Abortion and Women's Rights

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights.  Murder is not a right. 

>>159

"I do think there should be some kind of punishment for women who didn't care to investigate whether they were pregnant until their foetuses had nerves and what could be called consciousness."

Glad you are saying as much now.  That is a far more reasonable idea than what you were advocating earlier. 

>>161 And once they've aborted the foetus they should take a DNA test, and then the woman gets one (read 1) choice of what man should be tested to see if he was the one providing the other 23 'somes. If he is the other provider, then they share the punishment, because the dude created half of the baby and then stopped caring.
"It's called child support laws.  Not that I'm saying they should be there, as it's the woman's body, and it's her responsibility to take care of it." This is actually getting worse. You should put your powers to the aid of science, since you defy reality itself and could therefore do cool stuff like chill things below absolute zero or ignore inertia. Regarding who is doing what the man is the one responsible for his body, so he is the one supposed to prevent what malarkey his body gets up to. The woman is always taking a greater risk since she already is the one bearing the brunt of pregnancies and parenthood according to the current iteration of American 'civilization'.
"How are males not taking responsibility for themselves?" Do you want it... A-Z? Chronologically? Country by country? Year to year? Maybe I should point randomly on a map and then we can see how well anti-abortion countries are faring and how things like abortion rights go hand in hand with stronger equality and therefore affluence? Then you say that the woman is the sole creator of life and compare babies to poop. People like you make me want to buy throwing stars and shit. I guess your analogy isn't so poor as a first glance suggests, but unless your turds are as big as canteloupes, rip your perineum apart while exiting and you are expected to take extremely good care and provide for the turds once they're out, you can just pipe down. I'll remember this conversation, I need to be reminded of why I started of at the left and why the contemporary "pragmatic" "American" right simply won't do.

>>162
"I guess your analogy isn't so poor as a first glance suggests, but unless your turds are as big as canteloupes, rip your perineum apart while exiting and you are expected to take extremely good care and provide for the turds once they're out, you can just pipe down."

So basically, what you are saying, is that even though I'm right, I should just pipe down, since things are SOOOO hard for women already, right?

By the way, I'm not poster 161.

"Look, if I eat some food, my body will digest it, and produce shit and urine.  If I voluntarilly consume some food, and produce shit and urine, whose responsibility is it to take care of it? The company that sold me the food?

MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY, SCREAM THE FEMINISTS! Both the company that sold me the food to eat, and myself should be held responsible for the creation, handling, and disposal of my waste products!"

Comedy gold.  I agree btw.  The feminists are fucked up.

Look, if I eat some food, my body will digest it, and produce shit and urine.  If I voluntarilly consume some food, and produce shit and urine, whose responsibility is it to take care of it? The company that sold me the food?

If you eat some shit, your body will digest it, and produce this stupid ass fucking analogy you just tried to slide past us as "logic".

Eating is nothing at all like a man deciding he wants to put his dick in something (without a condom on) and then throwing 1000$ bucks in the woman's face and telling her to "take care of it". <====== This is scenario that leads to modern day abortions. But I don't see anyone arguing against this fact.

Wonder why?

>>165
I don't care who wanted the abortion.  It shouldn't be allowed.  Why would it be significant to me who wants the abortion most often? I could care less.  If the fetus is sentient, ban it, period. 

>>165
Way to go, resort to insults rather than use logic to dispute/disprove the validity of the analogy.

>>165
What if a woman hires a male prostitute to have sex with her, doesn't use protection, then gets pregnant.  Does the prostitute then have to care for the child?

>>168


It's funny when you have to resort to hyper-surreal scenarios in order to prove that the state has the right to take away simple liberties.

If abortion is murder (and it is), and murder is against the law, and law was their so we could live in peace with tolerating anti-life problems like murder, and the anathema of murder was exposed of, then we leave our principles of law to die--And this, in turn, leaves our society open to tolerating the downsizing of "unuseful" citizens."

First off, no one agrees with the premise that abortion is murder. The more you take that simple fact for granted the more irrational you look.

Second of all, what you've outlined here is an "idea of proof". I want to see proof that a past society collapsed because of abortion. Your answer is "How it might happen" not "How it did happen". Do you understand the difference, Mr. Theis?

FROM NOW ON ALL ABORTION TOPICS GO IN THIS THREAD.

It has nothing to do with the fact that she can't reproduce on her own.  She's engaging in intercourse with another person, and she knows that if she doesn't handle the birth control, that she may end up getting pregnant.  It's her body, she should care for it, period.  It's not the man's responsibility to do shit.  If she wants a condom on the man, she needs to make sure it's on there.  If she doesn't want to have a baby, then she should use birth control instead of "risking it" and having an abortion if she happens to get pregnant.

It has everything to do with the fact that she can't reproduce on her own. The man is engaging in a sex where he knows that a baby might be the result. It's a two way street and generally speaking Abortion is a TWO-WAY decision. The instances where it's just the woman's decision are VERY fucking rare. Why this is so hard for you to understand, probably has to do with your lack of understanding when it comes to male/female relationships. Just a hunch. Result: Abortion is taking responsibility, the only people who don't see this are the one shouting "murder! murder!" at the top of their lungs.

"I think it's you who can't be reasoned with, and this seems pretty evident from the fact that you simply can't come to terms with the fact that when the woman is engaging in sex with another person, she is taking some risks, and it's her body she's risking.  It is her responsibility to care for that body, and to prevent from becoming pregnant if she doesn't want a child.  Birth control is not prohibitavely expensive, and it is readilly availible just about anywhere.  Abortion is almost always unnecessary.

I understand that aspect of it, I just ALSO understand that the same shit applies to male as well. The people who don't understand this are people who come from cultures that support superfluous reproduction, gut-thinking instead of brain-thinking,

"Fail. All you have to do is prove to me that abortion directly effects the stability of society. You don't need my stance to support yours, if what you say is the unadultered truth. I don't even really care about over-population, I care about liberty and human lives not being owned by the state (unborn or not)."

In making abortion illegal, the state is acting as another being's protector, not taking posession of its body.

#1 This doesn't prove that that abortion negatively effects society's stability.

#2 Protection is posession, when it's unwilling or unconsented.

>>171

"It has everything to do with the fact that she can't reproduce on her own. The man is engaging in a sex where he knows that a baby might be the result."

The baby grows out of her body, not his.  It is her body, and thus her responsibility to care for it, not the man's.  If she doesn't want to have a baby, that's just fine.  Use birth control, and the problem is solved.  It's readilly availible just about everywhere, and not prohibitively expensive.

"The instances where it's just the woman's decision are VERY fucking rare."

Whose body is it? The woman's.  Thus it is her say.  The male can't just have her detained and have an abortion ordered on her, LOL.  The bottom line is she consents to an abortion before it's done.  Why does this matter, anyhow? It has absolutely nothing to do with the original question: should abortion be allowed, should it be regulated, or should it be not allowed at all?

"Why this is so hard for you to understand, probably has to do with your lack of understanding when it comes to male/female relationships."

Yay for personal insults in arguments. 

"Just a hunch. Result: Abortion is taking responsibility, the only people who don't see this are the one shouting "murder! murder!" at the top of their lungs."

I'm not shouting "murder" at the top of my lungs, and abortion sure as hell is not taking responsibility for your actions.  Taking responsibility for your actions would be using birth control in the first place so an abortion is not necessary to begin with. 


"I understand that aspect of it, I just ALSO understand that the same shit applies to male as well."

Whose body is it? The woman's.  Thus, it is her responsibility to care for it, not his. 

"#1 This doesn't prove that that abortion negatively effects society's stability."

The proper role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.  In protecting the individual, the state is performing one of its proper roles. 

"#2 Protection is posession, when it's unwilling or unconsented."

So because the government protects me from criminals, it possesses me?

Who's body is it? The woman's."

That's nice. But who's baby is it? Oh right. Not just the woman's. The man's as well.

So because the government protects me from criminals, it possesses me?

DUH. Especially if you don't consent to it.

>>163 "So basically, what you are saying, is that even though I'm right, I should just pipe down, since things are SOOOO hard for women already, right?" You are not right on child care. Half a kid is alwayd belonging to a man, and women are usually the ones that get the bum deal when it comes to kids.
"Comedy gold.  I agree btw.  The feminists are fucked up." Oh yes, class. The evangelicals are fucked up too, but they are not dangerous in the slightest, oh no.
>>165 Because they are stuck in a pragmatic, selfish and anti-feminist position.
>>168 Prove it. Letting bad eggs spoil the fun for everyone is dumb. "All women who get abortions are bad eggs!" I took it for granted I would hear something like this is in a retort so I answered it precognitively. Women want's to have sex. Women like to get drunk. So why should they have suffer so many indignities because they are the chalice and men are the springs?
>>171 Phew, some respite from the avalanche of gall being thrown here.
>>172 "Prohibitly expensive" Teenage pregnancies are usually more common in poor neighbourhoods, were boys will be boys, girls are invisible and non-heterosexuals inspire pitchfork mobs. Who get to pay for abortions and cleaning up the mess the white-trash makes for itself? The richer, left-wing states who pay more taxes to Washington than they get back for funding at the end of the year.
"I'm not shouting "murder" at the top of my lungs" You are doing the equivalent. "Whose body is it? The woman's.  Thus, it is her responsibility to care for it, not his." And she also provided all the genetic material of the baby, and the government will take care off her once she's given birth to it.
"The proper role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.  In protecting the individual, the state is performing one of its proper roles." Here we have a libertarian principle, which could trample me. I mean, abortions, by your definition, are not victimless crimes. But, whose liberty should we protect? Hers or its? The actuality or the potentiality? Plus, a society that isn't ready to work on the factors that cause unwanted pregnancies doesn't deserve to ban it outright.

So because the government protects me from criminals, it possesses me?
DUH.

Gentlemen, critical thought is dead. Long live rhetoric!

>>174 The American society doesn't let it's pace outrun women who do the honorable thing and refrain from abortions. http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/073106WA.shtml   Society respects women for stepping back and letting men provide for a while. Becoming pregnant is a huge responsibility, and conservatives are the one that sanctify motherhood   http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/080206WA.shtml
I wonder if feminism becomes more common the higher up in educational levels you go...

I find it amusing that almost all followers of Ayn Rand are far more sensible and evolved than she was. Even though she relies on an odd definition of altruism, this impasse of one of her followers seals the deal for me http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/abortion.html

>>177
As much as I generally despise Objectivists, you sure that right. Ayn Rand put the "crazy" in "crazy bitch".

>>178 Nah, she was just mostly poor at philosophy. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/objectivism2.html
I think most of her critics lack substance, whether they are right or left. I don't think she provides many answers, but maybe I should try to stomach her writings one day.

I should try to stomach her writings one day.
The fiction isn't worth bothering with. They're risible attempts.

>>180 I've kinda gotten that gist as of late. There are better anti-leftists out there, and far less vitriolic ones too.

Most people who don't like Rand are just biased.  She was a great author and her works are classic. 

I thought it was laughable that some stupid liberal compared her to some partisan hack on this board earlier. 

>>179
Maybe you should actually READ her stuff and make a judgement for yourself thereafter, rather than sit here and spout off crap about what someone else has said about it?

>>175

What was rhetorical about that? He asked a stupid fucking question. You can try and cover up that stupidity with snarky comments all you want, but he still didn't know that protection is possession. There are some parts of society, or the collective where we do need to protect and possess other people.

But this becomes immoral when we eliminate the possibility of choice. What you wish to happen is for abortions to be completely outlawed in the states...and I'm telling you that without compromise, meaning, letting the states decide, your zealotry is only going to win us a civil war. 

You're never going to force anyone to see abortion as murder if that's the way they don't want to look at it. You can't lock people up or strip them of their liberties because you think he's not living up to your "standard".

Oh Ethics! Oh Morality! I have news for you: No one cares. Rest assured everyone is going to go right on doing whatever they want and you're going to get increasingly bitter until no can stand to be around you and they'll end up moving to one of the cities (Blue states). Or would you put a law in place so that no one can ever leave North Dakota?

What was rhetorical about that?

Well, gee, let's see here... this is hard.

Oh, yes, "duh" is a retarded reply. The question asked was valid, even if you don't like it for whatever reason. "Duh" offers nothing of substance; it's just a knee-jerk assertion. I'd recommend you pull out a dictionary and look up the definition of "rhetoric" before asking obvious questions.

I'd also like to point out that I don't have an opinion about abortions, although I leaning more towards pro-choice. All your platitive cries about other issues won't change that >>173 is about as stupid a reply as you can get. As I said, critical thought is dead; when in doubt, attack attack attack a strawman!

>>174
"Here we have a libertarian principle, which could trample me. I mean, abortions, by your definition, are not victimless crimes. But, whose liberty should we protect? Hers or its? The actuality or the potentiality? Plus, a society that isn't ready to work on the factors that cause unwanted pregnancies doesn't deserve to ban it outright."

Yes they do.  That's like saying that society that isn't ready to work on the factors that cause murders, doesn't deserve to ban it outright. 

Again the government exists to protect life, liberty, and property.  This includes the life of the fetus, yet it also includes that of the mother.  Thus, I think it is reasonable to say abortion should be intensely regulated, but not outright banned in all circumstances. 

For example, it should be allowable in certain situations, if deemed medically necessary for the mother's survival.  It should not be allowed as a commonplace practice or alternative method of birth control. 

>>174
"Plus, a society that isn't ready to work on the factors that cause unwanted pregnancies doesn't deserve to ban it outright."

Here is another thing.  It is not society that is losing something it deserves.  In the case of abortion, the two whose rights should be in question are that of the mother, and that of the fetus. 

The question is not whether society should have a right to ban abortion or not, but whether or not the fetus has the right to live or not.  The fetus deserves to develop and continue living.  It has a right to life, and the government should be there to protect it. 

This has absolutely nothing to do with what 'society' deserves, it has to do with what the innocent developing being deserves, and that is life, at least.

The proper function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. 

I'm implying that you are mentally ill and/or too emotionally involved in this discussion. I think that the fact that adopted kids fair as good as others is a point against abortion, but it's not strong enough.

....That's stupid. You're essentially saying that arguments mean nothing in the face of the source when the only thing that matters is the reasoning of the individual. You're just trying to make me leave the conversation.

"Both have equal responsibility because both provide half the material for the foetus."

Just because I have the ability to erect a structure, that doesn't mean I know everything about the ground that I'm gonna build it on. I'll need a geologist for that. The man is the construction worker. The women is the geologist. Only the women can reveal what kind of resources are necessary here.

Also, if men can't provide condoms then everything else is moot.

Then again, if the woman abides the man without the condom, it's reasonable to assume there's no problem with her. Considering she's the one who would "give fucking birth," she'd best understand if there is a severity to whether or not the condom is necessary.

Then you can say that women are dumb/drunk/irresponsible if they let a non-clad cock say hello to the cervix but then I can say that men shouldn't do that anyway if they had some moral fiber.

Haven't you been reading? "Moral fiber" isn't apart of the discussion. If you haven't noticed, I've been giving women the benefit of the doubt in these hypothetical situations we've been thinking up and assuming that they're responsible enough to know what's what. You, however, are the one saying that she's totally dependent on the observations of the male to understand if she would get pregnant or not. So who's saying who is irresponsible exactly?

Your inability to accept the fact that the woman best understands the place where the baby would grow is either ignorance, stupidity, or denial.

I wonder how many dudes would ask that and refuse to hop in if the girl was not completely sure.

You'd be surprised to know (since it's your view that all responsibility is on the guy in regards to pregnancy) there's many males who wouldn't "hop in." Plenty of guys don't want to be stuck with a kid, so they just stay away. Perhaps this is too hard for your over-sexed mind to understand, but it's true.

It has also allowed them to go berserk on personal freedom, security, the right to fair scrutiny of the law, the sanctity of the American homes and property (what kind of libertarian approve of government forfeiture of property of people who has committed victimless crimes)raised penalties on crimes without victims (get stopped with Mary in Oklahoma and you get a longer sentence than for manslaughter), damaged the constitutional rights of people (in many states getting caught with minuscule amounts of dope strips you of more rights than the average rapist), has been used to damage the voting rights of minorities especially (oh no of course a black man getting caught with drugs has the same chance of prosecution and gets the same sentence as a white one, no really). You are further from libertarianism then the French.

Wow. Someone's a whiny little bitch.

Can't live without a fix can you. Probably why you sound so obsessively angry.

More strawmen. Did your lazy mother happen to be a relative of Ayn Rand?

You really have no idea what "strawman" means. You were implying that the state doesn't execute real criminals by only focusing on the killed innocents. I pointed this out. No strawman here.

Also, I'm celtic, not Russian. However, if you're asking me if I'm a Randian, then the answer is yes...Or is that another violation of Xel's standard for Libertarianism?

I'm simply saying that killing people when it only raises crime and has been proven to be the end results of very poor investigations and jurisprudence

Not only have you created a fantastical statistic for the effects of DP causing more crime (and actually had the gaul to say it was "proven"), but you also repeat your previous logical fallacy that because there will always be a margin of error in sentencing, there will never be a person who's guilty that goes to the chair.

is symptomatic of the same vindictive, vengeful, selfish and lazy mentality you are so perfectly demonstrating.

The only one of those adjectives that even remotely fits the context of your rage against me is "vindictive," which is way wrong. I'm guessing your "vengeful" comment has something to do with my childhood (meaning that you're on a fishing expedition). I'm sorry if you feel ire towards my wanting drug dealers and killers off the street or that you have a problem with me wanting to give kids who are forced upon irresponsible mothers a chance to live and not be stereotypes as "future criminals," but I really can't help having first hand knowledge of what you presume to know all the answers about.

Now I have absolutely no idea where you get your "lazy" and "selfish" terms from in reference to me. Perhaps you could explain your ramshackle argument.

Well, one in a hundred is acceptable, but when a society can't provide adequate evaluations of cases, when college kids can,

This is specious reasoning. If those very college kids you speak of were running the system and were advocating the DP, you'd still speak against it.

Whether or not those particular college individuals proved themselves more observant on a certain issue than other particular law enforcement individuals doesn't provide you with any proof that the person killed is one of many innocents that were put to death in the chair.

There will be no perfection of the system until the people operating in it becomes better people. There are no examples of such improvement being made, especially in DP states.

So you want perfection. Yeah, that's real reasonable.

This is the kind of rhetoric used by people who try to sound righteous while dismissing every single reinforcement of the system that comes along. All you have to do is say, "It's not good enough, people's lives are at steak here," and you've provided enough windo dressing to hide how full of shit you are.

Where is you certificate that pro-choicers are psychopaths or that they share the same characterisitcs in their argumentation? We don't threaten abortionists, nor do we try to blow up the 'family first' organisations that try to destroy the effects of enlightenment.

First of all: We were talking about the DP. Not abortion.

Second of all: I didn't say pro-choice people were psychopaths. I said they were murderers. Psychopaths' brains can't function correctly whereas murderers are totally sane when they off someone.

The approval of abortions are not based on utilitarian principles from my position (not that I doubt that the right to abortions help civilization).

You've just contradicted yourself right. First you say that your views aren't in allignment with the idea of selective birth and the you add a footnote that says you agree with its tenets. Whether or not it's your primary argument for the pro-abortion argument or not makes no difference in the presence of the fact that you're at least willing to tolerate the reasoning--If not totally believe it.

Plus, my position against DP is that american jurisprudence is composed of adults and proffesionals that should be prepared to make it very certain that the individual that may be killed is very very guilty. Unfortunately they either lack the resources or the moral fiber to do this, and until American society is capable of making its jurisprudence adequate the right to impose death should be taken from them.

I agree. But as I pointed out before, you're never going to be happy with it no matter how good it gets. You're only willing to tolerate the idea of a perfect DP enforcement in the hypothetical sense. In which case, your 'better' vision of what DP should be is never going to leave the realm of fantasy in your mind. Just like how I know that our future is not going to resemble Star Trek.

Until a society acknowledges the causes of unwanted pregnancies and aims its anger at them then they do not have the moral ground to ban the removal of unwanted pregnancies.

Society already has acknowledged the causes: Idiocy and irresponsibilty. Both of which can be remedied before conception.

It is cheaper, since treatment limits the probability of relapses in criminals.

No. Mental hospitals cost twice as much as prisons do since the patients need more care. Costs would sky-rocket if they actually became as big as the prisons. In addendum, patients who get released often stop taking their meds and become a menace to society once again.

The reason gang wars exist is because the only people providing drugs are those that lack the moral fiber to breach the law, when these laws are not moral in themselves. It is a clause that works on guns and it works here.

That's gotta be the stupidest thing you've said thusfar. Neither the Crips nor the Bloods fought over drugs--And they didn't even use guns either. The East/West coasts didn't fight over drugs either. In the case of gangs, drugs are the icing, not the motivation.

I think DYI should be punished harshly, and that if you illegalize a drug then you should illegalize alcohol too, which is addictive, lowers self-consciousness and acts as a barbiturate. You can't have one without the other if you say you are a civilization.

So, because alcohol is legal, you think drugs like LSD and heroin should be legal?

Maybe you're not aware, but too much of anything will kill you. The reason we put limitations on some substances is because for those particular substances, just one period of use is enough to fuck you up. This isn't the case with everything, and that includes alcohol, which takes more than just a couple drinks to turn you into an alcoholic. A drug like pot, which I'm sure you're holding a candle for contains TAC, which is a form of acid. A few shots of alcohol is nowhere near as potent as just one session with pot. Period of inebriation and addiction comes much quicker with the latter than with the former.

The only reason drug trade spawns deaths is that competition is so lucrative and people who want drugs can only turn to people already entrenched in crime. The fact that these drug-dealers got put in jail isn't going to help when all the causes of their being able to make business still exist.

Jebus! People shouldn't be turning to them at all for crying out loud!

Anonymous was making a strawman when he suggested that we pro-lifers approve of murder of born children. As soon as the foetus has achieved a unique consciousness he is his own and the fact that his body and brain is built by the blueprint provided by his parents does not necessarily allow them to kill him. It's consciousness, albeit minimal, is now an actuality rather than a potentiality.

This entire paragraph is just so insanely ludacris. By your standards, anyone who loses "consciousness" is free game to execute.

Now we look to the root causes of pregnancies, which you have failed to do.

Or you're just too pig-headed to understand that I already have demonstrated that 3 times over.

Without these I have no unique personality, no sense of 'self' (the main reason babies touch stuff is to see what is 'me' and what is not) and no uniqueness at all.

The causality of birth attributes to your personality just as much as those other defining moments do. It's called the Butterfly effect. So yes, if that baby was killed, you would be killed too.

If you eat some shit, your body will digest it, and produce this stupid ass fucking analogy you just tried to slide past us as "logic".

Eating is nothing at all like a man deciding he wants to put his dick in something (without a condom on) and then throwing 1000$ bucks in the woman's face and telling her to "take care of it". <====== This is scenario that leads to modern day abortions. But I don't see anyone arguing against this fact.

Wonder why?

Actually, because the obvious state of the waste product coencides irrefutably with your (uneducated) assumption that fetuses aren't sentient, the anaolgy applies perfectly. After the food distributer gives the food to the person, it's obvious he or she is going to eat it. But the distributer doesn't know how or where the buyer is going to unload the waste that was produced by the food that the distributer gave to the person. In which case, it would be the food vender's job to clean up the mess if it was dropped anywhere other than the toilet.

This is actually totally in sync with happened to the guy who got a blow job from a woman who saved the semen she recieved in her mouth and then inseminated herself with it. Afterwards, she forced him to pay child support. Technically, by your screwed up logic, because he donated the semen to her body, he's responsible for the baby.

First off, no one agrees with the premise that abortion is murder. The more you take that simple fact for granted the more irrational you look.

Actually, people do indeed realize that the fetus is alive and, as so many people like to word-whore, "sentient". Just because you don't view the individuals that disagree with you as actual people, that doesn't mean they aren't. It just means you're stupid. You're inability to prove non-life of a fetus just compliments that.

Second of all, what you've outlined here is an "idea of proof". I want to see proof that a past society collapsed because of abortion. Your answer is "How it might happen" not "How it did happen". Do you understand the difference, Mr. Theis?

It has nothing to do with how it "might" and everything to do with how it "will." Selective birth is exactly why France is in such bad shape. Their native population is at an all time low not only out of "fear" of overpopulation, but also of derelect citizens. As a result, its constituence is so low, they couldn't even fight a war if they found that they needed to.

>>178

Some people just can't stand intelligent and insightful women.

>>186 Can you... Ban murder? Did you know it is possible to work both at the roots and the leaves? Or that the tough-on-crime policies aren't the best way to go? Also, I am not talking about what government is allowed to do to, I am talking about what society demands, and society is not rigid nor is it capable of reason and self-scrutiny. It's as if the individual responsibility for the state of society is forgotten in America.

"#Just because I have the ability to erect a structure, that doesn't mean I know everything about the ground that I'm gonna build it on. I'll need a geologist for that. The man is the construction worker. The women is the geologist. Only the women can reveal what kind of resources are necessary here" And then leave the maintenance of the structure to society and the woman (the woman is economically screwed because American society doesn't care about single parents and the government has to enact institutions to help the two survive. What a patriot.)
"Then again, if the woman abides the man without the condom, it's reasonable to assume there's no problem with her. Considering she's the one who would "give fucking birth," she'd best understand if there is a severity to whether or not the condom is necessary." I can just swing right back and say that the man should understand the severity of labor and parenthood.
"Your inability to accept the fact that the woman best understands the place where the baby would grow is either ignorance, stupidity, or denial." So women should have to take responsibility to monitor their cycles, in order to make up for the fact that she isn't offering condoms to any potential partner.
"You'd be surprised to know (since it's your view that all responsibility is on the guy in regards to pregnancy) there's many males who wouldn't "hop in." Plenty of guys don't want to be stuck with a kid, so they just stay away. Perhaps this is too hard for your over-sexed mind to understand, but it's true." Of course all men aren't the same, but this is where you get some stats and support your claim about reality. Also, men are never really stuck with the kid, I just think half the responsibility is theirs. Your diametrical brain thinks that by saying that women shouldn't have full responsibility just because they provide the womb, that means I suddenly want to put all the responsibility on men. I haven't said that but your weak mind inferred it.
"You really have no idea what "strawman" means. You were implying that the state doesn't execute real criminals by only focusing on the killed innocents. I pointed this out. No strawman here." I was implying that when faced with the *fact* that so many innocents had been killed, the system should overlook it's nature if it was to keep the privilege of removing people. This is like me telling a cop he has forcefully arrested and traumatized people based on hearsay, prejudice and hunches, and when I point this out he says "So you are saying I shouldn't put the bad guys in as well?". The cop would be making a strawman of my position, so did you.
"Not only have you created a fantastical statistic for the effects of DP causing more crime (and actually had the gaul to say it was "proven"), but you also repeat your previous logical fallacy that because there will always be a margin of error in sentencing, there will never be a person who's guilty that goes to the chair." I am saying it is odd that you condone a government that has taken it's superiority for granted to the degree that it shouldn't change depending on the results of its actions. States with DP have higher crime rates ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169 ) but I guess the plebecite demands blood just to be on the safe side.
"This is specious reasoning. If those very college kids you speak of were running the system and were advocating the DP, you'd still speak against it." Um, because a government is supposed to prtoect life - oh that's right you are a "utilitarian-libertarian". Nice little loophole there. But then I have just offered support for my claim that more people suffer crime in a state with DP, so maybe the utilitarian solution doesn't require government murder?
"You've just contradicted yourself right. First you say that your views aren't in allignment with the idea of selective birth and the you add a footnote that says you agree with its tenets. Whether or not it's your primary argument for the pro-abortion argument or not makes no difference in the presence of the fact that you're at least willing to tolerate the reasoning--If not totally believe it." I said I believe the practice of abortion has a utilitarian effect, but that it isn't the main reason of my position. There is no dependence.
"I agree. But as I pointed out before, you're never going to be happy with it no matter how good it gets. You're only willing to tolerate the idea of a perfect DP enforcement in the hypothetical sense. In which case, your 'better' vision of what DP should be is never going to leave the realm of fantasy in your mind. Just like how I know that our future is not going to resemble Star Trek." What we have is not some imperfections that will balance out naturally. What we have is a self-righteous form of jurisprudence (and accompanying supporters) that don't believe there is a problem and take's its right over the individual for granted. No libertarian can accept such supremacy.
"Society already has acknowledged the causes: Idiocy and irresponsibilty. Both of which can be remedied before conception." What are the causes of Idiocy and irresponsibility? Feminists? Socialists? Pixies?
"No. Mental hospitals cost twice as much as prisons do since the patients need more care. Costs would sky-rocket if they actually became as big as the prisons. In addendum, patients who get released often stop taking their meds and become a menace to society once again." Okay, perhaps treatment isn't the best, but the DP is too expensive ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#financial%20facts ). So, if you are ready to make people pay for these expensive trials, why shouldn't they be able to make you pay for abortions?
"That's gotta be the stupidest thing you've said thusfar. Neither the Crips nor the Bloods fought over drugs--And they didn't even use guns either. The East/West coasts didn't fight over drugs either. In the case of gangs, drugs are the icing, not the motivation." First, claims on reality requires support. Secondly my point stands; When laws are imposed on liberties (guns, drugs) then the people who use these liberties are probably going to lack morality (the law-abiding citizens stay away even though they shouldn't have to). Also, the limited market and the nature of the people in the market are going to lead to fierce competition by all means necessary.
"So, because alcohol is legal, you think drugs like LSD and heroin should be legal?" Yup. Alcohol intake and influence is responsible for untold suffering and costs. Would a "utilitarian-libertarian" stand by that? MJ requires the consumption of a telephone post's worth for an OD, not to mention it has a different effect on the individual.
"Jebus! People shouldn't be turning to them at all for crying out loud!" Why do people turn to drugs/selling drugs in order to forget/make money? Because of feminists?
"This entire paragraph is just so insanely ludacris. By your standards, anyone who loses "consciousness" is free game to execute." Okay, poor argumentation semantically. Sentience/unique personality is better here.
"Or you're just too pig-headed to understand that I already have demonstrated that 3 times over." NO U! Okay, you are too pig-headed to see I have asked you what the causes of your causes are, but I guess humans make themselves.
"The causality of birth attributes to your personality just as much as those other defining moments do. It's called the Butterfly effect. So yes, if that baby was killed, you would be killed too." No, my flesh would be gone but *I* would not have existed at the time. Then again, *I* would never be able to have come to pass without a specific body and brain to grow in, but I would not be aware of the loss.
"This is actually totally in sync with happened to the guy who got a blow job from a woman who saved the semen she recieved in her mouth and then inseminated herself with it. Afterwards, she forced him to pay child support. Technically, by your screwed up logic, because he donated the semen to her body, he's responsible for the baby." Fringe situation. Plus, unless you are willing to change the judicial system then you can't complain.
"Actually, people do indeed realize that the fetus is alive and, as so many people like to word-whore, "sentient". Just because you don't view the individuals that disagree with you as actual people, that doesn't mean they aren't. It just means you're stupid. You're inability to prove non-life of a fetus just compliments that." Word-whore. That is almost creative. Also, I believe this murder has a utilitarian effect, so as long as you can stick by DP I can now stick with abortions.
"It has nothing to do with how it "might" and everything to do with how it "will." Selective birth is exactly why France is in such bad shape. Their native population is at an all time low not only out of "fear" of overpopulation, but also of derelect citizens. As a result, its constituence is so low, they couldn't even fight a war if they found that they needed to." In this case the abortions are the result of the nation's relative safety from outside attackers. Also, I doubt that fear of overpopulation is a conscious reason for their pro-abortion stance.

"Some people just can't stand intelligent and insightful women." They're called 'evangelicals'.

>>190 Could someone else please step up and take over my position in this debate? I am getting really fed up and bored, but I can't let this guy walk away nor can I betray my principles and give W/O.

>>185

But it wasn't a strawman, you fucking idiot. He basically re-phrased what I statement I made into a question. That's retarded and if he (and you) weren't so fucking stupid you would've both picked up on it.

LURK MORE.

>>192
The strawman comment was referring to the whole diatribe in >>184, not >>173. >>184 just assumed I was pro-life and went on a tangent. Well great, except the assumption is wrong.

Thanks for proving my strawman comment right (again), by the way. >>192 is another remarkable success! <- Quick! Another opportunity!

>>193

It really doesn't matter. To state "Duh" at what was completely and utterly obvious from the beginning isn't "rhetoric". However, there's good news! Under your twisted definition of the word, to re-phrase a logical statement as a question (you know, instead of responding to it) is, in fact, rhetoric.

Way to fail.


>>188

Just because I have the ability to erect a structure, that doesn't mean I know everything about the ground that I'm gonna build it on. I'll need a geologist for that. The man is the construction worker. The women is the geologist. Only the women can reveal what kind of resources are necessary here.

What? Go back to fifth grade. Your failure at logic is truly breathtaking. Ok, I'll humor you: It is still the man's responsibility to consult the "geologist" woman. The sex acts that result in abortion are like- the construction worker finding a geologist, not asking her anything (to reveal resources) and building "the structure" anyway. Like I said, you continue to fail at this route of argumentation because there is simply no exuse for the man's irresponsible behavior. None whatever so ever. It's both of their responsibility and they should both be liable for any censure of the sex rights, and sex laws should effect them as well.

Actually, people do indeed realize that the fetus is alive and, as so many people like to word-whore, "sentient". Just because you don't view the individuals that disagree with you as actual people, that doesn't mean they aren't. It just means you're stupid. You're inability to prove non-life of a fetus just compliments that.

Like I said: Abortion is allowable up until the point where the fetus can be declared sentient. As for "not viewing those I disagree with as people", you'll have to find another route of attack- it's just not true. BTW: Calling me "stupid" is a personal attack. Not that I'm complaining, it's just you've been bitching about people calling you a fucktard this whole time, just thought you should know it goes both ways, friend. :)

It has nothing to do with how it "might" and everything to do with how it "will." Selective birth is exactly why France is in such bad shape. Their native population is at an all time low not only out of "fear" of overpopulation, but also of derelect citizens. As a result, its constituence is so low, they couldn't even fight a war if they found that they needed to.

Again:

1. Proof that "Selective birth is exactly why France is in "such bad shape" is needed. ('just look at it!' isn't empircal evidence)

2. Proof that "France can't fight a war" is needed.

3. Proof that "the ability to wage war" is something a "successful soceity" needs, is needed.

Please note all the quotations because they denote the subjectivity of the phrases used.

The bottom line about abortion is this. Do you trust women to make their own moral judgments? If you are anti-abortion, then no. You do not. You have an absolute moral position that you don't trust anyone to question, and therefore you think that abortion should be illegal. But the second you start making exceptions for rape or incest, you are indicating that your moral position is not absolute. That moral judgment is involved. And that right there is where I start to get angry and frustrated, because unless you have an absolute position that all human life (arguably, all life period, but that isn't the argument I'm engaging with right now) are equally valuable (in which case, no exceptions for the death penalty, and I expect you to agonize over women who die trying to abort, and I also expect you to work your ass off making this a more just world in which women don't have to choose abortions), then there is no ground whatsoever for saying that there should be laws or limitations on abortion other than that you do not trust women. I am completely serious about this.

Think about the hubris of that. Your judgment of some hypothetical scenario is more reliable than some woman's judgment about her own, very real, life situation?

And you think that's not sexist? That that doesn't demonstrate, at bottom, a distrust of women? A blindness to their equality? A reluctance to give up control over someone else's decision?

Because if you cannot see that, then I don't care who you are. Male, female, feminist, reactionary asshole. You are acting as a conduit for a social distrust of women so strong that it's almost invisible, that it gets read as "normal." The fact that abortion is even a debate in this country demonstrates that we do not trust women.

In some ways, this anger/bitch thing is, like abortion, a bottom-line issue. How do you react to women's political anger? Is it okay for a woman to have strong opinions as long as she doesn't make anyone uncomfortable? If she sounds angry, does that automatically invalidate what she's saying? Do you think that feminists would be more effective if they were nicer? If there's a disagreement between a woman and a man, do you instinctiively see "his side"? Do you mistake strong convinctions for personal attacks? Do you value civility over fairness? Because if so, then that, too, is a kind of distrust, hubris, a reluctance to cede control.

There is an important difference between private anger and public anger, and it is the latter I am talking about. It is important to recognize that the ability to remain "civil" about injustice is a demonstration of power, and, arguably, is itself a kind of violence--more subtle than yelling, and for that reason, far more damaging. Because it is easy to isolate the angry woman, to shun her because of her anger. Many people will not see past the anger, and therefore many people will find it justified; she is, after all, being "unreasonable." After all, just as with abortion, women are not supposed to make people "uncomfortable." But when that happens, that amounts to denying women the right to public speech: the angry woman's anger is taken personally, as an indictment of her character, rather than as a legitimate political expression. (And then, of course, men say things like "women don't feel comfortable arguing.")

>>195

Seconded.

>>195 Where have you been this entire thread? Not to claim I have been the only one on the pro-choice side here but I felt lonely at times :D

>>197 I have just gotten here today. Lol. Might as well give out my screen name. XD What I have seen in many of these threads has absolutely disgusted me. I consider myself a cross between a Pro-choice'r and a Pro-Activist. I think based upon sound science and fact, and upon a realistic philosophical view without personal biases like a lot of other people have. Xel, I believe you and me will get along quite well. :D

I'm also the one who has made these posts:
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1154765576/13
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1153966199/108
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/#0  - Post 44.

Doh' @ my fourth link. Sorry, I'm new here. XD It's the thread with Women receiving equal pay as men. My post is #44.

This thread is superior.
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1153966199/81-