News What do you support?

Check what you support

  • Ban all private gun ownership [more or less]

    Votes: 14 23.3%
  • Abortion made illegal

    Votes: 10 16.7%
  • Amnesty for illegal aliens

    Votes: 18 30.0%
  • Allow domestic wire taps without oversight

    Votes: 2 3.3%
  • Strong environmental protection laws

    Votes: 39 65.0%
  • Mostly unregulated imports and trade

    Votes: 18 30.0%
  • Elimination of the National debt

    Votes: 38 63.3%
  • Throw out the existing tax structure

    Votes: 30 50.0%
  • Increase taxes on the rich

    Votes: 24 40.0%
  • None of the above

    Votes: 4 6.7%

  • Total voters
    60

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
I don't follow the objection to pro-choice arguments. Of course legal restrictions of any kind reduce our choices. Pro-lifers lobby to grant human rights to what is not yet human. If they succeed, this will infringe on the rights of a woman to choose how to treat her own body. If some other group succeeded in making blood transfusions illegal because their faith says it's wrong, this would also infringe on the rights of others to choose a medical option. We lose the choices available to us when we make them illegal. Pro-choice tries to prevent this loss.
The formal objection is that the usual pro-choice argument simply ignores the discussion.

Pro-choicer: "I have rights!"
Pro-lifer: "Yes, you do. But so do others; we have to balance your rights against theirs."
Pro-choicer: "I have rights!"


Some pro-choicers actually join the discussion and argue that the fetus isn't human, or shouldn't have any rights. Or they may argue that the mother's rights are more important than the fetus's rights. These kinds of things are where the heart of the issue lies. Those who put merely argue that women have rights have missed the point entirely.



And some comments specific to what you said:

Do you consider this different (in a relevant way) from it being illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? To murder an adult? To own a slave?

"Infringe" is not the word I would have used in any of those examples -- if you are using "infringe" that liberally, then the negative connotation usually associated with the word doesn't apply.
 
Last edited:

Evo

Mentor
22,872
2,349
If you think that abortion is not murder then fine, say that. But don't pretend that isn't what the "pro-lifers" are generally arguing. Even the phrase "pro-choice" is a denial to acknowledge what the issue is. :frown:
Of course I don't consider it murder. I'm pro-choice and I've heard plenty of rhetoric from "pro-lifers" (I work in an office of born again christians and actually, I can't remember a single one bringing up murder specifically. They bring up things like "if you have sex, then you should suffer the consequences". That God doesn't allow premarital sex, blah, blah, blah. It's about the fact that it goes against their moral and religious beliefs. They would allow the mother to be murdered to save a fetus that might not even live, such as in the case of when the unborn fetus is putting the mother's life in jeopardy. I'm not saying all are that bad, but a lot are.

And it is simply a choice to abort an embryo or non-viable fetus as far as I am concerned. And I'm for protecting that choice.

What really angers me is that they want to force all these women to have unwanted children, but they don't do anything about responsibility for that unwanted child. What do they think is going to happen to all of these unwanted children if abortion becomes illegal? And do they really think that making it illegal is going to stop abortion? It means the rich can afford to have it done privately and the poor will suffer at the hands of back alley abortonists.
 
377
0
Do you consider this different (in a relevant way) from it being illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, or to murder one's father, or to own a slave?
Yeah...
1. The yelling thing has a negative impact on a bunch of people.
2. The killing thing has a negative impact on your father.
3. The slave thing has a negative impact on the slave.

These are all people. They are all protected against such abuse. Again, it goes to the definition of "people", as I was talking about in post #51.


"Infringe" is not the word I would have used
You can replace it with "go against" if you don't like my wording.
 
The question has never been about whether "any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner" has rights. The question has always been whether or not "something that may become a human being eventually" has rights.

Incidentally, your statement is odd -- what if the woman wasn't contributing to society in a positive manner?
It's always been about that. No amount of "NYAH NYAH NYAH I'M NOT LISTENING!" Will make that go away. I grant it may never have been about that to you, and from your posts I am willing to believe that and I applaud you, but look around you man. If you consider the rights of a woman less important then, or even on par to, a pile of cells you really should take a good look about your arguement.

And I said "Any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner". It will probably seem like tricky semantics but just one is enough. Granted I'm of the opinion that the people who are genuinely contributing to huamnity in a truely positive manner are countable on one hand, but that makes them all the more important to me.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,300
1,906
"...a pile of cells...".

Good one.
 
2,903
13
It is a "pile of cells", nothing more. Im pro abortion all the way up to 18 years of age.
 

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
It's always been about that. No amount of "NYAH NYAH NYAH I'M NOT LISTENING!" Will make that go away. I grant it may never have been about that to you, and from your posts I am willing to believe that and I applaud you, but look around you man. If you consider the rights of a woman less important then, or even on par to, a pile of cells you really should take a good look about your arguement.

And I said "Any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner". It will probably seem like tricky semantics but just one is enough. Granted I'm of the opinion that the people who are genuinely contributing to huamnity in a truely positive manner are countable on one hand, but that makes them all the more important to me.
Your position is that rights can only exist for one pile of cells? Either the adult pile of cells or the infant pile of cells. I think it's more about conflicting rights. Having to carry someone around in your body is a major imposition on a woman's rights, but doesn't have as big an impact on her rights as abortion has on a fetus. Forcing a boater to tow a stranded boat back to shore even if the tow will take so long the boater has to cancel his fishing trip is an imposition on the boater's rights, but it is international maritime law (although losing a day of fishing is obviously not on a par with pregnancy - and nations have definitely pushed to edge of maritime law and beyond when the stranded boat is full of refugees that no one particularly wants).

It really is two issues: when does a person officially become human and have some rights and how do you handle the conflict between two people's rights when they're in opposition to each other.

By the way, if you think that out of 6.6 billion people, only a million or less are contributing positively, you have a pretty dim view of humanity.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
I think it's more about conflicting rights.
That is part of it. The other part is what rights or recognition society gives to a fetus, which basically comes down to the question "when does a human being become a human being".

Having to carry someone around in your body is a major imposition on a woman's rights, . . .
not to mention the imposition on a woman's health and safety.

Abstinence or celibacy would seem to be an optimal solution to abortion problem, but does anyone wish to have their personal sexuality regulated by some government institution?
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
It's always been about that. No amount of "NYAH NYAH NYAH I'M NOT LISTENING!" Will make that go away.
The discussion has never been about that because (essentially) everyone already agrees with that.

One of the points disagreed upon is
If you consider the rights of a woman less important then, or even on par to, a pile of cells you really should take a good look about your arguement.
which is an entirely different question.
 
377
0
Hurkyl: I tried to respond to your PM a few times without success. It's alright though, I think the main points we wanted to make have been made already. But tell me if you wanted me to directly address a specific section and I will.
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
728
It is a "pile of cells", nothing more. Im pro abortion all the way up to 18 years of age.
http://datacore.sciflicks.com/soylent_green/sounds/soylent_green_people.wav" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your position is that rights can only exist for one pile of cells? Either the adult pile of cells or the infant pile of cells. . . .


. . .By the way, if you think that out of 6.6 billion people, only a million or less are contributing positively, you have a pretty dim view of humanity.
No, I mean a blastocyst is literally a pile of cells. The adult at least has some interanal logic to the arrangement of their cells but a blastocyst/zygote is a gooey ball of organic mush that just so happens to have the ability to possibly become a human being one day if everyting lines up just right, and it doesn't more often then it does. To give something full human rights when what makes us human is not only not present but physically impossible for it to have, at the expense of someone who has actually could be gloriusly human, stickes me as a bad parody.


As for my views on humanity, yes. Most of us- and I include myself in this- are greedy, prejudical, self-deluded, stupid apes who spend their days clawing and raping their way to the top of a the pile of **** they've turned into just so they can do it again tomarrow.

But at least the joke that is life has one of those uplifting punchlines. Scattered throughout the species are the human beings that make it all worth it. The ones who really dream and think, who refuse to let petty prejudices fears and prejudices make their decisions for them. The ones who make the world better just by existing. These are the people that are gloriously human, and the funniest part is they are so rare and will look so normal that you miss them if you blink. And I'll be damned if one of them suffers because one of you have a near-sexual fixation of a formless blob.
 

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
No, I mean a blastocyst is literally a pile of cells. The adult at least has some interanal logic to the arrangement of their cells but a blastocyst/zygote is a gooey ball of organic mush that just so happens to have the ability to possibly become a human being one day if everyting lines up just right, and it doesn't more often then it does. To give something full human rights when what makes us human is not only not present but physically impossible for it to have, at the expense of someone who has actually could be gloriusly human, stickes me as a bad parody.


As for my views on humanity, yes. Most of us- and I include myself in this- are greedy, prejudical, self-deluded, stupid apes who spend their days clawing and raping their way to the top of a the pile of **** they've turned into just so they can do it again tomarrow.

But at least the joke that is life has one of those uplifting punchlines. Scattered throughout the species are the human beings that make it all worth it. The ones who really dream and think, who refuse to let petty prejudices fears and prejudices make their decisions for them. The ones who make the world better just by existing. These are the people that are gloriously human, and the funniest part is they are so rare and will look so normal that you miss them if you blink. And I'll be damned if one of them suffers because one of you have a near-sexual fixation of a formless blob.
That's a pretty good argument about why very early term abortions should be legal - which is why at least part of the argument has to focus on when a fetus turns into a human.

(And actually looking at most abortion laws, I'd change my answer saying I prefer stricter abortion laws. It would depend on the particular laws in a given state. Most are already pretty strict and I'd probably favor slightly less strict laws in some cases, such as serious defects that will prevent the fetus from ever developing into a productive adult, for example. Most are probably in a reasonable ball park, requiring some adjustments one way or the other. My prevalent attitude tends to be against abortion with exceptions requiring justification.)
 

Evo

Mentor
22,872
2,349
I wonder, how many of the few that want abortions to be illegal are women that might someday be in a situation where they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy? I wonder if they were faced with carrying an unwanted child to term if they might not change their minds.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,300
1,906
I wonder, how many of the few that want abortions to be illegal are women that might someday be in a situation where they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy? I wonder if they were faced with carrying an unwanted child to term if they might not change their minds.
Quite true.

Though I'm not sure that it's in everybody's best interest to promote opinion-by-personal-experience. In that sense "how would you feel if you were..." is a form of ad hominem fallacy. It means those who will never be in that sitch can dismiss the argument outright is non-applicable.

What we really want is an argument that holds up in objective circumstances (such as one that those who never can or will have face that decision can support).

But I think you're right. I'll bet 90% of the pro-lifers either can't or don't plan to be in a sitch where they might be faced with that choice.
 
Sure. Do you really expect that after freely admitting (boasting, even?) that you embrace Nietzsche's or Hobb's morality that one would then believe you give a damn about protecting anything other than yourself?
You missed the whole point. The whole damn point went right over your head. I didn't embrace ****, I don't admit anything that can touch Nietzsche with a stick. I hate feeling this way, I hate being such a black hearted cynic all the ****ing time, I WANT TO BE WRONG. The only thing this view has going for it is that as far as I can tell it's the truth. But there's the one person in a million who blows right past my cynicism and they are worth the price I paid for admission on this ****ty ride the rest of the human race has set up.

And really, if you're willing to write off and demonize a fellow human being because of a way something they wrote can be interpretted, irregardless of what they actually ment, then what does that say about you?
 
48
0
I'll take a map.
 
Quite true.

Though I'm not sure that it's in everybody's best interest to promote opinion-by-personal-experience. In that sense "how would you feel if you were..." is a form of ad hominem fallacy. It means those who will never be in that sitch can dismiss the argument outright is non-applicable.

What we really want is an argument that holds up in objective circumstances (such as one that those who never can or will have face that decision can support).

But I think you're right. I'll bet 90% of the pro-lifers either can't or don't plan to be in a sitch where they might be faced with that choice.
There's a joke in my circle of friends.

Please keep that joke within your circle of friends

The best part is I've only seen one exception to this rule, and even then it's only if she doesn't talk because she's a home-school fundie that I probably couldn't stand to be in the same room with for more then a couple minutes anyway. That 20 year old who's leading a campaign to force Colorado to have fertilized eggs full human status. If she gets the 76,000 signitures she needs on her petition there's a good chance I'll became an hero but I freely admit that I would hit that.


(Sorry for the double post, I thought the natures of the posts were so different that it warrented it.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alfi

"You are, in my opinion, killing another human being for your own benefit."


Ah ?? - is that not just a broad definition of the purpose of the military?

baby killing from 40,000 feet sort of thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
Well, if I ever get caught robbing a bank, I'd want the robbing of banks to be legalized, too, but that isn't a good argument for doing so.

For the record, I said yes to:

Making abortion illegal - If you've been here for more than a year or so, then you know in incredible depth why I feel this way.

Strong environmental protection laws - Tops on the agenda would be doing something about agricultural runoff into floodplains and rivers, tougher mandates regarding green building in the general plans of cities, restoration and protection of coastal wetlands, and a required commitment for all water districts to put in place strong agency policies that curb water demand, especially in agricultural districts, as metropolitan districts have actually already been doing a pretty good job of this.

Mostly unregulated imports and trades - Lower the domestic corporate tax to reduce the incentive for offshoring and eliminate all protective tariffs, especially sugar tariffs.

Elimination of the national debt - This needs to be qualified because Ivan is right that deficit spending isn't always a bad thing. It needs to be more carefully used, though. Using it as part of a stimulus package is one thing, or to fund infrastructure improvements, basic research, and other things that make the economy stronger in the long term, but when "interest on the national debt" is one of the largest line-items on the federal budget, that isn't a good thing. You risk running a permanent deficit and going bankrupt a la Orange County in the 90s.

That was all. I'd certainly support massive tax code overhauls, but the above statements are far too general to know what I'm supporting in this case.
 

Art

Be simpler just to give all women (or men if feasible) of child bearing age a birth control implant so that pregnancy becomes an opt in rather than an opt out issue, that would decrease the number of abortions dramatically :smile:
 
26
3
Yes, quite vague, but that never stopped me before. I support the following:

Abortion made illegal
Amnesty for illegal aliens
Strong environmental protection laws
Mostly unregulated imports and trade
Throw out the existing tax structure
Increase taxes on the rich
Interesting combination. You obviously are an independent thinker....
 
686
0
For me it was

Environmental protection -- Global Warming or not, protecting the environment is important. I like my air with nitrogen and oxygen, not smog and car farts, okay?

Getting rid of the national debt -- I assume this meant taking steps to paying back what we owe to other countries. I really hate interest rates, unless they're in my favor. Here they are not, so we need to focus on getting rid of this.

Throw out existing tax structure -- a layperson cannot possibly understand the current tax system to its fullest, and neither can most accountants. It is FUBAR. Get rid of it and start over.

Increase tax on the rich -- Reaganomics don't work, sorry. Rich people are just as stupid as poor people. Instead of investing, they buy an expensive car and total it. You might as well give poor people money for food instead of giving rich people money to buy a bigger boat. And if you don't want to give it directly to poor people, then extend scholarships, student loans, and military benefits/salaries. Surely we can all agree to that?
 

Related Threads for: What do you support?

Replies
125
Views
13K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
206
Views
16K
Replies
67
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Top