US: Consistently anti-women legislature this year.

Post Reply New Topic

What could express hatred for children more effectively than killing them?

a. Abortion kills babies.
b. Killing is the ultimate expression of hatred.
:: Abortion is the ultimate expression of hatred for babies.

Freedom of Choice: Freedom for the mother and denial of choice for the baby.

That's right. I love how she has accused me of ad homing women, yet she ad homs everyone who disagrees with her as child and woman haters. Hypocrisy, pettiness, and self-righteousness at its finest.

I think if two consenting adults want to do something with one another then I would agree they ought to be free to do so. I think some of those actions are immoral and that people should not engage in them, but I see no grounds for that then making them illegal. I do make some exceptions, in relation to bestiality and necrophilia.



I think we actually agree. ValentineWiggin is claiming that it is her right to have access to tax payer funded abortion on demand regardless of what those other people think. She actually is demanding the pen and paper also.

Ad hominem goes like "You are a doofus ergo you are wrong". It is not "You are wrong ergo you are a doofus" or "You are wrong and a doofus". Or "You are a doofus".

Let us differentiate between ad hominems and personal attacks, k please?

An unborn fetus is neither innocent nor a babie.



Yes , PLEASE DO NOTICE THIS.

Republicans are trying to make abortion impossible even if you got raped. This scenario in which arguments like "Be celibate" or "Use protection" are utter bull.

A rather painful thing to watch is that people are trying to justify this as a cut to entitlements. Ha hahaha har. you know what the non-aborted, unwanted children will grow up to become? Welfare sinks. Even state-sponsored Abortions in this way will reduce the deficit and the burden over all of us. And that's not what is being asked for (not at all).

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 25 May 2011, 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The cause of the problem is not lack of access to abortion. (Which is certainly not lacking here in Baltimore City/County.) The cause is drug addiction in the one instance, and inadequate health care in the other. Those are the issues that need addressing; handling them via the easy-out of abortion is at best sweeping them under the rug. It sounds compassionate, 'no child should be born to a drug-addicted mother'; but shouldn't it rather be 'no mother should be addicted to drugs'?

So, whilst we go through the rather impossible goal of erradicating drug addiction all over the world. The situation will still happen, is there any reason at all to think aborting the child when that happens (because it will happen, it will not stop happening just because we started our war on drugs) is not a good idea?

Actually that's true. I sort of skimmed through your post so I thought you were challenging libertarian ideology. f**k that s**t, personal responsibility is an insurance policy that doesn't cover something for nothing. I should not have to pay for someone else's deductible. If I ever became pro-choice, I would at least have the decency to pay for my own abortions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem



She has attempted to link the validity of the premises pertaining to pro-life stances as nothing more than motivated by hatred for women and children. This is absolutely baseless, which means it constitutes an ad hom and a fallacy. It's also ridiculous that she says pro-lifers hate children. How is that even fitting?

I've been abused as a kid, does that mean I am doomed to whooping my kid's ass for being different once I become a father myself? We aren't predictably products of our environment.

Why wouldn't you be? Since you don't feel the bodies of women are their own property, whose, exactly are they?




People who passionately advocate outlawing abortion are indeed similarly-archaic in their beliefs as is exemplified by Saudi-Arabian treatment of women because both are views involving women as property and therefore non-persons.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 26 May 2011, 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well until anti-choicers have solved chemical dependency issues and also provided healthcare to everyone,
the point still stands, that being that current lack of access to abortion is already causing untold amounts of human suffering.

Kudos for slipping in the implication that abortion is "easy" or irresponsible and avoidant,
but this thread is not about either health care or drug abuse- it is about abortion access,
and my point was that a lack of it often results in an immense human toll.
I made no commentary on abortion somehow curing poverty and drug addiction.

It should be "no mother should be addicted to drugs" and "no woman should be forced to BE a mother".

Outlawing abortion does not equal treating women as property. You may have a persuasive argument for linking these two together, thus far we have not been privy to it. In place of a compelling argument you are just combining the two together. That might work in a situation where everyone agreed with you, however, by now you ought to have realized that not everyone does.

An entity without the capability of forming a will and no means to exercise it were that not the case is clearly not an entity who possesses choice.

Moreover, the equation of a woman with a non-sentient parasite is quite telling about your view of the former.

Here's a proof for you:

Refusing to allow another the use of your body is not offensive "killing", regardless of whether death will result.

There is precisely as much suffering during abortion as when a woman menstruates.

But then, I noticed suffering wasn't a factor in your deduction at all.

I'm sorry...is not state-forced pregnancy and childbirth indentured servitude?

How, exactly might the state mandate such without negation of women's physical autonomy?

The former necessitates the latter by definition.

An ad hominem is an attack on a person.

It is no ad hominem to say that those who oppose reproductive rights are advocating terrible suffering of women and their forced offspring. It is no attack, as the two are synonymous. Pregnancy and childbirth severely-impacts a woman's means to provide for herself and any pre-existing children and pursuit of an education which might enable her to raise the children she'd eventually CHOOSE to have above the poverty level and all that comes with it.

I'm asserting that health care is a basic human right and abortion is health care.

The former is undeniably my personal ethics, the latter factual, regardless of how emotional the Male Policers of Female Sex get over it.

Good job on getting in the "on demand"- it would make sense those "selfish baby murderers" would be uppity and domineering.
I mean, while we're attacking women for not judging themselves fit to sustain a pregnancy and all.



Oh, and Ace- props on equivocating opposite ends of Maslow's hierarchy under the banner of "rights".

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 26 May 2011, 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

It is not state-force pregnancy, I reject your use of language here. It certainly is not indentured, it is a willingly accepted possibility if you have consensual sex and know about the consequences. What you are demanding is the state provide you will an unrestricted right to evade the consequences of said decision. There is no such thing as sex free from the risk of reproduction. If you jump between two buildings, it might be fun, but no 'right' will keep you from the risk of hitting the ground and it is not my responsibility to pay for it.



Can you please stop spam posting me, please put it all in the one post otherwise you make it unnecessarily difficult to respond to you. I just told you that you are making unsupported assertions without argument, now you are declaring by fiat that abortion is health care. I reject that utterly, though I do not really wish to engage on that further. Even pro-choice groups have started to stop using that line, many argue that abortion should be unrestricted 'regardless' of healthcare concerns.

You have so far been advocating an unrestricted right to abortion on demand from a position of 'rights relating to your body', now in what universe does this relate to health-care? Or are you once again conflating arguments, without argument?

Last edited by 91 on 26 May 2011, 1:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

We are not talking about the choice to engage in consensual sex.
It is only you who thinks the freedom of choice to engage in consensual sex
somehow negates the freedom of choice to undergo an elective abortion,
and you have yet to explain why.




We are talking about abortion, which by definition takes place only following conception.

Now if a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy and give birth,
whereas she otherwise would have ended a pregnancy via abortion,
and the mechanism of her being forced to reproduce was a legislative ban which dissolved her access to abortion,
how can you assert that it was not the state which effectively mandated her and all women who became pregnant to continue said pregnancies?

I "demand" nothing of the state that is different from any other medical procedure they might subsidize,
regardless of how many times you chant that abortion is not a consequence of sex,
or avoid making an actual argument as to why reproductive rights are best ethically understood in terms of forcing those consequences on people which you personally like more as punishment for their having sex.

There is such a thing as sex free from the risk of reproduction. You are the one opposing it, remember?

Responsibility is subjective. You think a good screw means the "responsibility" of nine months of pregnancy and then labor and severe risks to women's ability to pursue education and careers, ones which might provide for children otherwise doomed to grow up in poverty,

and I think it's the "responsibility" of society to provide for basic human needs like food, water, and health care.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 26 May 2011, 1:43 am, edited 1 time in total.