I can fully appreciate that someone can come to the table as a pro-choice person and be perfectly logical/not a murderer/etc. because they don't see a fetus as a life. What I can't understand is why someone who has that position thinks someone who does think it's a life is just stupid as you essentially just did Northside Storm. I consider myself a rational person and about as open minded as a person can be. I think life begins in the womb and that an abortion is taking of a life. You apparently think I'm stupid, a non-free thinker and a big government pusher. Pretty weak.
Doctors who perform abortions should be given free access to submachine guns. If you disagree, you are authoritarian.
Um, because you can think a fetus has a life and point to actual policies that drive abortions down like Switzerland providing Plan B for free, or Switzerland training a hell of a lot more gynecologists, or Switzerland providing better maternal welfare outcomes. People who are "pro-life" in the American sense typically posit government intervention in the sense of government force of the worst degree (imprisonment for example)--and for what? Based on what data? Much of Western Europe has made it their life's mission to make abortion more accessible, and their abortion rate is significantly lower than America's (which is decreasing anyways) both from a historical (pre-Roe v Wade) and current perspective. I apostrophed "pro-life" people and abstracted their thinking to a general level because if somebody can ask if "doctors" are morally guilty, I sure as hell can ask why "pro-life" people are irrational because they work against their own stated goals. I never said they were stupid, but I did say they were irrational. The two are not perfect corollaries. You can be very intelligent and ignore the data and wall yourself emotionally from it (hell you could argue that's a self-defense mechanism used by people with some cognitive sophistication), which is what most pro-life people do. Yes, there is evidence in disfavor of pro-choice positions (especially in state-to-state variations if you apply them to selected states, and in Eastern Europe) but in EVERY discussion I've had with somebody "pro-life" to date, the conversation NEVER begins or ends up there. That's why I have stereotypically assigned the label of irrationality to them, and you if you'd like to lump yourself into my stereotype.
Added note: certain "pro-life" people have this particularly annoying habit of fixating on how abortions are "wrong", "bad", look "disgusting" instead of actually working to REDUCE abortions (their stated goal). Their arguments aren't arguments. They are theater disguised as logic. Some are more sophisticated, and will do stuff like analyses of the effect of New York City's abortion law compared to other states, or correlations between drops in abortion rate and certain restrictive measures, and I will at least give them credit for doing the work. The first group could learn from the second. I, personally, am absolutely disgusted when those people from the first group malign doctors who have saved more lives than they ever will and I will always bring that up to them when they do it. The difference is that I don't think my disgust will change the laws of the nation, or the data on the ground.
Haven't beaten anyone up since last time. I do continue to give money every month to Planned Parenthood though. :grin:
Sorry, you come up with all sorts of creepy utilitarian arguments to justify legalized murder, and they just fall flat with me.
Sorry, I really don't care about what you think about my arguments because you've proven you won't even elevate your level of thinking to anything that could be actionable or logical or that you even understand any of the arguments. I'm just here to cast back the same moral guilt you try to shamelessly sprinkle around until you get to that level. "Abortions are bad!" DUH Now move on. What is to be done about reducing abortions? Want to reduce abortions? Hand out some contraceptives or support women's causes. You'll be more useful to your cause. Until then? Live with the moral guilt you try to impugn on others. Your confused, anti-science stance is way worse than apathy. Don't try to throw stones in a glass house.
What are the stats on abortions in America? I mean, abortion is such an umbrella term it could cover anything from a chemical pregnancy (unintended abortion) to vacuuming out the inside of a woman's uterus (for any number of reasons).
so·ci·o·path ˈsōsēōˌpaTH/ noun a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
I believe in a woman's right to make a choice. Abortion, just like the idea of when a life begins - is a philosophical debate and one that a isn't defined. It's a belief. As such, it should be left to an individual. If you do not believe abortion is right, then don't have one. That is your CHOICE. But do not force 13 year old girls to have babies either - that is not right. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DRauXXz6t0Y?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I have a bigger problem with people who are nominally pro-life, but are willing to make an exception in cases of rape or incest. I have a hard time seeing that as anything other than politicizing a woman's right to choose, while framing one's stance as a moral objection. IF life begins at conception, and IF abortion is murder, then the manner of conception shouldn't matter, should it?
I think it's best to look at it as justifiable homicide or "crime prevention" rather than "murder".The benefits of killing off thousands of unwanted children are easy to see and you kill them before they can really suffer or turn into the criminals of the future then it's win-win for everyone. When a person decides to kill their child, it's usually a good idea. Those are usually the kinds of people that shouldn't be breeding anyway so if you can get less of them on the street, society has won. People just need to see this from a practical standpoint.
Murder should not be a choice. It is defined, legally (by courts). Not about forcing anyone to do anything, it's about stopping the killing of unborn children, which can never be justified (at best you could make a self defense argument if the mother's life is threatened; but this is extremely rare).
