martha
Blue Crack Supplier
That was the single time. It was enough.
Do you see now Oscar why I say you aren't equipped? It has nothing to do with Phd's...
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Wait, you missed one:
Do you see now Oscar why I say you aren't equipped? It has nothing to do with Phd's...
What does this mean?
You are very naive when it comes to family law legislation. It's not that child support laws are not perfect; it's that they are barely functional. I would like the people who pull out abortion statistics to also pull out the statistics regarding support arrears so that we can see what's what.
I give you some leeway for being uninformed on this topic.
Well what do you advocate in your own nation? Province-by-province?
And whom will we hold responsible for aiding and abetting the woman? Her doctor? Her boyfriend/husband who agreed with her? Her best friend or sister who drove her to the clinic? They are certainly parties to the crime.
Which was why I was asking the question--to get you to clarify that last bit. Because when it comes down to it, that's really the only rational foundation for a comprehensive ethical argument against abortion rights--talking about 'responsibility for one's behavior' in the absence of such a view wouldn't hold up and wouldn't convince anyone. An unwanted pregnancy following one act of unprotected sex, and mild emphysema and type 2 diabetes following years of chain-smoking, overeating junkfood and not exercising, have in common that they're unwelcome and unpleasant, albeit 'treatable,' conditions which were nonetheless foreseeable and preventable--neither has much in common with, say, developing ALS, which is neither avoidable nor reversible to the best of our knowledge. But in the case of the emphysemic/diabetic, to say they therefore forfeited their right to make their own decisions about how to respond is readily recognizable to us as crossing a red line. It's really only the view, or the inclination towards it, that fetuses are rights-bearing individuals on a par with the rest of us, that makes some willing to support state intervention in what happens inside other individuals' bodies in this one case.
It simply doesn't wash to 'compromise' here IF you're going to insist that fetuses must be morally and legally considered persons with rights. Unless you're talking combatants in a wartime situation, which by definition entails planned mass killing, then we cannot morally permit actual subjects of law to be killed as consequence of crimes they didn't commit--period, full stop. (Even the 'threat to the mother's life' rationale could be argued to be on shaky grounds here, though I'm willing to give you a pass on that one since there's no other 'culprit' to point to, hence the fetus would appear to be the closest thing to one...for what that's worth.) To say 'A fetus is a person with the right to live--except when it was conceived in a way that I'd feel Really, Really Mean making its mother carry it to term over' makes no sense at all. Recognizing legal personhood by definition imposes certain absolutes (such as the right to live) in a system founded on equality of all before the rule of law; you can't play fast and loose with those without gravely undermining the system itself.
But this is not how manslaughter works. That involves questions of whether the offender can reasonably be assumed to have been fully capable at the time of rationally thinking through and grasping the consequences to her victim. It's not about whether she 'didn't necessarily plan' for the immediate circumstances (unwanted pregnancy) surrounding the abortion--which in any case, as a form of killing, almost never involves the sudden, spontaneous loss of rational self-control envisioned by the manslaughter defense--to have obtained.
While I disagree with many of your arguments, I do appreciate the fact that your interactions in making them have remained fundamentally calm and respectful, and hope that I've responded in kind.
We're never going to directly effect actual political changes merely by debating topics in here anyway, so there's no reason and nothing to be gained in repeatedly verbally browbeating or taunting people over what are ultimately just abstractions, however understandable the occasional eruptions of exasperation we all have may be. Chronically reaming on people doesn't make you seem like a righteous defender of justice or reason; it just makes you seem lacking in emotional self-control.
In all seriousness, I'm happy to do a thread split here if enough people want that; it's just that I don't personally see much cause for it at this point.
I think we covered it pretty good and the thread can be closed.
I was just making a comment on the fact that debates will include many people with different backgrounds and values. Taking your word for it is not good enough and I certainly don't want people to take my word for it either. When I listen to other topics I want to include anyone irregardless of what their educational background or personal opinions, just like in a democracy. It's up to you to decide what you believe which I think is pretty obvious. As detailed the questions and answers to any political debate the same could be attributed to economic debates on this site. Some people I think are "batshit crazy" when it comes to economics but the debate goes on anyways.
How do you make exceptions for rape, incest, or near death? You are for it being legal to "kill" then right? So you make them prove it in court? That sounds logical right? Tie a woman up in court... I mean she was probably a slut who deserved it right?
It's good to know someone's in charge.
But in a setting like this do I really need to "listen" to those that contradict themselves, use emotionally filled language, or have their facts wrong?
We should have SOME parameters, right? You've done all three, you just aren't a well equipped person when it comes to this topic, I think you are just towing the party line.
Nevermind all your contradictions, just answer this, for example:
How do you make exceptions for rape, incest, or near death? You are for it being legal to "kill" then right? So you make them prove it in court? That sounds logical right? Tie a woman up in court... I mean she was probably a slut who deserved it right?
If you killed someone in self-defense, thats murder, but are you going to get in trouble for it? Most likely not, if it was justifable.
And what I don't get is why an abortion has to be such an easy thing to get?
What? Conformist?And none of this could be attributed to yourself? You strike me as a conformist that wants only liberal opinions because "how can conservatives be so wrong about everything?"
I agree reduction in abortion is good. But the rest of this is just example of why you are regarded as being very frustrating to discuss anything with...Irvine was responding to the empathy argument that conservatives aren't empathetic to women in regards to abortion and my point was that you have to have no empathy for the unborn and their future to allow unrestricted abortion. Whether we side on highly restricted abortion or some compromise that allows restrictions for late term abortions, the idea is to reduce abortions because of the loss of life. Who says there has to be only one way? Those wikipedia links show multiple arguments people use defending pro-life or pro-choice. Do you think any poster could capture all that and find the cure all that would make everyone perfectly happy? This is why your posts are such a drag. At least Yolland makes an attempt at a discussion without looking for God to provide the Platonic perfect solution.
So you just now have changed your stance on rape and incest just because contradictions have been pointed out to you? See, this is why I don't think you are well equipped. How long have you been anti-choice? And within one day your stance changes because an obvious contradiction was pointed out to you? It just sounds like you're arguing for argument's sake.I already admitted that my compromise would have trouble standing in court in my last post. The only way I can see it now is to allow abortions if the mother has a high risk of dying in carrying the baby. As a person the baby isn't allowed to kill the mother so it would make sense in that case. With rape and incest killing the child wouldn't be necessary if the baby can be born. As you can see there are lots of permutations in the debate that are still ongoing and those who write books and are "experts" can't nail down a solution that all will like:
Inconsistencies are fine, we have no absolutes, so inconsistencies are a given, but glaring contradictions are a whole entirely different thing.So is anyone without inconsistencies or opinions that need to be fleshed out in more detail?
And what I don't get is why an abortion has to be such an easy thing to get?
You're like a cucumber. Just when I think I'm done, bam, another reminder.I thought you said you were done with me.
The only way I can see it now is to allow abortions if the mother has a high risk of dying in carrying the baby.
I think you convinced me. The pro-life stance up to the point of only allowing abortions when there's an increased risk of death would be cleaner for arguments sake. If I were to compromise I would have to lose empathy for the child in a rape situation that would nullify the rights for the unborn. If I do some more reading I may find an argument for it but it will likely have holes in logic.
?You're like a cucumber. Just when I think I'm done, bam, another reminder.
Honestly, so what? Maybe oscar is someone who enjoys using debate as a tool to help him develop and refine arguments in real-time that he hasn't necessarily spent hours of introversion on yet, or maybe this was just one of those moments where a possible gap in your logic that you've long overlooked suddenly becomes crystal-clear to you. Who cares? What does it hurt?So you just now have changed your stance on rape and incest just because contradictions have been pointed out to you? See, this is why I don't think you are well equipped. How long have you been anti-choice? And within one day your stance changes because an obvious contradiction was pointed out to you?
Honestly, so what? Maybe oscar is someone who enjoys using debate as a tool to help him develop and refine arguments in real-time that he hasn't necessarily spent hours of introversion on yet
Honestly, so what? Maybe oscar is someone who enjoys using debate as a tool to help him develop and refine arguments in real-time that he hasn't necessarily spent hours of introversion on yet, or maybe this was just one of those moments where a possible gap in your logic that you've long overlooked suddenly becomes crystal-clear to you. Who cares? What does it hurt?