Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: abortion is a blessing
5 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2009 - 5:18AM #21
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jun 15, 2009 -- 3:07AM, bluehorserunning wrote:


First, there are more uses of the word 'logical' than the formal philosophical study of logic.


*snip*



Ugh... Yeah. You didn't read the link I gave you, did ya'?


*snip*


you are conflating (confusing or mixing, per the definitions above) the concept of safe, legal abortion with abortion-by-blunt-force-abdominal trauma, because they share the characteristic of ending a pregnancy.



Yeah... Like I said. You're misusing the word, especially since that's not what's being done. At all. But, it's okay. Like I said, you don't really seem to understand logic. If you say "I want to have an abortion because everyone else is having one" and I respond with, "If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do that as well?", that doesn't equal "conflating" having an abortion with jumping off of a bridge (Or does it?). That comment would merely show the flaw in your comment, that being just because everyone does it, doesn't mean you should. Same thing with my comment in response to the OP. Just because an action leads to a specific outcome, doesn't mean that action is a "blessing". It's really not all that hard to understand. And it's funny, because you still haven't taken heed of this. Like I said, I wonder why I bother. I really shouldn't, because it's a waste of my time.


(And it's just an example, so don't get your panties in a twist.)


It is the fact that said avoidance of burdens can be achieved in a safe, legal manner, and the fact that the woman has control over her own body, that are the 'blessings.' Safe, legal abortion confers more blessings than the mere avoidance of an unwanted pregnancy; otherwise, the author cited would praise back-alley aborions by coathook (and/or those by blunt-force abdominal trauma) along with the legal ones allowed by Roe v. Wade. The topic of the speech was clearly safe, legal abortion, not any abortion at all.



...You live in a developed country. All abortions are safe. The whole back-alley abortion by coathook thing is a bold-faced lie and hasn't been true for, like, 60'ish years. I know I've posted it like a hundred times before, but would you like to see the graph detailing the illegal abortion death rate since the late 1930's? Oh, what the hell. I like posting the graph, so I'll do it any way.


*mumbles something to himself about pictures not posting and whatnot*


There isn't any abortion in a developed country which isn't safe-- Especially not the U.S. lol. Oh, and I love how you refer to a pregnancy and the child that would result from it as a "burden". Really. I do. Such a lovely sentiment. But I'm pretty sure I've pointed this out to you in the past before :)


Your introduction of 'kicking a woman in the stomach' to the subject of safe, legal abortion makes about as much sense as reading a paper on the benefits of Californians buying fresh, local melons and loudly protesting, 'Well, melons shipped from Tahiti contribute to global warming when they are shipped, so melons aren't so great, neener neener neener.'



That's what not what was being done. Sorry. But I suppose if you say it one more time, it'll suddenly be true. Maybe. Probably not, though, but you should take the chance and see. And I love the straw man, too. Really, I do. Seriously!


Your reading comprehension is clearly lacking.  I specifically mentioned 'convenience' along with the more dire circumstances you refer to as "sob-sob" (implying that you think a woman who has to choose between treating her cancer or carrying her wanted pregnancy to term, or a woman who has been raped, etc, is simply whining).



Well, apparently, my reading comprehension skills are much better than yours. I do believe I said those things "sob-sob", which would denote a sad situation, even added into the OP, wouldn't make itany better or any less absurd than the logic in the argument I made. It wasn't that difficult to understand. Of course, as per usual, you didn't understand.



Despite having been on this board for quite a while, you still don't seem to realize that men don't get pregnant.  The circumstances are not equal.  There are biological differences between the two sexes that are quite signifiant when the topic is obstetrics or gynecologial care.



I believe I said this ealier, but I'll say it again. Of course there are biological differences between men and women. No one said anything to the contrary. What there aren't, however, is inequalities, as inequalities are created by the law, not nature. I haven't said this in a while, but biological actualities do not equate to some sort of 'right'. The fact that women get pregnant simply means that women get pregnant. Playing the "Create laws to fix a perceived inequality where none exists thereby creating an inequality game" really doesn't do anything positive.


{sigh} Isn't it obvious?  Let me spell it out for the weaker-minded.  It means that right-wingers, and specifically PLs wrt this particular board, have a tendency towards black-and-white, all-or-nothing, win-lose thinking.  If you can't tell the difference between a safe, legal abortion and 'kicking a woman in the stomach,' then it's not really surprising that you can't tell the difference between an unemplanted zygote and a full-term fetus or a born human being.



This is doubly funny because:


1.) You're still going on about an example constructed to illustrate the absurdity in the OP while still being unable to view the absurdity in the OP.


2.) You didn't get around to answering my question (Well, psuedo-question), so I'll ask it again. Is a sixty-eight year old deserving of more protections than a sixty-seven year old? A sixty-seven year old than a sixty-six year old? A sixty-six year old than a sixty-five year old, etc.? Or, let's make the differences more pronounced. Is a sixty-eight year old more deserving of protections than a fifteen year old? A ten year old? A one minute old? Someone a day before he's born? The problem with your distinction is that you don't base it anything objective. You just pick a point which suits you and then differentiate based on that point. This is, within itself, odd because you ignore the fact that you can make a meaningful distinction between humans of any age and at any stage of development, and every distinction is just as arbitrary as the next.


What's the starting point of a circle?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2009 - 9:04AM #22
Cesmom
Posts: 4,750

Jun 14, 2009 -- 7:03PM, Bei1052 wrote:


So... Explain to me why the opposite, tubal ligations, are neither mentioned nor considered a "blessing"? Makes you wonder, doesn't it? <_<





Hmmm...in case I forgot to mention...my tubal ligation was a blessing.  Does that make you feel better?  Undecided  I don't understand how that is relevant to the OP.

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2009 - 12:14PM #23
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Someone mentioned vasectomies and I mentioned tubal ligations. That's how that got mentioned :P


(Sorry, I don't remember his/her name.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2009 - 12:25PM #24
Cesmom
Posts: 4,750

Jun 15, 2009 -- 12:14PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Someone mentioned vasectomies and I mentioned tubal ligations. That's how that got mentioned :P


(Sorry, I don't remember his/her name.)





I think that tubal ligations and vasectomies are both blessings for people who don't want kids.  I also think birth control is a blessing.  I don't think abortion in itself is a blessing.  I do think that the fact that safe abortions are available legally is a blessing.  I wish that legal right were not abused, and I believe that it is abused by some for convenience.  However, every case is different, and I don't believe outlawing abortion is the correct solution to the problem.  I do believe it should be safe and legal.  If everyone would get on board with the idea of birth control, I think a lot of unnecessary abortions could be avoided.

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2009 - 8:01PM #25
Justme333
Posts: 1,101
Please stop discussing kicking a woman in the stomach and causing a miscarriage.  The ROC states that "as a member of Beliefnet, you agree that you will not display content that is illegal, or advocates illegal acts....condones or may provoke violence toward any individual or group on the basis of age, disability,gender.... is vulgar or violent". Kicking a woman in the stomach is illegal and violent. Now I do not think anyone here is advocating for this type of action - but you never know who reads these boards, and as we all are very aware of lately, there are some unstable people out there who may take this seriously.

Justme333
Beliefnet Community Host
Abortion Debate Host
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."  Will Rogers

"Give to those who ask, and don't turn away from those who want to borrow."  Matthew 5:42

"Charity is no substitute for justice withheld."         St. Augustine

"Your love for God is only as great as the love you have for the person you love least."  Dorothy Day

"If you want peace, work for justice." Pope Paul VI
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 16, 2009 - 11:51AM #26
karbie
Posts: 3,329

I apologize for my part in that discussion; I think it was ongoing just because the mere idea that anyone could seriously consider bringing  up something so far-fetched and repugnant and then  attempt to equate it as being in the same catagory with a legal abortion. My anger got the better of me; I'm glad you deleted things.


Thank you.

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 16, 2009 - 5:56PM #27
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

... the "blessing" argument isn't constrained to just what you want it to be constained to, nor is it gender specific...


The 'melons are good' argument isn't constrained to just what you want it to be constrained to, nor is it location specific...


...there are NO SUCH THING AS INEQUALITIES IN NATURE.


{snort}  Your definition of 'unequal' is curious.  In fact, your definitions of many words is curious; you seem to look at a dictionary definition with multiple meanings listed and pick one, unilaterally deciding that the rest are invalid.  Guess what:  the rest of the world doesn't think that you have more authority to decide meaning than pretty much any general dictionary in print.


wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=un...


quote:

  • S: (adj) unequal (poorly balanced or matched in quantity or value or measure)
  • S: (adj) inadequate, unequal (lacking the requisite qualities or resources to meet a task) "inadequate training"; "the staff was inadequate"; "she was unequal to the task"

WordNet home page


it's pretty hard-- Sorry. I mean, pretty disingenuous-- To believe that unilateral decision making power would beget anything other than unilateral responsibility, especially on a decision which DOESN'T JUST AFFECT THE WOMAN. It affects the woman, the man and the unborn-- Often times, the latter two especially.


You honestly think that choice affects the man more than the woman? 



Who cares about the woman? The woman is irrelevant to whether or not causing a miscarriage could be construed as a "blessing" for the man. The man in deciding what's best for *himself* and, as such, the women isn't considered (Much like the man isn't considered in the OP).


It's sure tempting to just quote that and leave it alone.  Self-pwned, again.


You are saying that a woman who ignores a man in her decision to get an abortion is doing the equivalent to him of causing major, possibly life-threatening, blunt-force trauma to his abdominal organs. 

I've always liked how, as far as gender is concerned, inequalities are never considered grounds for differential treatment unless, of course, it benefits women. Then they're deemed as fair. It's always amused me.


Oh, wait.  You're wrong.  What a surprise.


www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.ht...


(as just one example).


It suddenly just occurred to me that your misogyny seems to stem directly from pure jealousy.  If you wish so much that you had the 'rights and priviledges' that women have, why not get yourself a sex change?  I think you'd be a happier person.  'Course, you still couldn't bear children - but some women-born-women face that problem, too.  At least you'd get all of the deference that you supposedly think that women get in society.


I'm sure you'd agree that men should be given preferential medical treatment to make up for the fact that women, on average, live longer, right?


In fact, they are.


www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/d...


quote:


...women were twice as likely as men to have “normal” or “mild” results on an exam of their heart’s blood vessels, with no single blockage taking up more than 50 percent of any one blood vessel.


This was despite the fact that their other test results showed they were definitely having a heart attack, or a form of chest pain called unstable angina.


... among patients with the same level of coronary artery disease, women were significantly less likely than men to receive drugs called beta blockers, statins and ACE  inhibitors — all of which are considered crucial to preventing further heart episodes. And no matter how serious their blockages, women were less likely to receive an angioplasty or a stent to open up their blood vessels.


By six months after their heart attack or angina attack, women with more advanced coronary artery disease were more likely than men to have died, or to have suffered another heart attack, a stroke or another problem that sent them to the hospital.


content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/ab...


quote:


Blacks, Hispanics, women, and patients seen in urban EDs waited longer than other patients did.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18439195?ord...


quote:


Men and women had similar mean pain scores, but women were less likely to receive any analgesia (60% vs. 67%, difference 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1% to 13.6%) and less likely to receive opiates (45% vs. 56%, difference 11%, 95% CI = 4.1% to 17.1%). These differences persisted when gender-specific diagnoses were excluded (47% vs. 56%, difference 9%, 95% CI = 2.5% to 16.2%). After controlling for age, race, triage class, and pain score, women were still 13% to 25% less likely than men to receive opioid analgesia. There was no gender difference in the receipt of nonopioid analgesia. Women waited longer to receive their analgesia (median time 65 minutes vs. 49 minutes, difference 16 minutes, 95% CI = 3.5 to 33 minutes).


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11642580?ord...


quote:


Although females presenting to this urban EMS system with acute chest pain were older, they received significantly less aspirin and fewer 12-lead ECGs in the field.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1481708?ordi...


quote:


Women waited longer than men for an initial physician evaluation and an initial electrocardiogram. In the patient subgroup with acute myocardial ischemia, a smaller percentage of women than men (56.0% vs 82.8%) were admitted to an intensive care unit.


I could go on, but I think that's enough to get the point across.


The biggest reason why there are more single-mothers than single-fathers in the U.S. is because the courts are biased in favor of women and award custody to the mother approximately 90% of the time.


That's because the mother is the primary care-giver 90% (or more) of the time.  In divorces where the father is the stay-at-home-parent or otherwise the primary caregiver, he's the one that gets the kids.


And let's not forget that between 1990 and 2001 there was a 62% increase in single-father households, which was ten times faster than traditional homes and two-and-a-half times faster than single-mother households (Link).


What a coincidence that this goes along with an increase in the number of men providing primary care for their offspring.


...And, for the record, women with no children receive more abortions than those who have children.


Incorrect.


www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abort...


quote:


• About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.[7]


First, there are more uses of the word 'logical' than the formal philosophical study of logic.


You didn't read the link I gave you, did ya'?


The link you provided was on formal philosophical logic, which is a subset of logical argument.  Hence, my statement above and the citations of the definition of 'logical.' If you disagree with my statement above, please link to a general English dictionary which describes the word 'logic' or 'logical' as pertaining only to formally structured philosophical logic.


 


You're misusing the word {conflating}, especially since that's not what's being done. At all.


No, I was not (as I cited), and yes, it was (as I demonstrated with quotes).  If you have anything to argue besides, 'no, you're wrong and I'm right, neener neener neener,' please back yourself up with citations. 


Just because an action leads to a specific outcome, doesn't mean that action is a "blessing".


The OP specifically involved not just the specific outcome, but the context of that outcome.  You are deliberately conflating contexts that were specifically outside of the subject of the OP.


 


...You live in a developed country. All abortions are safe. The whole back-alley abortion by coathook thing is a bold-faced lie and hasn't been true for, like, 60'ish years.


THAT IS THE POINT.


I love how you refer to a pregnancy and the child that would result from it as a "burden". Really. I do. Such a lovely sentiment.


Only a fool can think that pregnancy and childcare are not burdens, even when they are also blessings.  I can only imagine that you have never been a parent nor had tender feelings for a woman experiencing pregnancy.


I do believe I said those things "sob-sob", which would denote a sad situation...


Again with the deliberate obfuscation through false definition:  using the term 'sob-sob' implies that the woman in question is deliberately trying to arouse sympathy that she does not deserve, not demonstrating compassion.


wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=so...


quote:
S: (n) sob story, sob stuff (a sentimental story (or drama) of personal distress; designed to arouse sympathy)


Here's a good idea:  If you want people to understand you, you might try using English in the same way that the rest of the English-speaking world does.


Of course there are biological differences between men and women. No one said anything to the contrary. What there aren't, however, is inequalities, as inequalities are created by the law, not nature. I haven't said this in a while, but biological actualities do not equate to some sort of 'right'. The fact that women get pregnant simply means that women get pregnant. Playing the "Create laws to fix a perceived inequality where none exists thereby creating an inequality game" really doesn't do anything positive.


Falsely limited definition of 'inequality' aside (see above), tens of thousands of disabled people (who have differences in ability) disagree.  Tens of thousands of racial minorities (who have differences in opportunity) helped by affirmative action disagree.  Billions of people who think that working towards a more just and equal world is a laudable goal disagree.


Furthermore, the idea that controling one's own body is some sort of special right is false; a pregnant woman who choses to control her own bodily functions through a medical procedure is exercising exactly the same right that any non-pregnant person having a medical procedure is exercising.


here's another one, btw:


www.icoachmath.com/SiteMap/Unequal.html


1.) You're still going on about an example constructed to illustrate the absurdity in the OP while still being unable to view the absurdity in the OP.


Hmmm, maybe that's because the constructed example doesn't have anything to do with the OP, except in the most tangential sense.


2.) Is a sixty-eight year old deserving of more protections than a sixty-seven year old? A sixty-seven year old than a sixty-six year old?


That has to do with my argument ... how, exactly?  Are you suggesting that one who differentiates with more precision than 180 degrees is somehow then obligated to continue differentiating to the smallest degree, ad infinitum?  Different questions require different degrees of precision.  For your answer, zefs do have fewer rights than born children.  newborn infants have fewer rights than grade schoolers.  Grade schoolers have fewer rights than teens.  Teens have fewer rights than adults.  Adults don't get senior discounts.  Seniors tend to lose some of their rights as they become incapable of caring for themselves. 


The problem with your distinction is that you don't base it anything objective.


Oh, bullshit.  There is a serious difference between an unemplanted zygote and a full term fetus, and a serious difference between a full-term fetus and a newborn.  There are serious differences between all of the age groups mentioned above.  Some of the break-off points are fairly arbitrary: 18 for voting; 21 for consuming alcohol; 65 for senior benefits.  However, that does not make them meaningless or unobjective; dropping the drinking age to 20 or raising it to 22 would not change much, but dropping it to 8 or raising it to 30 would be significant. 


On the other hand, some of the breaking points are biologically determined:  implantation for the recognition of a pregnancy.  Normal EEGs for the recognition of brain function.  Birth for the recognition of bodily autonomy.  Dementia for the removal of self-care rights.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2009 - 3:51AM #28
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jun 16, 2009 -- 5:56PM, bluehorserunning wrote:

The 'melons are good' argument isn't constrained to just what you want it to be constrained to, nor is it location specific...




And it's still funny how you try to respond what amounts to a reductio ad absurdum with a strawman. I mean, really? And you want to talk about logic. Pffft!


{snort}  Your definition of 'unequal' is curious.  In fact, your definitions of many words is curious; you seem to look at a dictionary definition with multiple meanings listed and pick one, unilaterally deciding that the rest are invalid.  Guess what:  the rest of the world doesn't think that you have more authority to decide meaning than pretty much any general dictionary in print.



Dear God. Guess what? No one was redefining the dictionary. I mean, seriously. I'm so sorry you don't realize that inequalities are created by the law, not nature or that inequalities are created through societal roles, not nature. Remember, it's "All men are created equal", not "All men are created differently so we're going to try to fix these inequalities through the law".


You honestly think that choice affects the man more than the woman?




You honestly think I said something about who is affected more? Because I didn't. How about actually responding to what I wrote out? That'd always be nice. But I'm just saying.

It's sure tempting to just quote that and leave it alone.  Self-pwned, again.




English isn't your first language, is it? Because men aren't considered in the OP, women aren't considered in my example. This is done to keep the logic the same. There's nothing "self-pwning" about that. But, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

...And, btw, you suck at t3h intrawbez language.

You are saying that a woman who ignores a man in her decision to get an abortion is doing the equivalent to him of causing major, possibly life-threatening, blunt-force trauma to his abdominal organs.




Again, with arguing the details, which are inconsequential to the actual argument. Did you ever take a logic class in college? And, yes, that's precisely what I'm saying-- Just as I said that jumping off a bridge and would be the same as receiving an abortion (See the example provided which you flat out ignored).

Oh, wait.  You're wrong.  What a surprise.

www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.ht...

(as just one example).




I'm not going to read all of that. Quote the relevant portion of it and make your point.

It suddenly just occurred to me that your misogyny seems to stem directly from pure jealousy.




Oh, yes. I totally hate women.

(Do I need to add a sarcasm tag here? Or is it not that painfully obvious?)

Opposing abortion-on-demand and "choice" makes one a jealous misogynist about as much as opposing affirmative action makes one a jealous racist.

If you wish so much that you had the 'rights and priviledges' that women have, why not get yourself a sex change?  I think you'd be a happier person.  'Course, you still couldn't bear children - but some women-born-women face that problem, too.  At least you'd get all of the deference that you supposedly think that women get in society.




And the strawmen continue. You're not even trying anymore, are you?

...But if I got a sex-change, then you wouldn't be able to tell me how much I hate women nor call me a misogynist, as I'd be a woman, and it'd be odd to tell me I hate the very thing I changed myself into. For that reason alone, I would do it. Of course, I'm happy being me, so I won't.

In fact, they are.

*snip*

I could go on, but I think that's enough to get the point across.




...You do realize that you didn't even answer my question? I asked you not whether men get preferential treatment, but whether they should get preferential treatment. It wasn't that hard of a question, and mega copying and pasting doesn't answer the question, either. So, if you would be so kind, would you care to answer the question this time?

That's because the mother is the primary care-giver 90% (or more) of the time.  In divorces where the father is the stay-at-home-parent or otherwise the primary caregiver, he's the one that gets the kids.




No. It's because the legal system is biased against the father. A women will almost *always* get custody of the kids, regardless of the circumstances. That's a fact.

What a coincidence that this goes along with an increase in the number of men providing primary care for their offspring.




The number of courts awarding custody to men have NOT increased 62%. Just about the same percentage of courts award custody to the woman today as they did twenty years ago.

Incorrect.

www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abort...

quote:

• About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.[7]



I know for a fact I've seen differently before but, *shrugs*, I'm too lazy to go hunt it down atm, so I'll just go with it for now.

The link you provided was on formal philosophical logic, which is a subset of logical argument.  Hence, my statement above and the citations of the definition of 'logical.' If you disagree with my statement above, please link to a general English dictionary which describes the word 'logic' or 'logical' as pertaining only to formally structured philosophical logic.




Yeah... Like, I said. You REALLY didn't read the link I gave you -.-'

No, I was not (as I cited), and yes, it was (as I demonstrated with quotes).  If you have anything to argue besides, 'no, you're wrong and I'm right, neener neener neener,' please back yourself up with citations.




It's not just arguing that you're wrong and "Neener neener neener", it's arguing that you're misusing an ENTIRE word out of context. Conflation is not merely a comparison. It literally involves combining, or two or more things into one singular object. Logically speaking, conflation is similar (Though not the same) as equivocation, as it tends to mix two or more ideas which have some similarities, though are albeit different, into one single issue.

No one did anything of the sort here. No one mixed anything together. I made an absurd example to point out the absurdity displayed in the OP's logic. You screaming conflation over and over again doesn't make it such.

The OP specifically involved not just the specific outcome, but the context of that outcome.  You are deliberately conflating contexts that were specifically outside of the subject of the OP.




Conflating contexts? What the hell? You... You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? The OP didn't mention an abortion as a blessing because the woman didn't want to be a mother? Really? I could of sworn she did... And, as to the rest of it, I do believe I said, on page 1, that "I won't even mention the fact that 90%+ of abortions are elective and done purely out of convenience (Which would render the entire rape/health concern argument largely moot)."

<_<

THAT IS THE POINT.




So your point is that abortions will be safe whether they're legal or not? Isn't that, like, totally contrary to the whole PC rhetoric.

Only a fool can think that pregnancy and childcare are not burdens, even when they are also blessings.  I can only imagine that you have never been a parent nor had tender feelings for a woman experiencing pregnancy.




Only a fool would refer to pregnancy and childcare as burdens. Or someone who is extremely callous. Or someone who is PC. Any of the latter three. Probably all three. Following your extremely backwards logic, then everone who was ever the cause of a pregnancy if had a parent raise them is and was a 'burden'. Yes, that includes you. But it's okay for you to say so now. To kind of steal Ronald Reagan's line and alter it, "It's funny that you can talk down about pregnancy and childrearing now that you're both born and independent".

Again with the deliberate obfuscation through false definition:  using the term 'sob-sob' implies that the woman in question is deliberately trying to arouse sympathy that she does not deserve, not demonstrating compassion.




...Did you already seem to forget that it was YOU who brought up those sad situations, which prompted the whole "you mentioning sob-sob stories doesn't make the logic presented in the OP and less absurd than the one I presented" or are you just willfully ignoring it?

Here's a good idea:  If you want people to understand you, you might try using English in the same way that the rest of the English-speaking world does.




And you might want to stop playing semantics and start remembering what it is you type out.

Falsely limited definition of 'inequality' aside (see above)...




And, once again, it's not "falsely limited". If we were to take away the law, then explain to me what the "inequalities" between a man and a woman, a boy and a girl, black and white, tall and short, skinny and fat, etc. would be? The fact is, that there is none. If there are "inequalities" it's because the law creates them.

...tens of thousands of disabled people (who have differences in ability) disagree.  Tens of thousands of racial minorities (who have differences in opportunity) helped by affirmative action disagree.  Billions of people who think that working towards a more just and equal world is a laudable goal disagree.




Okay. So you would call a law which ensures that you get hired over, say, a man on the basis that you're a woman and he's a man to be creating "equality"? Or a law which ensures that a minority gets hired over a non-minority to be creating "equality"? Uh-huh... Right. Laws which make it so that you have to meet a certain demographic quota create a vast amount of "inequalities", as no longer does everyone have an "equal" chance of being hired. Those within the groups with "favorable" classifications get put ahead of those with "unfavorable" ones, even if those in "unfavorable" ones are more suited for the job. There is nothing "equal" about legally elevating one group of people ahead of their peers.

And, please, go show me these "tens of thousands" and "billions of people". Please, please, please, please, PLEASE do. I really want you to find them and show me them.

Furthermore, the idea that controling one's own body is some sort of special right is false; a pregnant woman who choses to control her own bodily functions through a medical procedure is exercising exactly the same right that any non-pregnant person having a medical procedure is exercising.



I believe we've been over this before, but there is a fundamental difference between, say, cutting off your finger and having an abortion. A big difference. You continuously ignore the fact that an abortion doesn't deal with "controlling her own bodily functions". That is a misnomer, and ignores the entire fact that there is not one, bute two, individuals present and that her decision negatively impacts the second far, far, far more than the presence of the second individual impacts her (At least, in the overwhelming majority of the cases).


Hmmm, maybe that's because the constructed example doesn't have anything to do with the OP, except in the most tangential sense.




"I think I'm going to start smoking."
"Why?"
"Because everyone else is doing it."
"If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?"

Smoking =/= jumping off a bridge?!?!?! Only in your world.

That has to do with my argument ... how, exactly?  Are you suggesting that one who differentiates with more precision than 180 degrees is somehow then obligated to continue differentiating to the smallest degree, ad infinitum?  Different questions require different degrees of precision.  For your answer, zefs do have fewer rights than born children.  newborn infants have fewer rights than grade schoolers.  Grade schoolers have fewer rights than teens.  Teens have fewer rights than adults.  Adults don't get senior discounts.  Seniors tend to lose some of their rights as they become incapable of caring for themselves.




Once again, you're slyly trying to evade answering the question. I distinctly asked if someone is afforded more protections under the law the older or younger they get, not whether who has more rights. Do seniors have more of a right to live than adults? Do adults have more of a right to live then teenagers? Do teenages have more of a right to live then children? Do children have more of a right to live then babies? The fact is that the answer to all of those questions is a resounding and emphatic "No". They all have equal protection under the law. You cannot the deprive the life of any of them without due cause and especially not on a whim.

Oh, bullshit.




It's not. Sorry.

There is a serious difference between an unemplanted zygote and a full term fetus and a serious difference between a full-term fetus and a newborn.




There's also a difference between a thirty year old and a five year old (The thirty year old has a fully developed brain and is sexually mature while the five year old's brain is still developing and is incapable of sexual reproduction). Should the five year old be given fewer protections under the law?

There are serious differences between all of the age groups mentioned above.  Some of the break-off points are fairly arbitrary: 18 for voting; 21 for consuming alcohol; 65 for senior benefits.  However, that does not make them meaningless or unobjective; dropping the drinking age to 20 or raising it to 22 would not change much, but dropping it to 8 or raising it to 30 would be significant.




No. They're ALL arbitrary. Not just some of them. That's the point. All distinctions are arbitrary and they're all subjective. If you ask, say, a hundred people what the drinking age will be, you'll get twenty or so different answers. If you ask, say, a hundred people what the voting age should be, you'll get twenty or so different answers. If you ask, say, a hundred people what age personhood should be conferred, you'll get twenty or so different answers. See where I'm going with this? There's no obective reason for any restrictions, much like there's no obective reason to deny everyone-- Regardless of the stage of development-- The same basic protections afforded to everyone.

On the other hand, some of the breaking points are biologically determined: implantation for the recognition of a pregnancy. Normal EEGs for the recognition of brain function.  Birth for the recognition of bodily autonomy.  Dementia for the removal of self-care rights.




Right. But what does this have to do with conferring unto those in one stage of development the protections conferred unto those in another stage of development?


Laaate edit: I forgot to respond to something entirely. My bad -.-'

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2009 - 9:28AM #29
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

Another tale, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  Is there any way to block certain posters who just use up too much damn bandwidth?

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2009 - 9:41AM #30
karbie
Posts: 3,329

As to the suggestion that men be given preferential medical treatment because women on the whole live longer--there has been a bias in medicine all along.


Until just recently, all the tests on medications were for the most part tested on men only. It never occured to the pharmacuetical industry that there could be a  difference in how men and women's body chemistry reacts to a drug or even varying the dosage by how much the patient of either sex weighs.


Women are more likely to have "silent " heart attacks than men because they are less likely to have the "pain shooting up arm" symptom and frankly because many doctors write off their symptoms as  belonging to something else.


The biggest difference isn't in the quality of the care overall--it's just that more women are willing to go to the doctor if they are sick. I think that many men feel like there's no point in going to the doctor because they aren't going to be listened to or helped. I'm not suggesting that men are wrong to think that --I just wish it wasn't true so often.


As to children being a burden? If you don't figure on being on call 24/7 for at least 18 years, don't have children. I had my first "off-duty" time--except for hospitalizations--after my son graduated from high school. And it's been worth it.  We discussed having another child. but if we did I'd have gone back to work and my salary would have gone for baby-sitting. It's just as well I didn't when he was so ill.  I can honestly say there's not a moment I've been sorry that we had him.


He is a blessing to me; when he was very young and asked where he came from, I told him that he was a gift from God.  It's equally true that being able to make an appointment with a clinic for an abortion of the clump inside me was a blessing. Yes, I miscarried, but by then the appointment and decision had been made to go to the clinic.I really remember thanking God that it was legal and I didn't have to risk never having another chance to have a child.


Whether or not abortion is a blessing depends on the woman who has one and the reasons for it. A forced abortion or a forced pregnancy isn't a blessing.  A child deserves to have at least one parent who loves them and is happy to have them.


I think if you are in an abusive relationship and are aware any child will become a punching bag or worse, is it more of a blessing to spare the child the pain, suffering, and violence that will be part of daily life or to have an abortion to spare at least the child? If having a child also means never having a prayer of escaping a monster because the child will give him a way to keep a hold on you, again can an abortion  be a blessing? If you are homeless, is it a blessing?


Too bad we can't emulate the simple male sea horse and settle the question equitably.

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook