How To Commit Political Suicide:

  • #51
308
0
Science told them they could get pregnant while using the contraceptive. Their ignorance of science failed them, not science itself, if they thought they couldn't get pregnant.

Can I blame science if I shoot myself playing Russian Roulette, since science says putting only one round in the revolver (instead of six) reduces my chances of getting shot? If I get shot, is it because science failed me?

I don't know... I suppose if resurrection were an option you'd have said something relevant to the discussion. The fact is that contraceptives, while sold with warnings, are often expected and intended to be absolute. When that fails, there are other means that people can avail themselves of, either chemical or procedural.

The only case I see you making here is that you don't like abortion. We both know that the crux of marketing lies in exploiting human weakness, such as those one WhoWee points out. In the classic, "You have three doors, behind one of which is a prize! You open door #1, and it's empty, but you now have a chance to switch your choice, or stay... what do you do?" turns out that plenty of people stay, or switch for all fo the wrong reasons. You switch, and your odds increase... period, but are you saying that our population control should be predicated on a working knowledge of math and statistics?

Lets get people literate first... which by the way, will be easier if they stay in school instead of carrying a child to term.
 
  • #52
Al68
I don't know... I suppose if resurrection were an option you'd have said something relevant to the discussion. The fact is that contraceptives, while sold with warnings, are often expected and intended to be absolute.
So it's not "relevant" that that intention is unfulfilled and the expectation false according to science? When the claim was they were "failed by science"? It makes no sense to ignore science in favor of a false expectation then blame the result on science.

Expecting contraception to be absolute is ignorance.
The only case I see you making here is that you don't like abortion.
Why would I need to make that case? You can't just take my word for it? I hate abortion. I think it's despicable in the case of consensual sex.

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I believe abortion is wrong, and using force to prevent abortion is wrong. There really is no contradiction there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
DevilsAvocado
Gold Member
838
91
Oh! You mean Bill Clinton, right?

:tongue2:

Laser Touché! :biggrin: :biggrin:
 
  • #54
DevilsAvocado
Gold Member
838
91
nismar, it looks like the smartypants are getting close to the "final solution", introduced by the "not witch" from Delaware - Christine O'Donnell:
Let’s forbid sex!!

This solution is elegant and simple; no unborn Americans will never ever have their constitutional rights violated again. Thank god.
 
  • #55
308
0
So it's not "relevant" that that intention is unfulfilled and the expectation false according to science? When the claim was they were "failed by science"? It makes no sense to ignore science in favor of a false expectation then blame the result on science.

Expecting contraception to be absolute is ignorance.Why would I need to make that case? You can't just take my word for it? I hate abortion. I think it's despicable in the case of consensual sex.

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I believe abortion is wrong, and using force to prevent abortion is wrong. There really is no contradiction there.

I understand, and don't think I'm not appreciative that you were up front when you first posted. I'm saying that the case you're making is just in support of your dislike, not in support of WHY it should be disliked. That is another debate however, and really I don't want to step on your beliefs when it comes to lives.

I'm not saying that you should expect absolute contraception, but I am saying that contraception is a positive human invention, and when it fails other means are available. It IS a failure of science and engineering, even if it's inevitable to some degree, but you're right that it's not a LIE.

Unfortunately I think DA is right: the consistent argument to make given your beliefs would be to abstain from sex if possible, unless you're able and willing to accept all possible consequences, including a child. I just don't believe that's possible, and frankly... I don't envy how you must feel. I don't think we can go any further in this vein, in this thread... and I don't know that we should in another thread. I'm OK backing down on this honestly, in an academic setting.
 
  • #56
Al68
I'm saying that the case you're making is just in support of your dislike, not in support of WHY it should be disliked.
I was making the case that contraception is not perfect, so a choice to have sex is a choice to assume some risk of getting pregnant.

That's true regardless of whether I like or dislike abortion. And it's true regardless of what view someone uses that fact to support. Contraception isn't "absolute".
I'm not saying that you should expect absolute contraception....
I was responding to your statement that it was "often" expected to be absolute. Maybe I misinterpreted you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
308
0
I was making the case that contraception is not perfect, so a choice to have sex is a choice to assume some risk of getting pregnant.

That's true regardless of whether I like or dislike abortion. And it's true regardless of what view someone uses that fact to support. Contraception isn't "absolute".

I agree with your premise, and the conclusion that contraception isn't absolute. I do however see a difference in the intent of a couple who's condom fails, and one who just doesn't care, or... other things I can't say here. I don't see it in quite as absolute terms I guess, but the endpoint you describe does exist, I can't deny it.

What to do about it however?

You're one of the VERY few people on or offline who's come right out in presence and said, "I'm pro-choice, and anti-abortion", then proceeds to make a perfectly logical case. I'm more interested in your views then people who just ignore any moral angle, or those who fixate on it. So many people seem unable to weigh anything, but the rights they believe the fetus has, but you do and despite hating what it entails... support the right to freedom.

I guess I want to understand how you manage to do that, when so many others seem unable to do anything except cling to the poles of this issue. You don't need to respond if you don't want, I'm just very curious. You do realize that your view, while not totally unique, is still pretty rare?
 
  • #58
Al68
You're one of the VERY few people on or offline who's come right out in presence and said, "I'm pro-choice, and anti-abortion", then proceeds to make a perfectly logical case. I'm more interested in your views then people who just ignore any moral angle, or those who fixate on it. So many people seem unable to weigh anything, but the rights they believe the fetus has, but you do and despite hating what it entails... support the right to freedom.

I guess I want to understand how you manage to do that, when so many others seem unable to do anything except cling to the poles of this issue. You don't need to respond if you don't want, I'm just very curious. You do realize that your view, while not totally unique, is still pretty rare?
Well, thanks, but I don't think it's that rare at all. I think most pro-choice people dislike, if not detest, abortion. And I think most do think that a fetus has rights, but not a right to the forced servitude of its mother for 9 months. They just don't come out and say it that way. I think very few people would consider themselves "pro-abortion".

As an example, it's considered murder for anyone to purposely kill a fetus if it's not the will of the mother. Because the fetus does have the right to live if it requires no forced servitude. And knowingly murdering a pregnant woman is two counts of murder.

And many, including me, oppose those laws that prohibit nurses and doctors from giving medical care, or any care, including feeding, to a live infant, outside its mother's body, that survives an attempted abortion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
Al68
I saw a question on a profile test recently that asked if the odds were better with 1 round in a 6 round revolver or 1 round in a 12 round automatic clip. They said most people missed the question.
Depends on how it's set up. A common method for eliminating a tendency to flinch is to have a partner load a clip with mostly duds, so that the target shooter can easily notice a flinch, and correct it.

I assume that wasn't the intent of that question, but that's what came to my mind in that context, since I've used that method myself.
 
  • #60
308
0
Well, thanks, but I don't think it's that rare at all. I think most pro-choice people dislike, if not detest, abortion. And I think most do think that a fetus has rights, but not a right to the forced servitude of its mother for 9 months. They just don't come out and say it that way. I think very few people would consider themselves "pro-abortion".

As an example, it's considered murder for anyone to purposely kill a fetus if it's not the will of the mother. Because the fetus does have the right to live if it requires no forced servitude. And knowingly murdering a pregnant woman is two counts of murder.

And many, including me, oppose those laws that prohibit nurses and doctors from giving medical care, or any care including feeding, to a live infant, outside its mother's body, that survives an attempted abortion.

I agree that the laws contain inconsistencies, but in the context of a crime, the logic seems to hold as far as the law goes.
 
  • #61
183
1
Well, thanks, but I don't think it's that rare at all. I think most pro-choice people dislike, if not detest, abortion.

When are your earliest memories? I'm not against your stance, mind you. Just for it. My earliest memories are before I was born. Most people decry that. They don't get that, but that doesn't change the fact that I recall, quite well, being born. Yeah, I know, icky, yuck! Actually, somewhat constricting (what part of it should I choose to forget? Lol! In hindsight, it's somewhat interesting, from a medical point of view) Sigh. There it is, however, and my point is somewhat along yours, in that I too believe we should all have the right to life, regardless of from whatever age our life begins.

For those pshawing in disbelief, years ago I sketched the diaper room from which we moved, less than three months after I was born, along with my doctor's face, so...

(shrugs). Life is. Most won't get this, but it doesn't really matter. They are my memories, and the fact that they match pics taken around the time I was born are good enough for me
 
  • #62
308
0
When are your earliest memories? I'm not against your stance, mind you. Just for it. My earliest memories are before I was born. Most people decry that. They don't get that, but that doesn't change the fact that I recall, quite well, being born. Yeah, I know, icky, yuck! Actually, somewhat constricting (what part of it should I choose to forget? Lol! In hindsight, it's somewhat interesting, from a medical point of view) Sigh. There it is, however, and my point is somewhat along yours, in that I too believe we should all have the right to life, regardless of from whatever age our life begins.

For those pshawing in disbelief, years ago I sketched the diaper room from which we moved, less than three months after I was born, along with my doctor's face, so...

(shrugs). Life is. Most won't get this, but it doesn't really matter. They are my memories, and the fact that they match pics taken around the time I was born are good enough for me

That's unusual, but infantile amnesia is NOT absolute, nor are concepts of where memories begin, and where the details we add from hearing recollections begins to mix with real memories. If your memory is highly detailed, then you can rest assured that it has at least been modified greatly over time. If it's mostly a blind memory of sense impressions... then yeah, it could be real.

If you saw a face... well... research DOES seem to indicate that babies can recognize basic facial features... probably. They definitely focus on the face, but how much they can see? Certainly on the way out of the birthing canal, you're in no position, figuratively or literally, to be observing your doctor. In fact, as a baby it would just be pitch black until... uh... the end... and I mean your head is OUT. Now, you could be mixing memories of the SAME event, and grafting details together centered around the vivid memory of actually being born.

So... who knows? The point is that you believe, at least partly based on a strong personal experience, that at least as of 9 months a child is thinking, observing, and forming memories. Does it matter that it's based on what may or may not be a memory of an actual event? The point is that you're sufficiently moved by the notion that you're willing to generalize your experience to a fetus that is at least 3 months less developed.

I guess the big question there would be: Rick Santorum is dialing that reasoning back to the a blastocyst... which does NOT think or feel. If they do, then we are all MONSTERS for what we do to the microbiological world... and so be it. To me, positing that blastocysts, embryos, and the early-term fetus are all equal or even similar... isn't reasonable. That to me, requires religion, or a belief in something like "primary perception"... or so much emotional 'stuff', that the issue isn't clear.

The irony, is that Al68 (conservative), myself (I don't know, but more liberal), you (truly independent AFAIK) probably all agree that given the evolution of medicine... late-term abortions present a troubling dilemma. The standard, "That is viable," has changed since the laws were made! The irony then, is that the issue has become so polarized, and a group that is "anti-abortion" within the larger "pro-life" group has become VERY influential. Now, the battle is just to kill the relevant statutes, and on the other side, to leave them be so they're not lost.

We need a way to re-work our laws to account for evolving medicine without re-opening the whole debate each time. That's my belief at least, because we're never going to get ANYWHERE the way we're going. (not we in this forum, "we the people")
 
  • #63
DevilsAvocado
Gold Member
838
91
The intellectual refinement in this thread has boosted my memory; suddenly I clearly remember how I as a little sperm was swimming for my life. It was messy and a lot of malevolent competitors out there. This I remember very clear.

But I made it to base as The Winner, and scored hole in one.

Then something strange happened... I had one of these very rare "Out-of-fetus experiences" and I was looking at myself; and I still have a very clear memory of that picture:

[PLAIN]http://www.rimdalens.se/Grafik/Bilder/foster%2030%20dagar.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #64
Evo
Mentor
23,534
3,150
This thread is about santorum, it has gone astray.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on How To Commit Political Suicide:

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
26K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Top