's a different topic when it comes to adults that should be in their full mental faculties. And if they don't they shouldn't be punished for it. What's your solution to the poor having too many kids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) Sometimes I think pro-lifers (not really, more like pro-birth) should be morally consistent in saying that in the case of an abortion that both the doctor and the woman having the abortion should get a life sentence (or the death penalty, because many of them also agree with that) for what they believe is first degree murder. And of course, as George Carlin said, "They're all in favor of the unborn, they will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months." "After that, they don't want to know about you! No nothing! No neonatal care, no day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing! If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're preschool, you're fucked!" Edited December 22, 2016 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Yes to everything Tryhard said. Abortion has been around for thousands of years. Modern abortion procedures have roots in the 19th century. Abortion actually wasn't often illegal until Victorian morality dictated a change in attitudes. Abortion also wasn't always seen as being against Christian beliefs. Even in the past century, abortion was seen as a Catholic-only issue by many in the U.S. until the 60s/70s. Abortion rates have also dropped over the years! It has a very interesting history and is by no means a modern issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNLEASH IT Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 I always find it somewhat difficult to argue abortion (either for or against) from a moral standpoint since, in a way, both sides do have strong moral arguments. Despite being pro-choice, I do believe that life begins at conception and abortion is killing a child as a result. But I also realize that abortion does a great deal of economic good and should remain subsidized for that reason, since a lot of the time, the people who need to have abortions the most can't afford them. I do wonder how this is going to play out in Texas though. Does anyone have any statistical data on poverty in Texas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augestein Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Strangely enough, I feel like doing that with abortion is just going to up the rate of people having their own undercover black market abortions. That's not good in my eyes. Not good at all. And making someone have to pay for a fetus funeral is beyond stupid. Especially burial. What a complete waste of space. I'm sorry, I'm not even pro-abortion necessarily, and I find that absolutely idiotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Abortion and family planning clinics have decreased dramatically in Texas over the past few years and here are some of the effects that's had: Fewer women are able to obtain preventative healthcare. The number of non-surgical abortions decreased, but the number of surgical abortions increased, due to women having to wait longer/pass through a lot of hoops. Pregnancy-related deaths doubled (not necessarily correlating, but an interesting coincidence). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 (edited) Or people could learn to control their natural urges. Note, while I do not support abstention-based education in teenagers (for whom it's normal to try and break the rules/rebel); it's a different topic when it comes to adults that should be in their full mental faculties. Do you think people will get better at that if the state doesn't provide abortions? I think that whilst controversial, it's probably true that promiscious behaviour increases in an enviroment that has wanton contraception or "free" abortions around, but do we care about that or do we care about abortion statistics? The problem of unwanted pregnancies is going to exist regardless of whether abortion is readily available or not, so to me it seems more like this is a focus on the principle of what the "morally correct" approach should be as opposed to a broader practical one. I have some sympathies with people who object to abortion on a moral basis, but I don't think you can run a country on moral values alone. Things like the pill can't be put back in the bottle. That being said, most unwanted preganancies are the result of misuse of contraception in the first place, so to me it seems far more realistic to make sure people properly understand how to use the things than to stop fucking around, because that's a much deeper cultural and biogical urge to overcome. The pill has like a 0.3% failure rate when used correctly, yet that goes up to 10% in typical use since people don't follow the instructions. Edited December 23, 2016 by Irysa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peener weener Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 Making a distinction between "medicine of convenience" and "medicine of necessity" is a ridiculous notion, a false dichotomy, and some shit you literally just made up. All medicine is "medicine of convenience," to a certain extent. It's hard to define a line between those two ambiguous areas, and since you seem very resistant to even defining any of those terms, it's impossible anyone here will agree with you. If what you mean is that abortions are a convenience because pregnancies aren't immediately, significantly life-threatening, you're ignoring both most of modern medicine and the many other significant "life-saving" aspects of abortions. I think linking a letmegooglethatforyou url was in particularly bad taste, even for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted December 26, 2016 Share Posted December 26, 2016 Sometimes I think pro-lifers (not really, more like pro-birth) should be morally consistent in saying that in the case of an abortion that both the doctor and the woman having the abortion should get a life sentence (or the death penalty, because many of them also agree with that) for what they believe is first degree murder. I think they should also stop pretending they basically aren't pushing an agenda to punish premarital sex or pregnancy. Like pro-life is also pretty much a punishment. I find a lot of hypocrisy in the pro-life standpoint, especially since it comes from a party that wants the government out of our lives. And of course, as George Carlin said, "They're all in favor of the unborn, they will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months." "After that, they don't want to know about you! No nothing! No neonatal care, no day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing! If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're preschool, you're fucked!" A+ Still waiting on Life's reply. He's logged in since, so I have no doubt he's read this shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augestein Posted December 26, 2016 Share Posted December 26, 2016 I think they should also stop pretending they basically aren't pushing an agenda to punish premarital sex or pregnancy. Like pro-life is also pretty much a punishment. I find a lot of hypocrisy in the pro-life standpoint, especially since it comes from a party that wants the government out of our lives. Really dumb when you consider that there's always the option of just sexing the same sex. 100% failure chance of making a baby there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oricorio Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 On 12/21/2016 at 9:23 PM, The Blind Idiot God said: This is coming shortly after the implementation of rules which require the burial or cremation of fetus'. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/28/texas-moves-forward-rules-requiring-burial-or-crem/ Are we seriously coming to this? I bet many of the people in favor of this are also in favor of bulldozing Native American burial grounds to create the keystone pipeline. I've always found the "pro-life" movement to be ridiculous, honestly. A fetus is not any more "alive" than my kidney. Sure, it's composed of living cell tissue, but suggesting it is anything near sentient is ludicrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.