Abortion and Women's Rights

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

>>279

You are wrong. That was...*checks*....yeah, I think everyone is going with "Ultimate Win."

>>278

That was so masterfully done that for a second there I thought that was one of >>255's replies. The guy thinks the reason people are pretty much tired of "debating" with him is because he's making "valid points". But the real reason is that it's like discussing "The theory of a Nanomachine Jesus" with an AIM bot. (completely makes no sense)

Face it, guys: This thread has started to fail because we've failed ourselves. Look at the opposition; did we really have a right to expect >>255 NOT to copy paste copy paste his entire argument? He's a mindless fuckwaste who should be eating our shit. I'm tired of trying to having civil discussions with born failures.

That's it. Here's the deal, >>255: For every one of my rights you try to take away, I kill one of your kids. Then I invite you and your parents and everyone who keeps vomiting dogmatic bullshit into some elaborate deathtraps where I'll take great satisfaction in slitting their throats with the ancient toenails of velociraptors.

Time for talk is over; the time for a civil war- for our civil liberties is now. "Bayonett to the face"-TIME, faggots! I say we rise up now; before the wrong side Globalizes us. I don't even want to live with people like >>255 and that may sound fucked up but just look at this thread and you know I'm right. This thread turned from potential win to colossal fail, and it was thanks to the overwhelming faggotry >>255 perpetuated on all of us.

He's either the best troll ever or the worse huamn alive. Either way: He cannot be left alive.

Anonymous does not forgive.

>>278
"But birth control is easy and cheap"

It is.  Women who don't take the time to use it and have an abortion are irresponsible bitches with no respect for human dignity or human life.  I laughed when I saw this: 
http://www.imnotsorry.net/

"and Clinton got a blowjob and Hilary wears pants sometimes"

This has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate. 

"and  birth control is easy and cheap"

It is.  Women who don't take the time to use it and have an abortion are irresponsible bitches with no respect for human dignity or human life.

"and lumps of cells are special"

Human beings could be called 'lumps of cells', but I don't think even YOU would attempt to justify killing a born human being.  What is so special about being 'born' that makes you a human being?  So you are not a human being until you happen to be born? Why is it just a 'lump of cells' until it has been born, at which point you will finally give it the rights human beings deserve?

"and Clinton had sex"

Totally irrelevant.  Why do you assume I give a shit about this?

"and birth control  is easy and cheap"

It is. 

"and feminists are shrill and unnecessary and irresponsible bitches"

Just the ones who want the rights to their own bodies with none of the responsibilities. 

"and women do all the mistakes because of feminism"

I never said this. 

"and birth control is easy and cheap"

It is. 

"and there are no gender inequalities"

In the USA, each individual has the same legal protection under the law.  What more do you want? Men will always have penises, women will always have vaginas.  I am for equal rights under the law for men and women.  I don't view this as feminism, and I'm certainly not 'pro-choice'. 


"and Clinton got a blowjob"

Again, why do you think I care about this? Why are you bringing it up? It really has nothing to do with the discussion.  I guess you just have some messed up right wing steriotypes.  Perhaps you are prejudice?

"and this is America not Russia so people should take responsibility"

People should take responsibility for themselves because it is the right thing to do.  It has nothing to do with where we happen to live.  It is right that people shouldn't have the responsibility to care for others.  Charity should be voluntary.

"and abstinence"

What of it? I never advocated abstinence.

"and Hilary wears pants"

So? I don't like Hillary because I disagree with her policies.  It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she wears pants. 

"and birth control is easy and cheap."

It is. 

"Don't you see how I moot your points by being so mature and rigid?"

Don't you see how you are just as (if not more) prejudice against right wingers as your steriotypical racist is prejudice against someone of a given race?

>>282 I keep on forgetting that parody always expresses the generalizations of the creator. Thanks for setting me straight honey. Speaking of the casus belli that is birth control... How come the same people you turn to to ban abortions are the ones that fuck up sex education and the sale of birth control? Or are you expecting people to gain responsibility and sufficient information all by themselves? Yes of course you are, that is the basis of your argument. Also, I've already made it quite clear that unless a foetus has accumulated the basis of a unique persona, it is no more special than any other cell, and therefore removing it is universalizable. If it wasn't, then me scratching myself or combing my hair would be genocide. When so many (most) abortions occur when this is not the case or debatable, we pro-choicers are in a better position. If we should ban abortions simply because some women aren't up for the privilege (and the main reasons abortions sommetimes occur after the critical point is because they fear social reprisal, the cost of the practice, the scarcity of 'morning-after pills', scare tactics, vitriol outside clinics, the rising cost of contraceptives and relevant medication, the fact that conservatives make clinics scarce [most women who don't have abortions are poor, thereby continuing the cycle], religious/ethical guilt and all the other things right-wing society and pro-lifers are responsible for) then we may also ban corporations because Coca-Cola and Pepsi are fucking with Kerala. Again. THAT is a fucking analogy right there.
As far as I know you haven't yet regressed to using the "breast-cancer" angle either, but if anyone has then I can refute that. The scientific consensus agrees that this is nothing but scare tactics pro-lifers resort to.
Then there is the reduced crime rate that follows the *availability* of abortions, giving me the utilitarian edge: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/ResponseToFooteGoetz2006.pdf Oh yes, the red states ban abortions, crime goes up and the more affluent blue states have to pay more into the treasury than they get back (http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2003/05/red-vs_15.html), because the white trash get more money than the ghettos. Like pedophilia, the cycle continues.

"No.  The man puts something in the woman's body (NOTE:  WITH THE WOMAN'S CONSENT)"

Then she wanted to be pregnant in the first place. You defeated yourself here.

""This site is obviously in favor of the right wing. One example of an error on this site: "Do You Know? At 6 weeks, brain waves can be measured." False, genuine brain waves don't occur until the seventh month."

What the site says is true."

http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1154765576/13 - Refuted by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

>>281
Yeah I'm tired of him too. His flawed logic is basically this:

Woman < Man
Woman < Fetus
Woman < Fetus < Man
and/or
Woman < Fetus = Man

But Fetus = Man = Funny.

>>276
>>277
Win. Thank you.

>>283
Truth. Thank you.

stfu faggits

>>284
>Then she wanted to be pregnant in the first place. You defeated yourself here.

Yes, everybody who has sex does it because they want to have kids. Good job, virgin failure. This is why you don't have friends.

>>286 Lol @ Troll Failure. The woman consented to wanting to be pregnant in the first place. Notice the word 'consent.' Failure to read and understand.

>>284 Then again, you don't have to stoop to his level by assuming he thinks that men are superior, because I don't think he does so. But it may be the implications of his demands.

>>287 A standing riposte. Good shit.
>>284 Scrumptuous. Seconded.

>>288
Just what I was going for.

I have still yet to see an anti-abortionnists who doesn't rely on the same, repeated argument of "possible outcome to an action = full consent" that gives as much protection to a fetus than to venereal diseases or a smoking cancer.

Or the exact same protection to someone who knock down people in a theater and harvest their organs.  Not trying to pull a strawman, just mentionning how acceptable or sane the basic logic actually is for their very central argument.

The fuck is wrong with murder? Morality is outdated and stupid. Get your head out of your ass and quit crying. A living woman > A fetus. Any fucking day of the week.

This thread made me hate fetuses with a passion, and I will dedicate a significant part of my life to having as many as possible of these disgusting clumps of meat aborted.

Thank you, newpol!

>>283

"Or are you expecting people to gain responsibility and sufficient information all by themselves?"

If you are going to commit an action, yes, I expect you to be ready to deal with the consequences of that action.  At the very least, I'm not going to help you out when you fuck yourself up due to personal irresponsibility.

"Also, I've already made it quite clear that unless a foetus has accumulated the basis of a unique persona, it is no more special than any other cell, and therefore removing it is universalizable."

'Universalizable' isn't a word, firstly.  Also, it is not the personality that makes a human being.  There is something distinctly special about humanity.  If it is entirely personality, then what if a baby was born, put inside a dark room for its entire life, and somehow sustained without ever meeting anyone, doing anything, etc, for the entirety of its existance up until say - age 21.  Would killing it be fine with you? There is more to what constitutes a 'human life' than just personal experiances.

"If it wasn't, then me scratching myself or combing my hair would be genocide."

Why do you keep bringing this up? There is obviously a difference between a partially developed human being and a skin or hair cell.  Many of these fetuses have all the standard human organs as everyone else has, developed.  Abortion is a morally questionable procedure, at best.

"then we may also ban corporations because Coca-Cola and Pepsi are fucking with Kerala."

Abortion, Coca Cola, and Pepsi are obviously entirely different subjects.  What Coca Cola does in other countries has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not abortion should be regulated or not.

"Then there is the reduced crime rate that follows the *availability* of abortions,"

Completely redundant.  You are talking about killing innocents before they have committed a crime.  I thought liberals would be against this kind of thing..  Until an individual actually commits a crime, he is innocent.  This 'well they are just going to grow up and become criminals anyway' argument is complete bullshit. 

"Oh yes, the red states ban abortions, crime goes up and the more affluent blue states have to pay more into the treasury than they get back"

More conservative areas of the country have lower crime rates than liberal areas, just fyi.  Probly has nothing to do with abortion, and more to do with that conservatives are tough on crime, and pro-self defense (lowers crime rates).  The liberal gun-control havens of the USA have the highest crime rates, whether they are pro-choice, or not.

"because the white trash get more money than the ghettos."

This has nothing to do with whether or not abortion should be regulated. 

>>291
"I have still yet to see an anti-abortionnists who doesn't rely on the same, repeated argument of "possible outcome to an action = full consent" that gives as much protection to a fetus than to venereal diseases or a smoking cancer."

No, the argument is that if she didn't take the actions necessary to prevent the forming of an developing human inside her, she should have to bear the consequences.  It is easy to prevent it, so there is really no reason why she shouldn't be held responsible.

"Or the exact same protection to someone who knock down people in a theater and harvest their organs."

How is an innocent fetus anything like someone who knocks down people in a theater and attempts to harvest their organs? How does this relate to the abortion debate in any way?

"Not trying to pull a strawman, just mentionning how acceptable or sane the basic logic actually is for their very central argument."

The logic is fine.  I have yet to see a good refutation for it.  If the woman didn't want the baby, she should have used birth control.  Simple stuff, really.

>>292
"The fuck is wrong with murder? Morality is outdated and stupid."

I wonder what would happen if people like this guy set up the country.

"A living woman > A fetus. Any fucking day of the week."

I never said a 'fetus > a woman'.  Why does this shit keep coming up? It really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand. 

>>284
"Then she wanted to be pregnant in the first place. You defeated yourself here."

Sure.  So if she wanted to be pregnant in the first place, she obviously doesn't need to be having an abortion.  I don't see how I 'defeated myself' here.

">>281
Yeah I'm tired of him too. His flawed logic is basically this:

Woman < Man"

I never said this.  I'd like to hear how you came to this conclusion.

"Woman < Fetus"

No idea where you got this one.  Whether or not a fetus should be allowed to live or not really has nothing to do with whether or not it is 'better' than a woman.  Keeping the woman from killing the baby doesn't kill her, unless it is necessary for some medical reason, but we've already talked about this, and I don't have an issue with this, so why bring it up?

"Woman < Fetus < Man"

I never said this. 

"Woman < Fetus = Man"

I never said this.

"But Fetus = Man = Funny."

I never said this either.

">>283
Truth. Thank you."

Wrong.  See >>294

By the way, Xel is really the most pathetic "man" I've ever seen. Bet he's already looking forward to his castration.

lol @ liberals that attempt to justify killing sentient human life

"Sure.  So if she wanted to be pregnant in the first place, she obviously doesn't need to be having an abortion.  I don't see how I 'defeated myself' here."

You said with CONSENT. Consent = wanting to get pregnant. Dur dur dur.

>>297
Sad to see that one has to right down personal with this topic. Insults are reserved for moronic children.

>>298
A fetus isn't sentient. It doesn't even gain a FRAGMENT of a concious until the seventh month in the third trimester. A fetus isn't even a human 'being', it is only potential, and being potential isn't enough to declare sentience.

Lol @ uneducated conservatives playing politics with women.

>>299
"Sad to see that one has to right down personal with this topic. Insults are reserved for moronic children."

Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but it seems like the pro-choice crowd seems to be doing most of the insulting. 

>>299
"You said with CONSENT. Consent = wanting to get pregnant."

I see.  So, she didn't want to be pregnant, but doesn't want to go through the time of using an extra method of birth control to make sure it doesn't happen, then expects to be able to kill the living result to insure it doesn't inconvenience her personal life? LOL

>>292
"The fuck is wrong with murder? Morality is outdated and stupid. Get your head out of your ass and quit crying. A living woman > A fetus. Any fucking day of the week."

lawl@liberals

>>281
Political extremist alert.

>>300
"Pro-life" insults > "Pro-choice" insults.

Both names are hella wrong. The 'pro-life'rs aren't for life, maybe for fetuses, but not for those whom are already here. They contradict their very name by supporting the death penalty, the war with Iraq, and by making it more difficult to obtain contraception and Plan B. The 'pro-choice'rs are for life, since they care for life that is already here. Most 'pro-choice'rs are actually pro-activists.

>>301
If she didn't want to get pregnant, she wouldn't have consented to have the man ejaculate inside her and thus would have use birth control, along with the man using a condom. When she consents to have the man ejaculate inside her, she is wanting to get pregnant, and thus become a mother of a child. Not having an abortion in the end. So. "LOL2u2"

>>302
Lawl @ hypocritical/contradicting pro-lifers supporting ONLY potential fetuses whilst leaving the ones already here suffer.

>>303
Troll alert.

>>276
>>277
Win.

>>295 No, the argument is that if she didn't take the actions necessary to prevent the forming of an developing human inside her, she should have to bear the consequences.  It is easy to prevent it, so there is really no reason why she shouldn't be held responsible.

What do you mean when you said "no" right away, do you think it means anything to lie like this? Do you think people can't read? It IS the argument. The argument IS that if the woman let herself in a situation where there is a chance for a pregnancy to happen, then it is considered that she gave her consent and must support the pregnancy.  Anti-abortionists are forced to use this argument because when they are asked to explain themselve, they find that they cannot produce any reason for allowing a fetus to intrude in a woman's body.  This is why they try the argument that there is no intruding being done. This is done by saying that consent (that isn't consentual, lol?) is considered given because of the girl's actions. This is the stance. Do not say "no" and then say the exact same thing.

You did not comment how it protects venereal diseases exactly as much as fetuses. Important information must fades from your mind.

>How is an innocent fetus anything like someone who knocks down people in a theater and attempts to harvest their organs? How does this relate to the abortion debate in any way?

You are using the word "innocent" to make a contrast with the criminal activity of an organ steal to try to make the comparision invalid without having to address it. Genius stuff.

How does this relate? It was just said that it relates because it's based on the exact same logic. The logical base that "If something happen to you during something you do, by deciding to do it you accept any outcome, so it means you allowed it, it means you are forced to give consent to it and support it if it happens". 

Based on this, anything that can happen to you while you "engage in an activity" has your consent. That includes being mugged if you take a walk. That includes having your body parasited after having sex. That includes having your internal organs being forcefully extracted during any recreational activity such as going in a theater. "If it can happen while you do something you decided to do, you're giving your consent to it". In fact, I remember that you even use the expression "wanted it" in this situation.

>The logic is fine.  I have yet to see a good refutation for it.  If the woman didn't want the baby, she should have used birth control.

The logic is not fine from any social point of view because it is entirely based on a concept of "forced consent due to causality". Let me repeat your last sentence: If you didn't want to have your organs harvested in a theater, don't let it any chance to happen, you should buy a gun or stay inside your house.

>>295

Is a fucking idiot. The point he continues to glare over is that our country could never ban abortion in principle because it would run alien to the general premise of democracy and capitalism.

It doesn't matter how you slice it- a fetus isn't a whole human being and it is not as sacred. You're not going to convince people to give up their right to make principal decisions regarding their sexual. Whether or not they were irresponsible is irrelevant. The government has every right to preserve it's population, but not this way, by breaking it's own social contract.

Banning abortion would be the final blow to America. The line would be crossed and not for the better. The government can't own and has no right to protect the innocent, unborn, soverign, sacred fetus in the first place. It doesn't matter if it's alive or dead. Children are products of parents.

>>294 even if universalizable isn't a word the comparison is not moot. Humans are what they learn; without the sensory apparati AND relevant cerebral centers cooperating, the foetus is just a cluster of cells, without any uniqueness to it. It's genetic code is brimming with life-giving information, and so are my follicles and skin cells. You creating an extreme situation only raises further questions. Should that dude be alive? Would he choose death himself? Who would take care of him, Mr. "Fuck Child support laws and the nanny state!"? He has experienced more than a foetus and the only important part of him, his brain, is probably functioning still. Do you have any idea how similar we are to animals, or how much of their interior resembles ours? What makes us humans is our brains and what it is given to process. Then there is a true Difference, maybe even soemthing resembling a 'soul'.
You not understanding the analogy with good corporations (majority)/bad corporations (minority) and women who get abortions early enough (majority)/women who get abortions once foetus has developed unique personality (minority) makes me wonder what your mental rigidity has done to your thought processes.
And we are not killing innocents before they commit a crime; we are preventing them from experiencing things that will eventually make them burden to societies, refuting your claim that abortions will lead to civilization's downfall. These children are not determined to commit crimes, but they will be. This doesn't mean that we should forbid poor/slightly unstable people from getting kids (the limits on allowing parenthood are set in stone and should be), it means that we should allow abortions to be an option, because it has a utilitarian effect with all the ethical implications of one scratching oneself.
Perhaps one of the reasons crime is higher in blue states is because of the illegalization of drugs and a higher amount of victimless crimes there. What I do know is that all the red states (save one, I think) do worse economically and get money from the blue states, who could use it more considering the higher crime rate in total. San Fransisco didn't need to get tough on crime or allow guns, but I guess they're a unique case.
>>297 Men of little mental caliber, self-esteem and openness of mind often uses a man's dick as the only defining characteristic. It is predictable, non-threatening and unbelievably sad
>>301 The result isn't always "living" in a critical sense of the word, and the pro-life crowd is the one voting to make sex education worse, harm women's rights and make birth control less common. A bit counter-productive, that.
I love my dick, am not pleased with all feminist rethoric, have never heard of pro-choicers assaulting priests or vandalizing 'family first' organizations (probably because we are slightly better humans overall), believe men and women are more than their sexes and will defend the right to abortions to my last breath if I have to.

>>306
"Is a fucking idiot. The point he continues to glare over is that our country could never ban abortion in principle because it would run alien to the general premise of democracy and capitalism."

No it wouldn't.  Whether or not abortion is justifiable from a capitalist (individual rights oriented) viewpoint depends on how you view the fetus.  If it is a human life, it has rights, and it is thus right for the government to perform the function of protection.  If it is not a human life, it then abortion should be allowed. 

Abortion is easilly justifiable from a capitalist viewpoint.  All you need to do is accept the fact that the human fetus is indeed a human life, and that it is thus the proper function of government to protect its right to continue to live. 

"It doesn't matter how you slice it- a fetus isn't a whole human being and it is not as sacred."

This depends on what your viewpoint of a 'whole' human being is, and on what constitutes a 'human being'.

"You're not going to convince people to give up their right to make principal decisions regarding their sexual."

All you are saying, is 'you're not going to convince people to give up their right to violate the rights of others.'

"Whether or not they were irresponsible is irrelevant. The government has every right to preserve it's population, but not this way, by breaking it's own social contract."

Actually, this is relevant.  Many would argue that the woman has the right to remove the fetus from her body.  At this point, we can recognize that this means death for the human fetus.  The fact that the mother is responsible for the fact that this life is there and dependent upon her is thus important to note in considering some aspects of the abortion debate. 

"Banning abortion would be the final blow to America."

Not-banning abortion would be the final blow to America, imo.  It would be the recognition, in the most basic forms, that the government's primary duty is no longer to preserve the lives of its human constituents.  The notion that government's proper duty is to protect human life is at the very foundation of good government. 

"The government can't own and has no right to protect the innocent, unborn, soverign, sacred fetus in the first place."

I never tried to argue that the government owns the human fetus.  The argument is not that the government owns the human fetus, the argument is that the human fetus has the right to continue to develop and live, and that it is the proper function of government to protect these rights.  This has nothing to do with ownership.

"It doesn't matter if it's alive or dead. Children are products of parents."

So if you took a baby, stuffed it in isolation for 20 years, making sure it had sustenance, but nothing outside of that, would it then be OK to kill it, since, according to you, experiance supposedly makes the human being?

Experiance is not the only thing that makes a human being, and that is why it would obviously be wrong.

>>307
"even if universalizable isn't a word the comparison is not moot."

Yes it is.

"Humans are what they learn;"

So humans are nothing more than bundles of experiances? So if you took a baby, stuffed it in isolation for 20 years, making sure it had sustenance, but nothing outside of that, would it then be OK to kill it then, since, according to you, experiance supposedly makes the human being?

"without the sensory apparati AND relevant cerebral centers cooperating, the foetus is just a cluster of cells"

Wrong.  There is more to human beings than this. 

"Do you have any idea how similar we are to animals, or how much of their interior resembles ours? What makes us humans is our brains and what it is given to process. Then there is a true Difference, maybe even soemthing resembling a 'soul'."

I don't believe in 'souls' in a religious sense, but this is beside the point.  You are getting to the right area of the conversation now, though, which is 'what constitutes a human being'.  If the fetus is too 'human', abortion should obviously be intensely regulated, if not outright banned. 

"You not understanding the analogy with good corporations (majority)/bad corporations (minority) and women who get abortions early enough (majority)/women who get abortions once foetus has developed unique personality (minority) makes me wonder what your mental rigidity has done to your thought processes."

It is the duty of our government to protect our citizens, not citizens of foreign countries.  Your corporation analogy is beside the point - it is their responsibility to worry about themselves, and it is our responsibility to worry about ourselves.  Our government is there to protect our citizens first and foremost, and we have no 'duty' to protect those of other countries.

"And we are not killing innocents before they commit a crime; we are preventing them from experiencing things that will eventually make them burden to societies,"

So, hypothetically, if there was a born baby (not an unborn baby, mind you) who would grow up in such a way that /might/ incite him to live a life of crime, would you kill him before he has actually committed any crimes? It is wrong to punish someone for something they didn't do, period, even if there is a 90% chance they will do it.  The facts are it has not happened yet, and it is thus wrong to punish them for something they might/or will do in the future.  Have you seen Minority Report?

"refuting your claim that abortions will lead to civilization's downfall."

I never said abortions will lead to civilization's downfall.

"These children are not determined to commit crimes, but they will be."

'but they *might* be'

fixed

"it means that we should allow abortions to be an option, because it has a utilitarian effect"

No.  Sacrificing the rights of the few for the benefits of the many is not right.  Each individual should have the inalienable right to LIFE, liberty, and property.

"Perhaps one of the reasons crime is higher in blue states is because of the illegalization of drugs"

? Blue states are generally the ones favoring legalization.  They have higher crime rates.  They also support stricter gun control.  Conservative areas (note: I say 'conservative areas', not 'red states') tend to have lower crime rates than liberal areas.  Most of the United States' crime comes from liberal areas of the country.  Most conservatives live in rural areas, and these areas have very, very low crime. 

"What I do know is that all the red states (save one, I think) do worse economically and get money from the blue states, who could use it more considering the higher crime rate in total."

The red states shouldn't have to pay for extra police officers for the blue states to use to lower the crime rates that are resultant from their stupid liberal governments.  It doesn't matter if the blue states could use it more or not.  The blue states can unfuck their own areas.

"harm women's rights"

The right doesn't harm women's rights.  Women have equal freedom in this country, last I checked.

"and will defend the right to abortions to my last breath if I have to."

'and will defend the right of women to violate the rights of others to compensate for their irresponsibility to my last breath if I have to'

fixed

>>304
"Both names are hella wrong. The 'pro-life'rs aren't for life, maybe for fetuses, but not for those whom are already here. They contradict their very name by supporting the death penalty, the war with Iraq, and by making it more difficult to obtain contraception and Plan B. The 'pro-choice'rs are for life, since they care for life that is already here. Most 'pro-choice'rs are actually pro-activists."

I'm pro life, and I don't support the death penalty, the war in iraq, or the idea of making contraception less availible.  I am for the preservation of the right to life of all humans or human fetuses that are here.  So much for your stupid right wing steriotypes.

>>308 Corporatism is a practice that can be good or bad. Abortions can be good or bad, depending on when the foetus is aborted. When a minority of corporations and a minority of women can't handle the responsibility and the privilege then an outright ban of abortions is exactly like banning corporations because of Pepsi and Coke messing up India. Were it takes place and whose jurisdiction they are under is irrelevant here. A minority of abortions take place when sentience and a state above that of meat has been achieved. Abortions pay off to society, and until a foetus has achieved a human consciousness removing it is nothing more controversial than a woman flushing some accidental semen out of her canal. I can stand firm and there are no immoral ethical implications of my stance, because the alternative is collective punishment, a betrayal of liberty. Human life is nothing without cerebral processing, so removing a foetus is not murder.
>>309 A person refuting a claim of being a right-wing stereotype while misspelling 'stereotype'.

Also, if liberal states need more unfucking than conservative ones, why do they apparently get less money than the tough, sustainable, hard-working, self-determining heartlanders? And why do the anti-statist government hating paranoid redneck politicians gladly gobble money, shouldn't they set an example, i.e. put up or shut up?

>>310

"When a minority of corporations and a minority of women can't handle the responsibility and the privilege then an outright ban of abortions is exactly like banning corporations because of Pepsi and Coke messing up India."

Wrong.  It is the responsibility of our government to protect its citizens and lives /here/, not in India.  India can unfuck its own problems, its not our responsibility. 

"Were it takes place and whose jurisdiction they are under is irrelevant here."

Wrong.  It isn't the duty of our government to police the world, and to make sure everything is dandy everywhere, it is the duty of our government to handle and make things dandy /here/.  We aren't global police.

"A minority of abortions take place when sentience and a state above that of meat has been achieved."

And these should obviously be banned right away, with the exception of those medically necessary for the mother's life.  The others are up for debate.

"Abortions pay off to society,"

Totally irrelevant whether or not they 'pay off' to society.  It might 'pay off' to society to kill Bill Gates, take all his money, and dole it all out to ourselves, but we don't do it.  Why? This would be murder and theft.  Sacrificing the rights of a few innocents for the sake of the rest of society is wrong. 


"and until a foetus has achieved a human consciousness removing it is nothing more controversial than a woman flushing some accidental semen out of her canal."

I don't think so.  Destroying fetuses with all the organs of a normal human being is morally dubious, at best. 

"I can stand firm and there are no immoral ethical implications of my stance, because the alternative is collective punishment, a betrayal of liberty."

Kindof like punishing all human fetuses (denying them their RIGHT to life), due to the fact that a portion of those born would grow up to become criminals. 

"Human life is nothing without cerebral processing, so removing a foetus is not murder."

I disagree. 

"A person refuting a claim of being a right-wing stereotype while misspelling 'stereotype'."

I'm sure you have never misspelled a thing. 

"Also, if liberal states need more unfucking than conservative ones, why do they apparently get less money than the tough, sustainable, hard-working, self-determining heartlanders?"

The need for unfucking is not represented by the amount of funding the states get.  The liberal states have the most obvious need of unfucking, and they tend to get less money.

"And why do the anti-statist government hating paranoid redneck politicians gladly gobble money, shouldn't they set an example, i.e. put up or shut up?"

Congratulations, you've found an inconsistency within the position of a handful of politicians.  What a rarity this is!  Want a gold star?

I'm not saying all republicans, conservatives, or any politician for that matter is going to be entirely philosophically sound.  Unless you find one who agrees with you on everything, you vote for and support those who you think will do the least damage.  Simply because I would support conservative candidates doesn't mean I agree with everything they do, and thus doesn't mean you can use this in the argument claiming I am 'inconsistent'.  MY political positions are indeed consistent, though my favored  group of politicians MAY, or MAY NOT be, depending on the politician.  

>>308

"No it wouldn't.  Whether or not abortion is justifiable from a capitalist (individual rights oriented) viewpoint depends on how you view the fetus.  If it is a human life, it has rights, and it is thus right for the government to perform the function of protection.  If it is not a human life, it then abortion should be allowed. 

Abortion is easilly justifiable from a capitalist viewpoint.  All you need to do is accept the fact that the human fetus is indeed a human life, and that it is thus the proper function of government to protect its right to continue to live."

Clearly you don't have a fundament grasp of democracy nor capitalism. First off: The human fetus being a human "life" is FAR from fact and it's time you accepted it. This is getting fucking retarded already. You keep saying that all valid scientific evidence is hogwash without offering ONE fucking iota or factiod unrefutably stating otherwise. How can you expect anything but massive failure in your argument is insane.

America's social contract isn't just about mere protection. I think you've got it twisted. America in it's most unpolluted form is about protecting that freedoms and liberties of the individual WITHOUT using law to needlessly nationalize and communize the population.

That is the key difference you're not getting- when it comes to sex laws- that's pure ownership of the person for the state. So you see, it's entirely irrelevant if the fetus is human or not- if the right to delete a fetus is revoke then you are fundamentally going against liberty, PERIOD.

"All you are saying, is 'you're not going to convince people to give up their right to violate the rights of others.'

No, fuckbrain. That's what you heard. What I said was that you're going to convince people to give up their right to do whatever the fuck they want with their own sexual organs. Children are product of DNA, the opposite sexes fucking. End of discussion.

"Whether or not they were irresponsible is irrelevant. The government has every right to preserve it's population, but not this way, by breaking it's own social contract."

At this point, we can recognize that this means death for the human fetus.

No. You're wrong. Give it up. You keep setting this shit up for me and I keep kicking it back into your face. Stop using "WE". Obviously there is a point where a fetus can't feel or think and that's what makes it human. NOT just 'existing'. If that's the case- then all the animals in the animal kingdom are infact HUMAN. I mean- they exist right? Sure, they can't fend for themselves and are reliant on nature's food cycle...so they must be human!!! 

"Not-banning abortion would be the final blow to America, imo.  It would be the recognition, in the most basic forms, that the government's primary duty is no longer to preserve the lives of its human constituents."

That's not America, though, child. You really need to pick up a fucking history book. You're making this country out to something it never was and NEVER was meant to be. The government primary duty IS NOT to preserve the live of it's "human contituents". It's to preserve their LIBERTIES and FREEDOMS. Do you understand the difference?


"The government can't own and has no right to protect the innocent, unborn, soverign, sacred fetus in the first place."

I never tried to argue that the government owns the human fetus.  The argument is not that the government owns the human fetus, the argument is that the human fetus has the right to continue to develop and live, and that it is the proper function of government to protect these rights.  This has nothing to do with ownership.

Like it or not, protect in this regard is not only ownership of the fetus, but OWNERSHIP OF THE WOMAN. Seriously, fuck the fetus. I'm talking about the AMERICAN, VOTING, LAW ABIDING and otherwise healthy couple that should be free to releave themselves of ANY sex related burder they see fit. The government has NO right telling people what to do with their penises or vaginas or the PRODUCTS of the penis and vaginas. They just don't. If you disagree: Move to China.

So if you took a baby, stuffed it in isolation for 20 years, making sure it had sustenance, but nothing outside of that, would it then be OK to kill it, since, according to you, experiance supposedly makes the human being?

Your analogies are making less and less sense. You should really look into lurking moar, seriously. I think it could help you out in the long run. I stand by what I say. Come for my right to reproduce (or not reproduce) and you'll be staring down the barrel of a gun. I'm going to let America be over run by dogma spewing facists.

"I'm sure you have never misspelled a thing." Of course I do, I wanted to point out lulz.
"Wrong.  It is the responsibility of our government to protect its citizens and lives /here/, not in India.  India can unfuck its own problems, its not our responsibility." Then replace Coke/Pepsi with some government that is screwing with American people (Bechtel) if you can't get you head around the analogy.
Those abortions that occur once sentience can be CAST-IRON PROVEN should be banned, those that occur before are not under debate, and shouldn't be. Also, we are not punishing the foetuses for maybe becoming criminals, we are 'punishing' them because we can and they are not sentient. Getting pregnant is not a contract, preserving a foetus until its sentient is. And even then the real reasons that women pass the limit is the doings of the right-wing.
I'm pointing out that no right-wing politicians are allowed to blame the left for statism/big gov when they increase government spending more than the left and take more of it too for their single mothers and shitty sex education. This is major hypocrisy that spans the conservative movement. I don't think you agree with everything they do, but a vote is a vote and everything that occurs because of the vote is your doing. You voted for Clinton? There are some aspirin-factory employees and assassinated people that would like to have a chat. Voted Reagan? Say hello to the spirits of dead homosexuals and people who lost almost everything by union busting. Voted Bush? Well... Looks like your calendar is full of appointments.

"No it wouldn't.  Whether or not abortion is justifiable from a capitalist (individual rights oriented) viewpoint depends on how you view the fetus.  If it is a human life, it has rights, and it is thus right for the government to perform the function of protection.  If it is not a human life, it then abortion should be allowed. 

Abortion is easilly justifiable from a capitalist viewpoint.  All you need to do is accept the fact that the human fetus is indeed a human life, and that it is thus the proper function of government to protect its right to continue to live."

A fetus is 'human life' then again, so is sperm and an ovum. But a fetus isn't a human 'being', therefore, it has no rights.

"Not-banning abortion would be the final blow to America, imo.  It would be the recognition, in the most basic forms, that the government's primary duty is no longer to preserve the lives of its human constituents.  The notion that government's proper duty is to protect human life is at the very foundation of good government.


No.  Sacrificing the rights of the few for the benefits of the many is not right.  Each individual should have the inalienable right to LIFE, liberty, and property"

I agree there, but a fetus isn't an individual on the base that it isn't a human being, it has no rights.

>>313
"Those abortions that occur once sentience can be CAST-IRON PROVEN should be banned"

Be careful, that is a double-edge sword. Lemme give an 'if' scenario:
If it is proven that a fetus experiences pain during birth from being squeezed through a tight vagina... then that'll condone the eviseration of pregnant's women's bellies during forced and unnecessary c-sections, just on the bases that the fetus may feel pain. They won't give a damn about the woman herself, and they won't give a damn that she knows what is best for her.

Without a doubt, 'pro-life' laws will harm women who want to have a child as well.

More explained here:
>>276
>>277

"The first case ends tragically, with the death of the mother and the fetus; in the second, the forced surgery turns out not to have been necessary; and the couple in the third scenario — devout Christians who are expecting their seventh child — leave the hospital that is trying to force a cesarean section on the mother and successfully have their baby elsewhere, through vaginal delivery.

Having eviscerated the argument that “pro-life” policies support the health, well-being, and autonomy of women who want to carry their pregnancies to term, Paltrow turns to the larger task of outlining genuine protections and supports for pregnant and parenting women."

GET BACK IN THE FUCKIN' KITCHEN, BITCH.

>>314 But birth control is easy and cheap and all feminists aren't perfect in their reasoning. So we should ban child support legislation.

>>31
"A fetus is 'human life' then again, so is sperm and an ovum."

No.  Sperm and ovums are not 'human lives'.  A human is created when the two are joined, and a real human life begins to grow.  I am for the protection of this human life, as it is the proper function of government to do so.

>>314
"A fetus is 'human life' then again, so is sperm and an ovum."

No.  Sperm and ovums are not 'human lives'.  A human is created when the two are joined, and a real human life begins to grow.  I am for the protection of this human life, as it is the proper function of government to do so.

(I left out the '4' on '314' so reposting..)

"No.  Sperm and ovums are not 'human lives'.  A human is created when the two are joined, and a real human life begins to grow.  I am for the protection of this human life, as it is the proper function of government to do so."

Sperm = Life + Part of a Human = Human Life
Ovum = Life + Part of a Human = Human Life
Fetus = Human Life
Fetus =/= Human 'Being'
Fetus = Potential
Fetus =/= Actual

Fetus =/= Person
Woman = Person
Man = Person
Child = Person
Baby = Persn

>>319
I'm not even gonna take the time to read all that shit.  This isn't math class, this is political discussion.

Sperm/ovums aren't human lives.  When they are joined, and a human life begins to grow, it becomes a human life.  To the extent that it is developed, is to the extent that it is a human life, and to the same extent that abortion should be discouraged.