Abortion and Women's Rights

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

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.