Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/1/10 11:01 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

I want as few abortions as possible. Having a solution as insane as yours doesn't fit into "possible"

I don't support that... the guy is insane.

I'm just wondering why so many pro-choice organizations and individuals crusade against anything that would reduce abortion numbers.

Even if when it's something as simple as showing an ultra-sound.

At 12/1/10 11:04 PM, Memorize wrote:

I'm just wondering why so many pro-choice organizations and individuals crusade against anything that would reduce abortion numbers.

Even if when it's something as simple as showing an ultra-sound.

My mistake, I should've checked your usernames.

Simply put, I think we can all agree that ceteris paribus, the rarer abortion is, the better. What I don't agree with is using coercive, forceful, or other under-handed ways of going about it that hurt women and/or make them feel like criminals for doing something that's lawful and protected as a constitutional right.

To use an admittedly extreme example, the guy who posted earlier had a point, if we removed the ovaries of every woman who had multiple abortions, we'd cut down on abortions dramatically. However, I don't think any sane pro-lifer is actually in favor of that. That doesn't mean that pro-lifers are hypocrites, it's just that they don't approve of doing nazi-esque medical procedures on unwilling women.

I believe in limiting abortion not for the benefit of a fetus, but for the benefit of the women who undergo them. I believe that education, contraception, and sometimes even just delivering the baby in some cases are all better alternatives than having to undergo a painful, emotionally draining, and stigmatised medical procedure. But no matter what, it should be the woman's decision, free of coercion, free of legal caveats, and free of the moral judgements of others.

At 12/1/10 02:07 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

Um, why? You've already admitted rights don't exist above.

I haven't said that once.

Um, actually yes you did. I really am lazy and hate to go back and look stuff up. But I hate being called a liar worse. So here's the quote:

You still don't know what rights are.

"Rights are whatever society give you."

Ok, maybe you do

So, um. Yea. You did just say that rights don't exist. Because society can just say you don't have them anymore.

Equally valid doesn't mean I can't prefer one over the other. I don't want to live in a society where the government can control what people do to their bodies because of what they believe God wants them to do, you do. Both those positions are equally valid, I just think that yours would lead to a miserable and awful society.

Preference is fine. But you STILL have no room to call me an extremist. Because if both of our views are equally valid, then neither one is wrong. And it's simply a matter of preference. Which is a bit like saying that I'm a Nazi because I like spaghetti and you like Ravioli.

Moreover, Chuckles, what world do you think we live in? The government already tells you tens of thousands of things you can and cannot do with your body. Even if your absurd view of me was correct, and it isn't, using God as a justification is no more insane than following Al Gore. Someone either has a massive disconnect with reality, a severe prejudice against anyone who believes in God, a ridiculously exaggerated self importance, or all of the above.

Reading comprehension isn't one of your strongpoints

Sure it is. You've even reiterated here that we both have valid points. Therefore, to you, we are both equally right, tho you prefer yourself. Whereas, I believe I am valid and you are not. In both worldviews, I am correct.

See how that works? The guy who cannot assert he is right over his opponent is, by his very admission. inferior.

Infanticide was practiced in nearly every society throughout antiquity. It's still considered moral in some societies even today.

So is slavery. And rape. And cannibalism.

I feel like I'm talking in circles. I've mentioned all this already. Long before you.

Does the fact that it is practiced make it right?

At 12/1/10 02:09 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Actually, I was commenting on how it seemed that you'd withdrawn from the debate and had stopped answering any questions unless they were related to the bible. Now granted, given the quality of your new responses, It probably would be better for you to stick to the one thing it seems you're not completely ignorant about.

Except, I haven't made a single post yet making the Bible even a central focus in my argument. Nor have I had a single post which DIDN'T discuss other factors. So, we come back to: "You're a moron for bringing up the Bible in shooting someone down who brought the Bible up to you." This is a fucking stupid argument. So if someone tries, and fails, in quoting scripture, and I correct them, I'm a bible thumper? Goodness that's moronic.

And for someone as stupid as you, I'd shy away from trying to tell people to "only talk about what they know", cause I'll still be speaking tomorrow, and you will not. Now screw off.

At 12/1/10 02:40 PM, The-universe wrote: That's impossible.

He needs to be competent on something first. Or honest, or even smart.

But he's just another half witt who'll bullshit his way into annoying people until they go away and he claims a win.

Nice! The second of the three stooges has come about!

Never claimed a win. Just that I'm smarter than you. Which, really, is like saying I'm smarter than a child. Not really much of a boost to the self esteem.

At 12/2/10 05:54 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Um, actually yes you did. I really am lazy and hate to go back and look stuff up. But I hate being called a liar worse. So here's the quote:

You still don't know what rights are.

"Rights are whatever society give you."

Ok, maybe you do

So, um. Yea. You did just say that rights don't exist. Because society can just say you don't have them anymore.

That doesn't mean rights don't exist, learn to read. I'm not saying you're a liar, I'm saying you're not smart enough to actually look up the word "right" in the dictionary. Rights don't have to be inalienable to be rights, they can and have been given and taken away by societies at different times throughout history.

Preference is fine. But you STILL have no room to call me an extremist. Because if both of our views are equally valid, then neither one is wrong. And it's simply a matter of preference. Which is a bit like saying that I'm a Nazi because I like spaghetti and you like Ravioli.

Taking control of someone else's body for your own moral reasons is an extreme view in our society. Maybe if you lived 500 years ago it wouldn't be extreme, but it is now.

Moreover, Chuckles, what world do you think we live in? The government already tells you tens of thousands of things you can and cannot do with your body.

Aside from drug laws, which I generally don't agree with either, not really.

using God as a justification is no more insane than following Al Gore.

Well, I don't claim that Al Gore talks to me and tells me to make pregnant women have babies, so yeah, it actually is.

See how that works? The guy who cannot assert he is right over his opponent is, by his very admission. inferior.

Just because your argument is idiotic, incorrect, poorly-informed, and guaranteed to make people miserable doesn't mean it's necessarily "wrong". It just means it's idiotic, poorly-informed, and guaranteed to make people miserable. My position that a fetus isn't a person is neither inferior nor superior to your position that a fetus is, it's just not retarded and guaranteed to make people suffer.

Infanticide was practiced in nearly every society throughout antiquity. It's still considered moral in some societies even today.

So is slavery. And rape. And cannibalism.

Yeah exactly, for somebody who believes that rights are inalienable and given by God, you don't seem to have a problem admitting that they've only actually existed for .0001 percent of human history. Your God sucks at protecting people's rights. If you had any intellectual rigor, you should actually be claiming that rights don't exist period.

Does the fact that it is practiced make it right?

Right by whose standard?

So if someone tries, and fails, in quoting scripture, and I correct them, I'm a bible thumper?

That would have to happen first. You seem to know less about the bible than you do about how rights function in a society, and that's saying a lot.

And for someone as stupid as you, I'd shy away from trying to tell people to "only talk about what they know", cause I'll still be speaking tomorrow, and you will not. Now screw off.

Better luck next time.

At 12/1/10 09:39 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Oh. We're allowed to do that? Ok... If someone wants a fetus to live, he can always find a way to take care of it.

Cutting the woman is can hurt both her and the fetus, the fetus likely wouldn't survive.

satanbrain: if someone doesn't want a baby [...] [killed] he'll always be able to take care of it, otherwise he's a hypocrite.

me: 'Someone shot your baby dead? If you really wanted your baby to live you woulda stopped it, hypocrite.'

satanbrain: I meant while knowing it is going to die.

me: Oh. We're allowed to do that? Ok... If someone wants a fetus to live, he can always find a way to take care of it.

At 12/3/10 12:08 AM, satanbrain wrote: Cutting the woman is can hurt both her and the fetus, the fetus likely wouldn't survive.

I meant without cutting anybody.

At 12/1/10 11:04 PM, Memorize wrote: I'm just wondering why so many pro-choice organizations and individuals crusade against anything that would reduce abortion numbers.

Even if when it's something as simple as showing an ultra-sound.

i read about a few states having a 24 hour waiting period with provided literature on alternatives. that seemed to be a fairly responsible way of addressing the issue of minimizing abortions; i'm sure most people don't know their options (hell, i have no idea how one would do in such a situation) prior to the situation, and the clinic is likely the first stop on their unwanted pregnancy journey. not sure about the reasons allowing for an abortion in those states though.

i wonder; do adoption centres and other such agencies provide literature on abortion... you know, just so you're aware of the options?

At 12/3/10 12:57 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/3/10 12:08 AM, satanbrain wrote: Cutting the woman is can hurt both her and the fetus, the fetus likely wouldn't survive.

I meant without cutting anybody.

So how are you planning to get the fetus out? premature birth?

At 12/3/10 06:55 AM, satanbrain wrote: So how are you planning to get the fetus out? premature birth?

So how are you planning on finding out that the baby is going to get shot? Good ol' fashioned detective work?

At 12/3/10 01:40 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 12/1/10 11:04 PM, Memorize wrote: I'm just wondering why so many pro-choice organizations and individuals crusade against anything that would reduce abortion numbers.

Even if when it's something as simple as showing an ultra-sound.

i read about a few states having a 24 hour waiting period with provided literature on alternatives.

22 states from a rough count.

At 12/3/10 01:40 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

i read about a few states having a 24 hour waiting period with provided literature on alternatives. that seemed to be a fairly responsible way of addressing the issue of minimizing abortions.

Provided the literature isn't biased toward a particular point-of-view

I think both sides are awesome

on one hand, anti lifers encourage the killing of babies, AWRIGHT

on the other, anti choicers wan't to bring back the good ol days where women had no say in their own life, YEAAAAAAA

if i had to chose one, i would hit the grey zone and make it so that you HAD to kill babies, and the woman would have NO choice in the matter.

At 12/3/10 10:33 PM, LaForge wrote: The only cause for an abortion should be rape or medical complications. 14 year old girls having unprotected sex should go through with the birth and immediately have their child taken away to live with the girl's parents or grandparents.

Can you elaborate why?

At 12/3/10 06:03 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

if i had to chose one, i would hit the grey zone and make it so that you HAD to kill babies, and the woman would have NO choice in the matter.

Ur so edgy

At 12/4/10 02:11 AM, The-General-Public wrote:

Can you elaborate why?

Care to elaborate why it's ok to notify the parents of every other aspect of their child's condition/behavior except abortion?

Just wondering since I find an extremist arguing with another extremist rather amusing.

At 12/3/10 09:27 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/3/10 06:55 AM, satanbrain wrote: So how are you planning to get the fetus out? premature birth?

So how are you planning on finding out that the baby is going to get shot? Good ol' fashioned detective work?

If you know he is going to get shot but don't know when you'll likely put him somewhere safe, or deceive the shooter with a fake doll.

At 12/4/10 07:50 AM, satanbrain wrote: If you know he is going to get shot but don't know when you'll likely put him somewhere safe, or deceive the shooter with a fake doll.

And if the woman is open to suggestion you can persuade her not to abort.

So, do you consider capability and moral imperative one in the same - i.e. that if you can then you should?

At 12/4/10 04:07 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/4/10 02:11 AM, The-General-Public wrote:

Can you elaborate why?

Care to elaborate why it's ok to notify the parents of every other aspect of their child's condition/behavior except abortion?

When did I say that?

At 12/3/10 02:43 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Provided the literature isn't biased toward a particular point-of-view

what if one carries less risks than another option; that would be a bias. would we have to censor this risk in order to avoid bias?

Didn't realize I forfeit all my rights when I faint.

On the premise that a living fetus is a human life, it shouldn't be exploited to punish some twit.

And as far as consequences go, I suppose I shouldn't cook meat before I eat it. I just have to deal with the consequence of eating meat.

At 12/4/10 02:40 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 12/3/10 02:43 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Provided the literature isn't biased toward a particular point-of-view

what if one carries less risks than another option; that would be a bias. would we have to censor this risk in order to avoid bias?

bias n: a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

learn what bias means

At 12/4/10 03:34 PM, LaForge wrote: Abortion is the easy way out. I hear about rich kids having sex at young ages because they've been pampered so much they've run out of shit to do, and then 15 year olds end up pregnant. Whether they want the baby or not, she should HAVE to go through with the birth, because that's the consequence of having unprotected sex.

So I presume you want to make it illegal for doctors to give patients medication for venereal diseases contracted during unprotected sex as well too I assume?

Bottom line for me: there are consequences to sex, and no one should have the right to dodge them.

Right, having to arrange to get an abortion is a consequence of having underage sex, glad we agree.

At 12/4/10 06:27 PM, LaForge wrote:

At 12/4/10 05:49 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

The consequence is having the baby, and if they're too young to have it taken away from them, given to the parents or grandparents of either the mother or father. Apparently you didn't read when I wrote "I don't support abortions except in cases of rape or medical peril".

I did. Medical peril is sometimes a result of underage sex. Your logic is unimpressive

At 12/4/10 09:09 PM, LaForge wrote:

At 12/4/10 08:42 PM, The-General-Public wrote: I did. Medical peril is sometimes a result of underage sex. Your logic is unimpressive

Your logic is non-existent. "In the case of medical peril" encases anything that puts a person at risk, even if under age.

Like pregnancy

At 12/4/10 04:58 PM, LaForge wrote: You know what I mean. Conscious of your own existence.

And, little mishaps like fainting aside, people slip in and our of being conscious of their own existence on a daily basis (assuming they're on a proper sleep schedule).

Why not? Would you rather see the life exterminated so the mother can get off the hook?

Is this myopia intentional?

It was your decision to eat the raw meat.

(Before you or anyone gets confused as to whether I like cooked meat. I do.)

Well... yeah. But more importantly it was the moral imperative to not cook it, thereby not likely not avoiding the consequences of eating meat. I.E. people who eat meat deserve to have their intestines rot because that is a consequence of eating meat. That is the consequence of eating meat without taking precautions to mitigate that consequence.

At 12/5/10 05:18 PM, LaForge wrote: This argument has reminded me how useless the Politics section of the BBS is. Has a mind ever been changed in the history of this section? I'm going back to hanging out in the audio lounge. At least there you don't get flamed and spat at for your beliefs like you do around here.

Getting flamed and spat at are the consequences of public espousing idiotic beliefs, and nobody should be able to dodge them.

At 12/5/10 08:21 PM, LaForge wrote:

At 12/5/10 07:15 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Getting flamed and spat at are the consequences of public espousing idiotic beliefs, and nobody should be able to dodge them.

This post encapsulates my point. There's never been a gentlemanly, respectful argument in Politics. It always goes like this:

Tony: I believe in God.
Matthew: You're a fucking gullible asshole.
Tony: Why?
Matthew: Because there's no proof that god exists, dipshit
Tony: Lack of evidence doesn't discredit a theory
Matthew: Lol, you're a lower life form than me because of your beliefs.

That's the gist of every debate ever in the history of the Politics forums, and I'm sick of it. It's a kill or be killed mentality exaggerated by people who think that in order to validate their own beliefs, they have to decimate everyone else's.

Fuck this.

Actually, all I ever said prior to that post was that your logic was unconvincing. Which, as a matter of fact, it was. Your entire argument rested on the strange assumption that when people do things you don't agree with, they should be legally prevented from trying to fix their mistakes. Do you think that people who walk around barefoot outside and get hookworm should be legally prohibited from getting treatment as well?

Also, calling abortion "the easy way out" proves to me that you have no idea what having an abortion is like. I don't need to respect the opinion of somebody who obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.

At 12/5/10 09:09 PM, LaForge wrote:

At 12/5/10 09:02 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Also, calling abortion "the easy way out" proves to me that you have no idea what having an abortion is like. I don't need to respect the opinion of somebody who obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.

The one-time ordeal of an abortion is the easy way out compared to the 20 or so year task of managing another human being's life.

Yes it is difficult, for the woman, the child, and judging by how crime plummeted in the decades after Roe v Wade, society as well. You want to be make society painful and miserable for as many people as you possibly can it seems.