[Suits]

This popped up on my Facebook feed today.



Why is it so difficult for women and their beta orbiter supporters to understand that if you make it OK for women to murder their young, it is hard to explain why crimes that don't end in death are not OK as well?

[Snowplow]

Wow just wow. What an interesting view. I never actually thought about it in that sense. Not saying forcing yourself is the way to do it, but it makes you think.

[cardguy]

That is a new one on me.

I don't think it makes sense though since it ducks the issue of whether or not an unborn baby has the same human rights as a living person.

[j r]

I'm pro-choice. I guess that makes me a beta orbiter. Oh well.

[ddjembe mutombo]

(04-01-2014 04:18 PM)j r Wrote:  

I'm pro-choice. I guess that makes me a beta orbiter. Oh well.

Hey man! Why don't you go mouth breath around some women? Go on! Get!




On a more serious note, this is definitely a radical view. Then again, abortion and gay rights really on the top of my to-do list.

[Suits]

He's stupid for saying something like that, even if it was years and years ago, but I can see the point that he is trying to make. If you believe that a fetus with a beating heart is a human being, how is abortion any better than rape? It is just a case of a more powerful person taking advantage of a less powerful person.

Personally, I'm pro-choice as well. I believe that women should have the right to not engage in activities that have a chance of creating life, just like I believe that men should have that choice as well.

I believe that men and women should be obligated to participate in caring for life that they helped create whether they intended to or not.

I don't believe that men should pay money into the pocket of any woman that they knock up. I believe that any child support provided must be used to purchase items for the child in question with receipts to back it up.

Legally speaking, I'm not in favour of a total ban on a woman's decision to carry a child to term, as that would set a bad constitutional precedent in my opinion, but once the fetus in a viable being, I think anything that harms its health should be considered a crime, unless it is a question of the comparative health of the mother. Of course, this only happens 99.9999% of the time.

As a member of the male side of the species, I can see how it would be convenient for a woman you accidentally knocked up to choose an abortion.

It is a complicated debate and there are already some great threads on the topic. The Facebook discussion that I posted above is here simply to illustrate the inane dedication to the "abortion is always the woman's prerogative" movement.

[tomtud]

There are thousands of couples and individuals who cannot conceive and want to adopt. Every organism wants to live, well mostly everybody without any mental disorders want to live. How can somebody have the courage to kill an innocent person? A baby will not harm you, why kill it? Give it out for adoption. Maybe you can make some money if you are interested in that. Reading stories of women who've had abortions mostly come to the conclusion that they mostly regret it. Pro choice NO, it's another human being killing another. Who has the voice to speak for the unborn child? Anyways, it's my opinion. Everybody has their own point of view.

As for the thread, well I get his point, he could've used a less sensitive comparison to make his point.

[j r]

(04-01-2014 04:57 PM)Suits Wrote:  

He's stupid for saying something like that, even if it was years and years ago, but I can see the point that he is trying to make. If you believe that a fetus with a beating heart is a human being, how is abortion any better than rape? It is just a case of a more powerful person taking advantage of a less powerful person.

This is exactly where I disagree. I used to be pro-life, so I know the arguments in favor of that position. What this guys says is both rhetorically stupid and logically inane. There are much better pro-life arguments that don't bring rape analogies into play. Once you make a statement like that, no one wants to hear what you say next. So why say it?

Also, almost all "if you allow A that means you have to justify B" arguments are just plain wrong. The arguments in favor of abortion have nothing to do with "superior strength" or the use of force. The pro-choice argument is that a fetus isn't a person yet and, therefore, not entitled to the legal protections that we extend to people. If you want to argue for the sanctity of life starting at conception, then argue that point. What this guy says is completely sophomoric.

[Suits]

(04-01-2014 06:17 PM)j r Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 04:57 PM)Suits Wrote:  

He's stupid for saying something like that, even if it was years and years ago, but I can see the point that he is trying to make. If you believe that a fetus with a beating heart is a human being, how is abortion any better than rape? It is just a case of a more powerful person taking advantage of a less powerful person.

This is exactly where I disagree. I used to be pro-life, so I know the arguments in favor of that position. What this guys says is both rhetorically stupid and logically inane. There are much better pro-life arguments that don't bring rape analogies into play. Once you make a statement like that, no one wants to hear what you say next. So why say it?

Also, almost all "if you allow A that means you have to justify B" arguments are just plain wrong. The arguments in favor of abortion have nothing to do with "superior strength" or the use of force. The pro-choice argument is that a fetus isn't a person yet and, therefore, not entitled to the legal protections that we extend to people. If you want to argue for the sanctity of life starting at conception, then argue that point. What this guy says is completely sophomoric.

Obviously both rape and murder are wrong, and from his (most likely religious) perspective, life does start at conception. I personally don't tend to wade into these debates, because I'm not sure when I think life does begin.

But you can bet that this one phrase was probably cherry-picked from a larger statement on the issue.

For him, abortion = murder.

If we suddenly legalized murder of ten year old children by their parents, you would be hearing comment's similar to Lockman's that point out the absurdity of such a legalization.

i.e. "If murder of ten year olds is OK, why don't we just start hacking the hands off of shoplifters?"

[soup]

Beta orbiter here as well ..

[Days of Broken Arrows]

It's because the fetus is part of the woman's body, and hence "hers." At least as defined by law. When you rape, you're invading another body. Same goes for when you kill a woman's fetus. She can kill it, but you can't, by law.

A better moral question to pose would be: If a woman has a right to an abortion, why can't a conjoined twin kill his or her attached twin?

[j r]

(04-01-2014 06:42 PM)Suits Wrote:  

If we suddenly legalized murder of ten year old children by their parents, you would be hearing comment's similar to Lockman's that point out the absurdity of such a legalization.

i.e. "If murder of ten year olds is OK, why don't we just start hacking the hands off of shoplifters?"

This is what I'm talking about. That argument doesn't make any sense and it's not going to convince anyone who feels the other way or who is even on the fence. There are much better pro-life arguments to make that don't depend on outlandish hypotheticals.

[Sawyer]

I don't get into whether abortion is spiritually right or wrong. When I get into it with a pro-abortion woman I tell her I don't give a crap if she wants to have ten abortions, bring them home and roll around with them in her basement. I don't care if she wants to have a "black market" provider clinic. If I were a prosecutor and I wasn't getting outraged community members demanding I shut it down I would use my discretion and turn the other way.

But Constitutional abortion has fucked with the commons in a way that it was nothing less than the beginning of the end of the USA.

Constitutional abortion has been a disaster.

[porscheguy]

I'd rather pay for an abortion than pay child support.

[Sawyer]

Would you sacrifice a republic on the altar of license?

Right now, today. Would you do it?

[j r]

(04-01-2014 08:50 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  

Would you sacrifice a republic on the altar of license?

Right now, today. Would you do it?

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Sawyer]

(04-01-2014 09:04 PM)j r Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 08:50 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  

Would you sacrifice a republic on the altar of license?

Right now, today. Would you do it?

What the fuck are you talking about?

So that's one "yes."

[lskdfjldsf]

I'm pro-life until men have the right to opt out of child support payments. It's your body, it's our wallets.

Put in a broader context, abortion is partially responsible for the breakdown of the nuclear family by allowing women to avoid commitment and responsibility. This drives promiscuous behavior and poor reproductive decision making, while framing men as sperm donors rather than potential fathers (as if feminism itself hasn't done this enough already)

I'm hoping someone here can clarify how it's possible to be both a red pill traditionalist and pro-choice advocate at the same time.

[j r]

Who said anything about being a red pill traditionalist? I'm one of the guys who came to this board to talk about travel and chasing tail. I don't really buy into all this decline of western civilization stuff.

Also, being red pill and being a traditionalist are two different things.

[CactusCat589]

(04-01-2014 09:07 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 09:04 PM)j r Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 08:50 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  

Would you sacrifice a republic on the altar of license?

Right now, today. Would you do it?

What the fuck are you talking about?

So that's one "yes."

This doesn't make sense. What is 'altar of license'? Is this some literary reference I don't recognize?

[All or Nothing]

(04-01-2014 06:17 PM)j r Wrote:  

This is exactly where I disagree. I used to be pro-life, so I know the arguments in favor of that position. What this guys says is both rhetorically stupid and logically inane. There are much better pro-life arguments that don't bring rape analogies into play. Once you make a statement like that, no one wants to hear what you say next. So why say it?

My question here is, why does someone have to be pro-choice or pro-life?

Why can't we take a reasonable balanced approach to abortion?

Personally, I agree with the pretense that the Roe vs. Wade set.

In the first trimester the woman should have 100% choice.

In the second trimester it becomes a matter between the woman and the state.

In the third trimester, the woman loses all say in whether or not she can abort the fetus. The fetus can only be aborted if it is to save the mother's life.

The further along the woman is in pregnancy, the less control she should have over whether or not she aborts because the fetus is getting closer and closer to becoming a fully formed human being.

[2Wycked]

(04-01-2014 10:39 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 06:17 PM)j r Wrote:  

This is exactly where I disagree. I used to be pro-life, so I know the arguments in favor of that position. What this guys says is both rhetorically stupid and logically inane. There are much better pro-life arguments that don't bring rape analogies into play. Once you make a statement like that, no one wants to hear what you say next. So why say it?

My question here is, why does someone have to be pro-choice or pro-life?

Why can't we take a reasonable balanced approach to abortion?

Personally, I agree with the pretense that the Roe vs. Wade set.

In the first trimester the woman should have 100% choice.

In the second trimester it becomes a matter between the woman and the state.

In the third trimester, the woman loses all say in whether or not she can abort the fetus. The fetus can only be aborted if it is to save the mother's life.

The further along the woman is in pregnancy, the less control she should have over whether or not she aborts because the fetus is getting closer and closer to becoming a fully formed human being.

Yeah, why does it have to be an all or nothing affair?

[Suits]

(04-01-2014 10:39 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 06:17 PM)j r Wrote:  

This is exactly where I disagree. I used to be pro-life, so I know the arguments in favor of that position. What this guys says is both rhetorically stupid and logically inane. There are much better pro-life arguments that don't bring rape analogies into play. Once you make a statement like that, no one wants to hear what you say next. So why say it?

My question here is, why does someone have to be pro-choice or pro-life?

Why can't we take a reasonable balanced approach to abortion?

Personally, I agree with the pretense that the Roe vs. Wade set.

In the first trimester the woman should have 100% choice.

In the second trimester it becomes a matter between the woman and the state.

In the third trimester, the woman loses all say in whether or not she can abort the fetus. The fetus can only be aborted if it is to save the mother's life.

The further along the woman is in pregnancy, the less control she should have over whether or not she aborts because the fetus is getting closer and closer to becoming a fully formed human being.

While morally I'm opposed to abortion, legally, this seems like a good compromise and a lot of states have something along these lines.

[Samseau]

There is no denying that banning abortion would lead to a more traditional society.

[Sweet Jones]

Personally for me I'm morally opposed to abortion. I say personally, but I don't mean to say 'hey I'm against abortion, but it's okay for other people to go and abort', it is definitely not okay. Literally the only potential benefit of abortion is that it could be removing criminals and other drains on society from existence before they have the chance to grow up

I also think it's fairly humorous that while leftists often pride themselves on being 'progressive' and 'modern' and a step forward from 'the dark ages' or however they'd like to pejoratively refer to older times, abortion is one of the most obvious throwbacks to long forgotten barbaric practices from the actual dark ages.