Page 4 of 7
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:50 pm
by Tossica
I am completely anti-abortion but completely pro-choice.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:17 pm
by leah
Harrison wrote:I've contemplated taking a vigilante approach to some of the shit going on around me lately, gang related.
I have no qualms with killing bad people.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:17 pm
by numatu
Interesting hypothetical:
In the case of pro-choice, I've noticed many proponents claim that a fetus is "not a person" as long as it cannot survive outside the womb.
What about technological advances? Currently, babies can survive a much shorter gestation period than at any point in human history thanks to medical advances. Most likely the gestation period required to survive outside the womb will continue to shrink. If there's anything that science has shown, it's that given enough time, anything is possible.
How would an ever-decreasing required gestation period affect your views? Would you adjust your view accordingly, or do you think there's an arbitrary cutoff point regardless of survival outside the womb?
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:18 pm
by leah
also, tossica, i agree with your "anti-abortion, pro-choice" stance.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:35 pm
by Tikker
I don't have a problem with capitol punishment or abortion
(abortion being a 1st trimester thing)
I have a deep belief that humans are doing an increasingly shitty job of culling the gene pool
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:16 pm
by Zanchief
Harrison wrote:Pro-life means that all life has a value, not selective life.
My stance can't be simply thrown into a cookie cutter, like most beliefs people hold.
So don't try it? lol
It seems pretty cookie cutter to me. You’re just a angry kid who hasn't grown up. Wanting to play batman doesn't make you an intellectual, it makes you emotionally stunted.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:34 pm
by Harrison
*yawn* who let the little girlie kid into the conversation?
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:56 pm
by Haylo
Your stance is your stance, I am not trying to pigeon hole you. You can have whatever belief that you so choose. But murder is murder whether or not it's for a good cause in your eyes. It's the same thing as that show Dexter. The guy is only killing the worse of society, but he is still a killer. When you take a viable, self-sustaining life it's killing, which makes you a killer. Don't try to dress it up by justifying it based on certain circumstances.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:13 pm
by Harrison
I guess I place a different connotation to the word murder than I do to kill.
Killing to me is very different than murdering. As I have explained already...
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:37 pm
by Tikker
your interpretation doesn't matter tho
it's the law's that does
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:51 pm
by Harrison
My interpretation doesn't involve the law in any way, at all. If we were speaking about a time where there were no laws, my meaning would stay the same whereas the dictionary meaning wouldn't exist.
I'm sure there's words you use with a different connotation than is intended by some others just the same as I do with this.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:48 pm
by brinstar
leah wrote:dude arlos! re: accidental pregnancy, the three children that resulted after my aunt and uncle got married were all "surprises." i'm not sure if they were planning to have kids eventually or not (i'm assuming they were--my aunt terri loves kids more than anything in the world) but none of her three kids with my uncle mike were expected. with one, the condom broke; with another, she was on the pill. the third? she came around even after terri had had her tubes tied! craziness. sometimes pregnancies just happen, despite how hard you try to prevent them. lucky for our family, though, because we got some awesome cousins out of the deal hehe
ROFL i didn't know any of that shit
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:01 pm
by KaiineTN
numatu wrote:Interesting hypothetical:
In the case of pro-choice, I've noticed many proponents claim that a fetus is "not a person" as long as it cannot survive outside the womb.
What about technological advances? Currently, babies can survive a much shorter gestation period than at any point in human history thanks to medical advances. Most likely the gestation period required to survive outside the womb will continue to shrink. If there's anything that science has shown, it's that given enough time, anything is possible.
How would an ever-decreasing required gestation period affect your views? Would you adjust your view accordingly, or do you think there's an arbitrary cutoff point regardless of survival outside the womb?
If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy and the child can be saved, by all means, let it finish development in an incubator, or a test tube :-p But if you want to save the child's life, and she doesn't, you claim the responsibility that comes with it.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:27 pm
by Lueyen
Gypsiyee wrote: someone who takes pro baby murder positions
was this really necessary? are you seriously trying to just be combative?
seriously, man - you have no idea if there are people on this board who were faced with that terrible position and having to choose. I'm not one of them, but that's a really insensitive and rude way to put it, and until you have to personally endure that torture, you should probably refrain from being so boisterous about your holier than thou stance on it.
As has already been discussed the use of the word murder in this context is not correct, sorry for that, I will from now on refer to people who take that stance as pro-baby killing. I used to be sensitive to the issue, using the term "pro-choice" until fairly recently when I started seeing the term "anti-choice" thrown around. If the pro-baby killing crowd is going to call it how they see it in reference to the other side then I will do the same. So no I'm not being combative or holier then thou, I'm just calling it how I see it since that seems to be the new flavor of the day.
If you want me to be combative and insensitive however I could go dig up the thread where people were discussing their horror at the videos regarding Palin and the use of aircraft for hunting, post some pictures of aborted babies and explain how hypocritical it is to on one hand look in horror at this and turn around and throw your support behind someone who supports something far worse.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:32 pm
by Zanchief
They're fetuses, not babies.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:06 pm
by Lueyen
Zanchief wrote:They're fetuses, not babies.
When an expectant mothers starts referring to their babies as fetuses, I'll lend that term more credence then just a scientific term use to justify a societally degenerative act.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:15 pm
by leah
brinstar wrote:leah wrote:dude arlos! re: accidental pregnancy, the three children that resulted after my aunt and uncle got married were all "surprises." i'm not sure if they were planning to have kids eventually or not (i'm assuming they were--my aunt terri loves kids more than anything in the world) but none of her three kids with my uncle mike were expected. with one, the condom broke; with another, she was on the pill. the third? she came around even after terri had had her tubes tied! craziness. sometimes pregnancies just happen, despite how hard you try to prevent them. lucky for our family, though, because we got some awesome cousins out of the deal hehe
ROFL i didn't know any of that shit
mom likes to use the story to warn me that NOTHING IS 100% EFFECTIVE lolol
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:33 pm
by Zanchief
Lueyen wrote:Zanchief wrote:They're fetuses, not babies.
When an expectant mothers starts referring to their babies as fetuses, I'll lend that term more credence then just a scientific term use to justify a societally degenerative act.
I tend to side with scientists over hormonal women, silly as it might seem.
Call it anything you want Luey, you do belong to the party that's king of naming things to stir the sheeplings into a frenzy.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:06 am
by Gypsiyee
Harrison wrote:Pro-life means that all life has a value, not selective life.
My stance can't be simply thrown into a cookie cutter, like most beliefs people hold.
So don't try it? lol
Neither can most of the right - your stance on this is the same as most republicans, and many view it as hypocritical.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:22 am
by Gypsiyee
Lueyen wrote:Gypsiyee wrote: someone who takes pro baby murder positions
was this really necessary? are you seriously trying to just be combative?
seriously, man - you have no idea if there are people on this board who were faced with that terrible position and having to choose. I'm not one of them, but that's a really insensitive and rude way to put it, and until you have to personally endure that torture, you should probably refrain from being so boisterous about your holier than thou stance on it.
As has already been discussed the use of the word murder in this context is not correct, sorry for that, I will from now on refer to people who take that stance as pro-baby killing. I used to be sensitive to the issue, using the term "pro-choice" until fairly recently when I started seeing the term "anti-choice" thrown around. If the pro-baby killing crowd is going to call it how they see it in reference to the other side then I will do the same. So no I'm not being combative or holier then thou, I'm just calling it how I see it since that seems to be the new flavor of the day.
If you want me to be combative and insensitive however I could go dig up the thread where people were discussing their horror at the videos regarding Palin and the use of aircraft for hunting, post some pictures of aborted babies and explain how hypocritical it is to on one hand look in horror at this and turn around and throw your support behind someone who supports something far worse.
what's wrong with calling it anti-choice? that's what it is. pro-baby killing is nowhere near the same as calling it anti-choice - a baby is a baby, a recently fertilized egg is not. pro-baby killing would insinuate that people who are pro-choice would be equally okay with murdering infants, and that's simply not the case and is an enormous stretch to even slightly make the connection.
anti-choice only infers that one is against (anti) the woman's right to choose (choice.) we're not even talking the same ball park here.
sure, you could post pictures of aborted babies, but I guarantee the ones you find that are "horrific" will be from later term abortions than most on this board
do notagree with, so your argument would be moot and would demonstrate absolutely no hypocrisy. You're acting like first-trimester abortions are equivalent to taking an AK47 and shooting down children at schools. a living and breathing animal carrying on the life it was designed to lead being shot down with inconsistent accuracy with a bounty on its head is in no way comparable to aborting a zygote with no brain function that if developed would likely live a low-quality life and could very easily turn out to be one of the people you complain about soaking up welfare and government benefits. You want to cut government spending, then you want to call it murder when people are making the sound decision to not overpopulate without a means to provide.
You want to slice the pie every single way you possibly can, and you simply can't have it all.
(edit - too early and I suck at typos)
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:23 am
by Harrison
No, my stance on this is amazingly more flexible than most.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:43 am
by ClakarEQ
I never realized you were so perverted regarding abortion Lue. You sound exactly like those 'crazies' that call our soldiers fags and that march around military funerals, I always forget the name of that group, just instead of soldiers, its a zygote.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:46 am
by ClakarEQ
I forget now what thread it was in but I was referenceing something called the brady effect. It came up on NPR again last night and it is the "Bradley" effect. It was regarding a black mayoral candidate in california where the polls showed a huge lead, where in reality with the votes, he nearly lost.
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:01 pm
by brinstar
ClakarEQ wrote:I never realized you were so perverted regarding abortion Lue. You sound exactly like those 'crazies' that call our soldiers fags and that march around military funerals, I always forget the name of that group, just instead of soldiers, its a zygote.
the westboro baptist church from topeka, KS
fuck those guys, fuck that town, fuck that state
Re: I might have just chosen a side
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:54 pm
by Lueyen
Gypsiyee wrote:what's wrong with calling it anti-choice? that's what it is. pro-baby killing is nowhere near the same as calling it anti-choice - a baby is a baby, a recently fertilized egg is not.
Again it is only in medical and scientific discussion when denoting the stages of development of a child and of course when people are trying to justify abortion that a developing child in the womb at any stage is referred to as anything but baby. You don't hear expectant mothers talking about their embryo or fetus. Furthermore common phrases reinforce that the commonly accepted societal definition of baby does not stipulate a state of being born. "When the baby is born", "The baby is coming", "We are having a baby".
As far as anti-choice, the implications are as erroneous as me referring to someone's position as anti-life.
Gypsiyee wrote:pro-baby killing would insinuate that people who are pro-choice would be equally okay with murdering infants, and that's simply not the case and is an enormous stretch to even slightly make the connection. anti-choice only infers that one is against (anti) the woman's right to choose (choice.) we're not even talking the same ball park
It insinuates nothing as it does not address conditions under which you find it to acceptable to kill a baby, just as anti-choice does not insinuate someone is against all choices one could make in life. Taken in context of abortion you know exactly what it means, taking it out of context of abortion anti-choice is like wise off the mark. The only time the two are not in the same ball park is if you wish to apply a different contextual view of one and not the other.
Gypsiyee wrote:sure, you could post pictures of aborted babies, but I guarantee the ones you find that are "horrific" will be from later term abortions than most on this board do notagree with, so your argument would be moot and would demonstrate absolutely no hypocrisy.
The candidate you support for president is supportive of late term abortions. A hundred percent score given by NARL is pretty much a tell all. You would take issue with something Palin did and express horror at the pictures and videos of the results. Would you take issue with Obama in his failure to vote against partial birth abortions, instead simply voting present knowing that the majority was not there to pass a bill in opposition to them?
Gypsiyee wrote:You're acting like first-trimester abortions are equivalent to taking an AK47 and shooting down children at schools.
No I'm not.
Gypsiyee wrote:a living and breathing animal carrying on the life it was designed to lead being shot down with inconsistent accuracy with a bounty on its head is in no way comparable to aborting a zygote with no brain function
No you can't compare the two exactly the latter is far worse, at least said animal has some chance of escaping with it's life.
Gypsiyee wrote:that if developed would likely live a low-quality life and could very easily turn out to be one of the people you complain about soaking up welfare and government benefits. You want to cut government spending, then you want to call it murder when people are making the sound decision to not overpopulate without a means to provide.
I'm critical of a system that by it's design promotes irresponsibility, I would not however go so far as to suggest that the solution is to completely remove people from this world at any stage. Justifying abortion with that argument is flat out frightening.
Gypsiyee wrote:You want to slice the pie every single way you possibly can, and you simply can't have it all.
Fortunately for me my pie doesn't taste and smell like utter shit, so I don't have to dress it up and throw all kinds of extra toppings on it just so it's palatable.
ClakarEQ wrote:I never realized you were so perverted regarding abortion Lue.
I would submit to you that perversion is a self aware species killing off it's own offspring.
ClakarEQ wrote:You sound exactly like those 'crazies' that call our soldiers fags and that march around military funerals, I always forget the name of that group, just instead of soldiers, its a zygote.
Um last I checked I wasn't the one advocating the destruction of a zygote, nor was I calling them fags, nor was I saying they'd go to hell, as a matter of fact it is not my position but that of the other side that exhibits any animosity toward zygotes.