Political Crossfire Forums

[Selfish_Meme]

Varyag wrote: I'm sorry but the result of that probability chain is all you'll get from me or any other person sane of mind. The bottom line is that in the case of 99% of abortions we're talking about women who willingly engaged in sexual activity and willingly did not take the proper contraceptive precautions. Now if we were living in the third world where most people are uneducated and too poor to even afford contraception I may have let it fly, but we live in the West - where both education and contraception are universaly accessible. In essense what I'm trying to say is - children should not have to pay for the stupidity of their parents.
I hope I never live in your world, you are talking about an obsessive form of self-control or planning which takes no account of the type of thing that happens in real life. Children is a term, a very loose one, to describe a bunch of cells.

Varyag wrote: Illigalizing abortion will have the same effect as illigalizing drugs, the harsher the penalties, the fewer people (women) will do it. I'm mainly concerned with the illigalization of surgical abortions and those done past the first day or two of pregnancy.
Have you got any proof that making drugs illegal has reduced drug use, or even better that it would reduce abortions, I have statistics that abortions in countries where it is illegal are still very prevalent, just now they are damned dangerous. The whole illegality issue just shows an unwillingness to face the fact that it is going to happen and better to have it controlled and in the open than rather than criminal and unreported.

Varyag wrote: Quote: There is no malice involved, so therefore is not murder, I gave you the link to the legal definition. Malice is purposeful intention to harm and kill, which is what abortion is to the babies the mother purposefully harms and kills.

Yes you are right, yet the legal definition says abortion can't be murder because of legality. So if it was illegal it would be murder but at the moment it is not murder.

Varyag wrote: Yes, even early on the fetus will exibit human behaviour, on the 10th week for example it will begin sucking its thumb, classic early human behaviour.
They are autonomic reactions and not indicative of anything, plants move by themselves, there is no hookup of the body to the spinal cord until after the 20 something week and not even a delta wave until after the 25th week, no higher brain organisation until even later, no real sapience until after birth.

Varyag wrote: Quote: Why is that an important distinction? Think about why toddlers can' t drink, drive or own firearms.

Think about why killing a toddler is still murder.
Way to not answer the question :td:

Varyag wrote: Quote: Why don't toddlers have the same rights as adults? Because they are not the same! Killing a fetus is not and cannot be equal to killing an adult. The law is arbitrary, it draws a line in the sand and says this is a child and this is an adult, that line is drawn after birth, for no other reason than that there needs to be a line.

Silly leftist, firearms is a responsibility law, the right to life is universal.
Right to bear arms ring any bells, otherwise I guess you must agree that adults and children are fundamentally different enough to have different rights.

[Gilbert1908]

The premise of this post is false on two counts.

1. As was pointed out, the overturning of RVW DOES NOT make abortion illegal in the USA. It permits the state to regulate abortions which is what was happening prior(abortion was legal prior to ROE in 30 or more states) and it is likely that it would not be a national issue AT ALL in the USA if the supreme court would have let democracy take its course.

2. It is legally IMPOSSIBLE for abortion to made illegal in the USA.

[Hypocritical_Hypocrisy]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Varyag wrote: I'm sorry but the result of that probability chain is all you'll get from me or any other person sane of mind. The bottom line is that in the case of 99% of abortions we're talking about women who willingly engaged in sexual activity and willingly did not take the proper contraceptive precautions. Now if we were living in the third world where most people are uneducated and too poor to even afford contraception I may have let it fly, but we live in the West - where both education and contraception are universaly accessible. In essense what I'm trying to say is - children should not have to pay for the stupidity of their parents.
I hope I never live in your world, you are talking about an obsessive form of self-control or planning which takes no account of the type of thing that happens in real life. Children is a term, a very loose one, to describe a bunch of cells.

Speaking from that perspective, human could be a very loose term. I mean, all we are is but a collection of cells as well. So, let us continue the liberal genocide! Why stop at babies? Let us kill each other as well! We hath no form of appreciation of conciousness! We are nothing but pieces of meat! Thus the liberal crap speweth...
Get a clue, Meme.

P.S. You really should move to Canada or Mexico if killing babies means that much to you, and while you're at it, abort yourselves into extinction!

[Selfish_Meme]

Human is a loose term.

Thanks for the ad hominem, its best that I know you have no answer except to throw insults, then I don't have to bother talking to you.

PS. If you weren't as observant as you are smart you might have noticed my country flag.

Abortion rates in other countries in europe are not nearly as high as america's though it is mostly legal there too. Why is that do you think?

[Varyag]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Varyag wrote: I'm sorry but the result of that probability chain is all you'll get from me or any other person sane of mind. The bottom line is that in the case of 99% of abortions we're talking about women who willingly engaged in sexual activity and willingly did not take the proper contraceptive precautions. Now if we were living in the third world where most people are uneducated and too poor to even afford contraception I may have let it fly, but we live in the West - where both education and contraception are universaly accessible. In essense what I'm trying to say is - children should not have to pay for the stupidity of their parents.
I hope I never live in your world,

Thus you wish to live in a value-less society devoid of personal responsiblity, where one can correct mistakes by killing children - that's pretty sick.

Quote: you are talking about an obsessive form of self-control or planning which takes no account of the type of thing that happens in real life. Children is a term, a very loose one, to describe a bunch of cells.

We're all a bunch of cells, your life isnt worth more than anyone else, be it they're 2 months after conception or 82 years old.

Quote: Varyag wrote: Illigalizing abortion will have the same effect as illigalizing drugs, the harsher the penalties, the fewer people (women) will do it. I'm mainly concerned with the illigalization of surgical abortions and those done past the first day or two of pregnancy.
Have you got any proof that making drugs illegal has reduced drug use,

Yes, by about ten fold in fact, we studied this quite comprehensively in economics.

Quote: or even better that it would reduce abortions, I have statistics that abortions in countries where it is illegal are still very prevalent,

Thats because those countries do not take measures to enforce those laws, we in the West on the other hand clearly do.

Quote: The whole illegality issue just shows an unwillingness to face the fact that it is going to happen and better to have it controlled and in the open than rather than criminal and unreported.

Better have 10 times less illigaly than than the 10 times more legaly.

Quote: Varyag wrote: Quote: There is no malice involved, so therefore is not murder, I gave you the link to the legal definition. Malice is purposeful intention to harm and kill, which is what abortion is to the babies the mother purposefully harms and kills.

Yes you are right, yet the legal definition says abortion can't be murder because of legality. So if it was illegal it would be murder but at the moment it is not murder.

At the moment, do you really believe it can hold under the current rightwing shift in public political opinion? Dont kid yourself.

Quote: Varyag wrote: Yes, even early on the fetus will exibit human behaviour, on the 10th week for example it will begin sucking its thumb, classic early human behaviour.
They are autonomic reactions

So are nearly all the things you do ie. breathing

Quote: hookup of the body to the spinal cord until after the 20 something week and not even a delta wave until after the 25th week, no higher brain organisation until even later, no real sapience until after birth.

Psuedo medicine wont do anything to rescue your shambled argument.

Quote: Varyag wrote: Quote: Why is that an important distinction? Think about why toddlers can' t drink, drive or own firearms.

Think about why killing a toddler is still murder.
Way to not answer the question :td:

Oh please you just dont have an answer.

Quote: Varyag wrote: Quote: Why don't toddlers have the same rights as adults? Because they are not the same! Killing a fetus is not and cannot be equal to killing an adult. The law is arbitrary, it draws a line in the sand and says this is a child and this is an adult, that line is drawn after birth, for no other reason than that there needs to be a line.

Silly leftist, firearms is a responsibility law, the right to life is universal.
Right to bear arms ring any bells, otherwise I guess you must agree that adults and children are fundamentally different enough to have different rights.

Yes, rights are accorded to us after certain "rights of passage" you may say, to earn the right to life one must be alive, that is all.

[Selfish_Meme]

All you have done is answered with opinions and thinly veiled insults. I have a value system, it just isn't the same as yours. We are all a bunch of cells, but something distinguishes one bunch of cells from another, is it just species? Or do you have some other rationale.

I ask if you have any evidence that drugs are less prevalent because of illegalituy and you answer yes, do I have to ask explicitly for you to show me some proof? If so show me some proof.

I do not think abortion will become illegal, only 35% want that, same as 30 odd percent want it legalised, more than likely it will become more restricted only and still not murder.

So according to you we should accord all things that have autonomic responses the right to life? Well, be happy starving.

What's pseudo about it, why don't you just start calling me names if that is the best you can do.

[Obilisk18]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Varyag wrote: Abortion isnt going to be swept away with one all-inclusive bill, the first one will usually ban partial-birth abortion, which I'll support, then ban convenience(stupidity) abortions which I'll also support, by the time one gets to medical abortions however I think most people would draw the line, especially if pregnancy is deemed to be a great health risk for the mother, and lets face it if mothers die so do their babies, may as well save one person.

Do you think that the pro-life parties will stop where you want them too? Once they get their way they won't stop until it is illegal in every circumstance.

So what will this accomplish?, absolutely nothing except killing people, putting them in jail and costing millions in legal expenses.

Worse you will be sentencing to death fully mature beings capable of thinking, reason, emotions and empathy to save some cells or partially formed bodies. There is nothing else there!

Who condones sentencing anyone to death? Not all in the pro-life crowd support capital punishment. If you're referring to women choosing, of their own volition, to perform illegal abortions (assuming they were banned), I'd suggest you look up the definition of killing. Hint: it invariably involves a physical act, or aid to a physical act. As to the value of arresting criminals, I believe that one speaks for itself.

[Selfish_Meme]

I was talking about deaths due to illegal abortions, which are horrendously high in countries where abortion is illegal.

[Selfish_Meme]

One can kill by inaction as well as by action.

[Obilisk18]

Selfish_Meme wrote: One can kill by inaction as well as by action.

What an absolutely ridiculous premise. If that were the case, every single person in this country would be under charges for manslaughter for failing to give large portions of their income to the destitute.

[Selfish_Meme]

criminal negligence

[Varyag]

Selfish_Meme wrote: All you have done is answered with opinions and thinly veiled insults. I have a value system, it just isn't the same as yours. We are all a bunch of cells, but something distinguishes one bunch of cells from another, is it just species? Or do you have some other rationale.

I ask if you have any evidence that drugs are less prevalent because of illegalituy and you answer yes, do I have to ask explicitly for you to show me some proof? If so show me some proof.

I do not think abortion will become illegal, only 35% want that, same as 30 odd percent want it legalised, more than likely it will become more restricted only and still not murder.

So according to you we should accord all things that have autonomic responses the right to life? Well, be happy starving.

What's pseudo about it, why don't you just start calling me names if that is the best you can do.

Admission of defeat accepted :wink:

[Varyag]

Selfish_Meme wrote: I was talking about deaths due to illegal abortions, which are horrendously high in countries where abortion is illegal.

Well murderers have to pay for their crimes, heh its like a self-imposing capital punishment, kill your baby and you die too.

[Selfish_Meme]

The only admission I make is that your arguments have no substance.

varyag wrote: Well murderers have to pay for their crimes, heh its like a self-imposing capital punishment, kill your baby and you die too.
And so we get to the essential hypocrisy behind the pro-life movement, who cares about life as long as those involved are punished.

[Obilisk18]

Selfish_Meme wrote: The only admission I make is that your arguments have no substance.

varyag wrote: Well murderers have to pay for their crimes, heh its like a self-imposing capital punishment, kill your baby and you die too.
And so we get to the essential hypocrisy behind the pro-life movement, who cares about life as long as those involved are punished.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't take the disingenuous step of conflating the abortion debate with capital punishment. They are different issues entirely and should be treated as such. I would also appreciate it if you'd make something resembling a coherent argument, but as that seems unlikely, I won't hold my breath.

Criminals must be punished. Laws are meant to protect the responsible citizenry. They will, from time to time, be broken. The perpetrators will, from time to time, suffer negatively. These central facts in no way function as a tenable argument against laws. Your rationale is then a peculiar one, in that it inexplicably separates theoretical abortion laws from other laws. What's more, it in no way acknowledges that such a distinction has been made, nor does it present any defense for this brazen act. I must conclude then, that either you are well aware that you've done something quite silly, but have no justification to present, or you're blissfully ignorant of the gaping holes in your logic.

[Selfish_Meme]

Are you talking to me or him? I didn't introduce capital punishment to the argument, and I wasn't discussing it per se, just stating that the, 'she had sex she deserves what she gets even if it is death' is so uncaring one has to believe that the proponent doesn't really care about life, just punishment.

[Enoch]

Rhoades wrote: Enoch wrote: Rhoades wrote: Geeze, if it means that much to you to kill some babies, then you're better off in Canada and Mexico. Having an abortion isn't what the debate is about. What it is about is having the right to make the decision on whether or not to have one.

I know quite a few people who will never have an abortion or leave their girlfriend/wife if she had one...yet, they are pro-choice.
You incorrectly assume that having an abortion is someone's right, or that someone is entitled to it. One person's rights end where someone else's begin. That is true, but the fetus does not yet have rights and therefore its rights cannot be infringed upon.

[Varyag]

Selfish_Meme wrote: The only admission I make is that your arguments have no substance.

As opposed to you who changes your story every line, and afraid to adress my unrefutable argument point by point, my argument has been solid and unchanging.

Quote: varyag wrote: Well murderers have to pay for their crimes, heh its like a self-imposing capital punishment, kill your baby and you die too.
And so we get to the essential hypocrisy behind the pro-life movement, who cares about life as long as those involved are punished.

Not at all, first and foremost I'm not part of the pro-life movement, that said ofcourse punishment is an important part of preserving life, we have murder laws which threaten *what* do you think if a person commits murder? Likewise with abortion, the best way to stop women aborting babies due to their own selfish stupidity is to threaten force, there are really no other ways. EVERY law is enforced by potential punishment, get over it.

[Selfish_Meme]

Varyag wrote: As opposed to you who changes your story every line, and afraid to adress my unrefutable argument point by point, my argument has been solid and unchanging.
Though I can't really say I have changed my stance if you will show me where I was inconsistent? Also I do at times actually change my mind, usually due to a good argument that convinces me my position was wrong. Rational people do that.

Quote: varyag wrote: Well murderers have to pay for their crimes, heh its like a self-imposing capital punishment, kill your baby and you die too.
And so we get to the essential hypocrisy behind the pro-life movement, who cares about life as long as those involved are punished.

Varyag wrote: Not at all, first and foremost I'm not part of the pro-life movement, that said ofcourse punishment is an important part of preserving life, we have murder laws which threaten *what* do you think if a person commits murder? Likewise with abortion, the best way to stop women aborting babies due to their own selfish stupidity is to threaten force, there are really no other ways. EVERY law is enforced by potential punishment, get over it.
So if you are not pro-life then why are you arguing their position, your not the first to say kill the aborters, usually it is those with extreme views that even the people purportedly on their side are a bit embarrassed about. Do you really think people don't kill each other because there is a law that says don't do it? People don't kill for reasons of self preservation. Society is a compact that people make to live together to be more succesful, being too cavalier about killing people is detrimental to the success of society and of the individuals in it, that is why people don't kill. If you as an individual kill people then you can pretty much expect to be killed.This lessens your chances for success of you and your offspring. That is the reason people don't kill each other. Laws are just for the people who are insane enough to not realise this.

Look at any pre-civilised society and the same would have held true. Killing your fellows especially in small groups means less success for the tribe. That is where our behaviour came from, not a 'law'.

[Snake]

Why take a trip to mexico when you can get your boyfreind to give your gut a good thrashing with a baseball bat, or take excessive amounts of drugs until its dead?