HOME | DD

Breloomish In reply to MihTimak [2018-06-16 13:42:53 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LastMinuteDotCom In reply to aquajetwarrior [2016-04-28 10:34:56 +0000 UTC]

It's not just in America, kids in the UK are becoming more and more disrespectful, and adults are over sensitive to everything. Parents seem to be the worst for it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

aquajetwarrior In reply to LastMinuteDotCom [2016-05-01 12:54:38 +0000 UTC]

Really? That is terrible.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Astrall99 In reply to Rodegas [2016-02-18 06:54:14 +0000 UTC]

Yes,you and all other fundies should leave,seeing as you completely useless now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rodegas In reply to Astrall99 [2016-02-18 20:15:41 +0000 UTC]

sorry, aren't your family members like starving or something?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Astrall99 In reply to Rodegas [2016-02-19 04:44:42 +0000 UTC]

Not really.My father is a high ranked hydrologist in Cahora Bassa,so he earns his salary in dollars.So my family is very well fed(something people get right away)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rodegas In reply to Astrall99 [2016-02-20 17:11:52 +0000 UTC]

good for you

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Astrall99 In reply to Rodegas [2016-02-20 19:25:52 +0000 UTC]

Very good indeed

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Breloomish In reply to PurrtyFlower [2018-06-16 13:42:02 +0000 UTC]

Abortion should be a crime with the same severity as killing a born baby.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Orphically In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-09-01 02:10:58 +0000 UTC]

No, but I believe that constricting them and not allowing a choice for different viewpoints other than one person's is disturbing. Nobody is entirely objective, and that's understandable; but there's a massive difference between giving someone a choice on what they can and cannot do with their bodily-autonomy and stripping it all away under the guise of morality or subject beliefs. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to Orphically [2016-09-01 10:36:49 +0000 UTC]

"Under the guise". Do you honestly think this some sort of conspiracy against women? That our believe in the evils of abortion are selfish? That it's impossible we may honestly believe in the right of the unborn child to live?
Viewpoints be damned, murder is murder. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Orphically In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-09-01 11:49:04 +0000 UTC]

I'm not offering my body for nine months so a fetus can become a prospective child. And considering your viewpoints and what your profile says, I can assume that you're a cisgender male? I don't understand why the majority of old white men are allowed to make decisions about reproductive rights that don't concern them. It's like black people dictating whether white people are allowed the right to use sunscreen - no correlation or sense whatsoever. If you are not a cisgender male, sorry for the assumption; but regardless of who you are, you believe fetuses deserve more rights than any born human being and think it's perfectly okay to afford pregnant people less than a corpse retains. That in itself is ridiculous. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to Orphically [2016-09-02 07:27:09 +0000 UTC]

I'm not old.
Sunscreen and human rights are entirely unrelated.
Though I am what you would consider a cisgender male, what the fuck does it matter?
I don't think fetuses deserve more rights than humans. They are humans and therefore deserve equal rights as humans. The fact I am not a woman has no bearing on whether or not I get a say. Murder, regardless of who is concerned, matters to all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

catz537 In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-11-03 01:57:13 +0000 UTC]

"I don't think fetuses deserve more rights than humans. They are humans and therefore deserve equal rights as humans."
Remember me? You know, it's funny; I was just re-reading our conversation from last February/March under this same stamp (it's below). And in that conversation, you seemed to be vehemently arguing that some people don't deserve equal rights if other people's morals come into conflict with everyone having the same rights. Yet here, you say fetuses deserve equal rights to born people, even if other people's morals (namely, the women's - the people that this decision DIRECTLY AFFECTS) come into conflict with that. 

Anyway, if you truly believe that fetuses deserve equal rights, fine. But before we get into this again, please clearly define what you mean by "equal rights." If you mean that everyone, including fetuses, should have the *same* rights, then that would mean that fetuses deserve the right to bodily autonomy, correct? Because born people have that right. (For the sake of this argument and trying my best to explain this with your point of view in mind, I will ignore the fact that fetuses do not have complete bodies). The right to bodily autonomy is basically defined as everyone having control over who or what uses their body, what their body is being used for, and the length of time their body is being used for. Bodily autonomy dictates that the person whose body is being used can withdraw consent to the use of their body at any time, for any reason - even at the cost of an unborn OR a born life (this is why, for example, it is acceptable for a woman to kill a man who is trying to rape her in self-defense; rape violates the right to bodily autonomy). So, to be more clear: the "right to life" argument doesn't work here if you want to argue that everyone should have the same (equal) rights, because even for born people, someone else's right to bodily autonomy trumps another person's right to life. So, if fetuses were equal, then someone else's right to bodily autonomy would trump the right to life for them as well. 

Imagine this scenario:
You deliberately run me over with your car and as a result I need to use someone else's body parts (I need an organ donation) in order to live. In other words, if you do not allow me to use your body (organs), I will die. Making a decision to run over someone does not mean that you consented to giving up your body (organs) so that the person you deliberately ran over will live, and I cannot legally force you to donate your organ(s) to me. That's because you legally have a right to bodily autonomy, just like everyone else does. Remember, I still have the right to bodily autonomy too. It just happens that I am not the one whose body is at risk of being used without my consent in this scenario. And, because my right to life does NOT legally trump your right to bodily autonomy, it is acceptable for you to refuse to give up your organs to save my life. 

Now imagine a scenario that is identical to the one above if everyone, born and unborn, has the EQUAL RIGHT to bodily autonomy:
A woman deliberately has sex and unwillingly becomes pregnant, and as a result the fetus needs to use someone else's body parts (it needs a womb) in order to live. In other words, if she does not allow the fetus to use her body (womb), the fetus will die. Making a decision to have sex does not mean that she consented to giving up her body (womb) so that the fetus she unwillingly created will live, and the fetus cannot legally force her to donate her womb to it. That's because she legally has a right to bodily autonomy, just like everyone else does. Remember, the fetus still has the right to bodily autonomy too. It just happens that the fetus is not the one whose body is at risk of being used without its consent in this scenario. And, because the fetus's right to life does NOT legally trump the pregnant woman's right to bodily autonomy, it is acceptable for her to refuse to give up her womb to save its life. 

In case you couldn't tell, I used the example that you *deliberately* ran me over with your car for comparison because so many pro lifers seem to believe that a woman who deliberately has sex should "expect to give up her body parts (womb)" because she "knew what was coming and needs to deal with the consequences" since "killing is wrong." But then, if I applied that same logic to the first scenario, I would be able to say that you should "expect to give up your body parts (organs)" because you "knew what was coming and need to deal with the consequences" since "killing is wrong." Basically, the common pro life argument is that the only people who should ever have to face the consequences of their actions are women, and only if the action was having sex. So this moral rule that "you must face the consequences" supposedly only applies in the case of either preserving a fetal life or allowing a pregnant woman's Constitutional right to bodily autonomy. But in any other case involving someone's right to life and another person's right to bodily autonomy, the right to bodily autonomy legally and often morally wins out every time.

So, in our conversation below (the one from February/March), you tell me that Constitutional rights and laws should always be upheld and never broken, because the "potential damage" to the people could be worse than the good things that immediately occur after the law(s) is (are) broken. And so I'm curious: Do you still hold this belief when it comes to the Constitutional right to bodily autonomy, and the legality of abortion? Do you think that the law stating women have a right to safe abortions should not be broken? 

And my last question is this: After being presented with the fact that the right to bodily autonomy legally trumps the right to life for all born people in all cases, do you still believe that fetuses should be granted a special exception? Do you believe that only fetuses, and no one else, should have their right to life trump others' right to bodily autonomy? And do you believe that only pregnant women, and no one else, should have their right to bodily autonomy compromised to allow a fetus's rights to trump a pregnant woman's? And if so, why? Because that would not be granting fetuses equal rights, which was what you said you wanted to give them in your quote at the beginning of my comment. It would be granting them special privileges that no born person has.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to catz537 [2016-11-03 03:50:26 +0000 UTC]

          Never stated anything along those lines. I said its bullshit to deprive people of their rights to support a given political belief based on their own perception of the morality of that political belief. 
Murder of an innocent DIRECTLY AFFECTS everybody. 

          I don't believe in bodily autonomy because the phrase exists solely to justify abortion. This isn't to say I don't believe in human rights that regard to one's person, simply that said appellation is inherently useless because they pertain to what Pro-Choicers believe to be a woman's rights.
Human beings, in my opinion, must give aid to anybody whose life will be lost should they rescind such aid. If that means they dedicate nine months of life to the individual in question, so be it. 
          Rape violates her rights as a human being. This predates the very concept of bodily autonomy because it is simply moral fact. To slay the rapist in the midst or to prevent the deed, is justifiable. Rape does not, however, justify the murder of anyone after the fact. Be it the rapist or a child resulting from the assault, murdering them is simply not an action that anyone can in good conscience allow. While I can accept that some may argue with me regarding the matter of what the rapist's fate ought to be, that is neither here nor there and I suffer no doubts in regards to the child's right to life. 

       It is the obligation of any given human being to do whatever they can to protect any given human life. By endangering that innocent's human life, you intertwined their life with your own. If they die not only because of your negligence as a driver, but also because of your apathy to their suffering, you are a murderer twice over. 

        Horseshit. Consent to sex is consent to anything resulting from sex. I'm expected to believe women can make decisions about their bodies, when what those very rights entail are resulting from an inability or even refusal to take responsibility for their own actions. 

        The rights of the life endangered always trump the rights of those whose life isn't. The fact one has health insurance shouldn't mean they receive preferential treatment to someone who is dying without it. 

        To my knowledge, there are no amendments to the Constitution which refute the idea that the unborn are humans. So no, it is not a Constitutional right, nor do I believe that the ruling Roe vs. Wade was legitimate. Nor do I believe the very concept of bodily autonomy is any more than a political slogan used to appropriate the cry of human rights to a political movement which at it's very core in anathema to any true humanitarian. 
Does bodily autonomy win? Legally? Yes. Morally? No. A fallacy does not cease to be a fallacy because it has become a fashion.
On both counts, the one endangering the life is in the wrong, as one who endangers human life always is.
        I am Pro-Life. I believe human life is the most sacred thing in the world. I will never choose a scenario wherein a human's life is valued less than anything short of at least two human lives. Unless the life in question is that a murderer in which case their fate is something I am more ambivalent towards. 

       My belief in regards to general governance is thus: The law is not simply what the latest set of assholes we've put in power have decided to legislate. Nevertheless, one ought to obey the law of the land and encourage other to do the same for so long as the law ensures the rights and protections of it's citizens. When the laws ceases to do this, it ceases to be law. This does not mean one is freed from one's obligations to their fellow man. The fact the government has lost it's legitimacy does not mean one may freely take human life, or deprive one's fellow man of their rightful property. It does, however, mean that one may take the life of one knowingly and willingly enforcing the government which deprives it's people of their rights, so long as their is no potential alternative. It means one may take property from one who profits from the government's abuses of it's people. So no, I do not see any inherent obligation to provide women with abortions..
       Of course that whole paragraph was wholly pointless because it has no bearing on the legal facts of the matter. The Constitution does not say that women are entitled to the availability of abortions. It does not say that I may not advocate for legislature defining when the unborn becomes a human being. It does not say that I am obligated to give a portion of my taxes so that some chick can have her baby's brain vacuumed out. Most importantly, it does not say that if another case pertaining abortion "rights" comes before the Supreme Court, that the Judges may rule that abortion in unconstitutional. 

       I should first and foremost reiterate that I neither believe "bodily autonomy" exists nor that it or anything else trumps human life.
       You didn't show any fact. You made an opinion of yours known. You did so without any moral considerations, and in doing so betrayed the fact you are woefully unfamiliar with the very rights you claim to uphold.
No one has any rights when the use of those rights would compromise any other human beings' right to life.

       Here's my question: why do you presume that I believe bodily autonomy trumps anything? Why do you think I believe the unborn should be entitled to certain rights when I verbatim said they are entitle to the same rights as all human beings? And most importantly: Why do you think bodily autonomy is a concept that has bearing outside any arguments specifically regarding abortion "rights"?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

catz537 In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-11-06 04:03:48 +0000 UTC]

 I said its bullshit to deprive people of their rights to support a given political belief based on their own perception of the morality of that political belief. 

You believe it's bullshit to deprive people of their rights to support a political belief based on their moral beliefs, yet you support depriving women of their rights based on your moral beliefs. Huh. A bit hypocritical, don't ya think? 

Murder of an innocent DIRECTLY AFFECTS everybody.
Oh, please. Explain to me how abortion "directly affects" anyone other than the woman who got the abortion. Because you're wrong. It literally only directly affects the woman who was pregnant. Actually, here's a list of the ways that forcing a woman to remain pregnant either has the potential to  - or always does - directly affect and hurt her:
Any time a woman becomes pregnant, she is at risk of the following, and pro-lifers are forcing her to face these - usually inevitable - risks: 

Nausea.
Constipation.
Sore and tender breasts.
Risk of vomiting all day long.
Being unable to eat one's favorite foods without vomiting.
Indigestion and heartburn (sometimes extreme).
Braxton Hicks.
Depression.
Anxiety.
Constant emotional pain, crying, etc.
Fatigue.
Looking, feeling, and being overweight and bloated.
Insomnia.
Having to urinate constantly.
The unbearable pain of childbirth and possibly death, since childbirth is significantly more likely to kill a woman than abortion is 

Pro-lifers are also forcing pregnant people to go through with these possible serious risks:

Hyperemesis gravidarum
Temporary and permanent injury to back
Severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
Dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
Pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
Eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
Gestational diabetes
Placenta previa
Anemia (which can be life-threatening)
Thrombocytopenic purpura
Severe cramping
Embolism (blood clots)
Medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
Diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
Mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
Serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
Hormonal imbalance
Ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
Broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
Hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery
Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
Aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
Severe post-partum depression and psychosis
Research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors and also indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy, and indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to catz537 [2016-11-06 17:10:22 +0000 UTC]

The point in that argument was that you can't trump the Constitution because your personal beliefs dictate it. I'm not doing or advocating anything which would require the Constitution or the Bill of Rights being ignored. 

"Oh, please. Explain to me how abortion "directly affects" anyone other than the woman who got the abortion. Because you're wrong. It literally only directly affects the woman who was pregnant"
As the Reverend Doctor King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Or something along those lines. The point is, right and wrong have nothing to do with how something affects me, personally, it has to do with whether or not what is done is morally right or wrong.

"Bodily autonomy is included in the 14th Amendment"
No. It is not. The abolition of slavery is in the Constitution. Pregnancy is not slavery. Being expected to take responsibility for your actions is not slavery. If anything, the child's rights are being violated without due process. I will reiterate for the last time, the phrase and the concept of bodily autonomy do not precede the abortions "rights" movement.

"So what you're saying is that in the first scenario I presented you with, you would give up your organs because you think it would be wrong of you to let me die?"
Yes.
"Also, does this mean that if we had the technology to transplant fetuses from women's bodies into men's bodies, that would be acceptable to you?"
If it were possible then the unborn would be put in artificial wombs, to be carried to term.

"Rape violates her body, just like forcing a pregnancy on her does. And that's not an opinion. It's a fact. In both cases, her body is being used without her consent."
To violate suggest something unnatural. Rape is unnatural because it is the sexual act without the consent of the victim. I fail to see anyway which pregnancy, however, can be unnatural, and therefore a violation. 
"You cannot argue with me on that."
Oh you can bet your sorry fucking ass I can. The most intolerable thing about the whole Pro-Choice movement, is the arrogance to believe nobody will ever, in good conscience, argue with you when you have presented your opinions.
It is obvious that women who obtain abortions did not want the fetus there, and they were not consenting to its use of their bodies. And actually, no, rape does NOT predate the concept of bodily autonomy. It predates the phrase. People have always thought rape to be wrong because it violates someone's body without their consent. And, again, the definition of bodily autonomy is having the right to refuse to consent to others using your body. You're trying to tell me the two are different because you think there's a God who has a specific set of moral rules, and included in the list are "abortion is wrong" and "rape is wrong." But you can't logically argue that someone's body is only being violated against their will if they're being raped, because someone's body is also being violated against their will during an unwanted pregnancy.
That is five tons of horseshit and you know it. Bodily autonomy may dictate that, but not moral code I'm obligated to follow does. Any and all moral codes I adhere maintain the belief that the destruction of human life is the ultimate evil. No "right" may ever abridge that. No legislature will ever abolish that.
Again, this isn't an opinion. It's a fact. 
Oh it's a fact, is it? Stop fucking saying that. You decry my hypocrisy but are more than willing to play the moral absolutist, defending the murder of an innocent because "it's her body". Well answer me this, if she had so much respect for her body that she got knocked when she wan't ready for the consequences, why should I show so much respect for her, that she's able to defy the sacredness of human life for her own convenience? In short, she doesn't respect her own body, so neither will I.

"This contradicts your earlier statement that it would be okay to murder a rapist in self-defense. Though in your second sentence, you call it an innocent life, so I'll assume you mean it's only wrong to kill innocent lives.
Yes. Only innocents lives are obligated the protection which I have since advocated.
Aahhh, so you believe that in the first scenario, your action of deliberately running me over DOES translate to you accepting to give up your body parts to save my life? "
Essentially.

...So you believe that in the first scenario, your action of deliberately running me over DOES translate to accepting to give up your body parts to save my life? Also, does this mean that anyone who goes into a lake should not be saved if they start to drown? Because obviously, consenting to going in the water is consent to drowning, right? Just like there is a chance that you could drown if you go in the water, there is a chance that you could end up pregnant if you have sex (but only if you have a uterus and you're fertile, which, again, is why cis het men get off scott free and don't have to deal with shit if they don't want to). 
Drowning is an unforeseeable circumstance of swimming. Becoming pregnant by having sex is not.
I refute the use of the word "cis" because it implies there is another sort of person. I believe men should be held accountable, but at present it is harder to force a man to do his part than it is to make a woman carry their child to term. Not that the man shouldn't be punished or otherwise held accountable, but I simply am not aware of any tenable solutions.
But there being a chance of something happening does not mean that you consent to it happening. Also, it's always hilarious to me that so many pro lifers assume that all women who end up with unwanted pregnancies were "not taking responsibility for their actions." Whether you mean that you think none of them used birth control, or that you think it is somehow their "responsibility" to birth an unwanted child, even though the child would almost *certainly* not be financially and emotionally supported, wanted, or loved whether it was put in foster care or not after it was born (yeah, so responsible...),
More responsible than murder.
not everyone is able to take birth control (some people are allergic and may have serious reactions, some don't have access or money for it)
Because just not having sex is so fucking difficult.
and no one is obligated to deal with consequences that they did not want if they can change the outcome for their own mental and physical well-being/health.
I disagree entirely. Everyone is obligated to take responsibility of their actions, regardless of the consequences. If one person runs over another while drunk, they are not exempt because they were not capable of making a good decision. They should have made the decision not to get drunk in the first place, and thereby not endangered the victim's life.
(I talk about women improving their mental health because unwanted pregnancies have the same effects that torture does - globaldoctorsforchoice.org/wp-…  - so forcing pregnancy on women is classified as torture; a quote from the article: "The simple notion of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term becomes a kind of psychological torture for many women."
You will find articles on the Internet which say making white shopkeepers cater to Black customers is a violation of their civil rights. I don't give much of a damn what a bunch of Mengele-esque quacks have for opinions. 
Mental health risks: drastically higher levels of depression, anxiety, and self destructive behavior including suicidal tendencies in women with unwanted pregnancies and births compared to women with wanted pregnancies. And it's obvious how ending an unwanted pregnancy would improve one's physical health).  
The circumstances of the child's birth, I would imagine, play a hand in those factors as well, and I don't think those circumstances can be blamed upon the child.
Of course all those risks comes along with any birth. Along with any medication meant to decrease those effects.

I already gave you a link to the 14th Amendment, which makes it a Constitutional right, because it has been included, not only because of Roe v. Wade, but because of many cases involving abortion. Also, you "not believing in" Roe v. Wade doesn't mean anything. It still made abortion acceptable legally, and in our last conversation, you said you don't think the law should ever be broken because of the potential for more damage being done and the bad example it sets."
No, it doesn't. By that fucked up logic, a police officer injuring a criminal in an arrest can be charged with violations of the criminal's civil rights. 
As I said, you can't legislate right and wrong. And I didn't say "you should never violate the law." As a matter of fact I said something quite opposed to that. That bad example was referring to making laws which ignore the Constitution, which I count Roe v. Wade to be one of.

That's your opinion, but again, even without using that phrase, both forcing a pregnancy on someone and using sexual force on someone violate their body without their consent. And in both cases, it is legally acceptable for you to kill the person or fetus that is violating your body without your consent.
No one has pregnancy forced upon them. They may be force upon sexually, but the resultant pregnancy is not forced, least of all by the child. 
Again, "legally" acceptable. The law has sweet fuckall to do with right and wrong. Nothing the law says will ever stop me from opposing abortion, nothing the law says will make me think it's alright, nothing the latest set assholes in Congress say will ever alter the truth set within the Constitution, nor will I ever ignore their violations of my or anyone else's civil liberties.

That reminds me - women are not property. We are not incubators/objects to be used at the disposal of others, whether it be the government, sexual partners, or pro-lifers. We are not here solely for the purpose of sexually and domestically pleasing men and procreating. Women are people (and fetuses are not people) and we have the ability to suffer (and fetuses do not have the ability to suffer) and these things are outlined in my journal I linked above.
Why the fuck is it that everything is an assault on women to you? Is it really so unthinkable that I have moral beliefs, wholly independent of the situations and circumstances of the individuals in question? That I don't stop to consider the morality or murder based on the race or gender or sexual orientation of the perpetrator?
They do have the ability to suffer. And given they're being mutilated in the womb, they're the ones I hold empathy for. Again, this isn't an opinion. It's a fact. 

I've repeated this a couple of times now. It's included under the 14th Amendment.
No, it is not, if anything the practices of Planned Parenthood in relation to the Blacks in our country is evidence of how far we've fallen from the dreams of Thaddeus Stevens and Frederick Douglass. 
 Also, how fucking flattering - so that "some chick" can "have her baby's brain vacuumed out."
As I said, I don't respect them. Again, this isn't an opinion. It's a fact. 
 Okay, so a few things: your tax money doesn't go towards abortions anyway,
Tax money is allocated to Planned Parenthood clinics. Again, this isn't an opinion. It's a fact. 
babies do not "have their brains vacuumed out" during abortion procedures (and in fact babies are not even involved in abortion procedures; fetuses are),
Propaganda. Extermination vs. murder.  
and if you think it's unacceptable for taxes to be paying for healthcare *ABORTION IS HEALTHCARE,
The fuck it is! Poisoning a child in the womb is about as far from "caring" or involving "health" as I can think. Again, this isn't an opinion. It's a fact
and I explained why above already when I was talking about how damaging pregnancy and child birth are to the mental and physical health of women), then have fun not having healthcare.
I'm not responding to that because that is the "Argument from Adverse Consequences" fallacy.

I never thought that YOU really believed that bodily autonomy would trump anything, but I wanted to point out that legally, it does.
No, it does not. At present, a woman does have the legal right to obtain an abortion within a given time frame in the United States. But it is neither verbatim in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. As a result if, God willing, someone should bring a case to Supreme Court reexamining the personhood of the unborn and make a case which appeals to the Supreme Court, then abortion may well be outlawed.
And I wanted to present you with the logical reason for that. But you don't seem to be interested in the logic behind it, because you believe in moral absolutes, so even when there are logical reasons why your moral absolutes don't make sense, you continue to believe them
Someone who says, "it's fact" after every other sentence shouldn't bitch about somebody else's moral absolutism. I think my statements regarding the circumstances in which revolution is justified show I'm not a moral absolutist. I simply don't believe there is any justification for the murder of the unborn. Here's another thing, how can you possibly be so arrogant as to think the fact I disagree with you means I must be some kind of zealot?
That's the thing about faith. You have an undying loyalty to it, no matter how little sense it makes or how much evidence there is against some of the beliefs that the faithful have. 
That's the thing ain't it-there is no scientific argument you can make for morality. So all your "logic" is just as full of shit as my faith is. You're every inch the zealot I am, just on the other side. Only difference is I don't have to deny that fact to make myself feel justified. 

So - you continually tell me that you're still only advocating for the equal rights of the unborn, but I'm telling you the facts, which are, again, that in the case of rape AND in the case of forcing a pregnant woman to carry to term, a person's body is being used without their consent.
And I'm telling you, I don't care. Any sacrifice I will gladly make to protect innocent human
I thought I explained the answer to your last question pretty well already... I don't understand why you don't see how it applies to many situations. I spelled it out very clearly. All of those situations - having your organs taken without your consent, having your womb used against your will (as well as having your immune defenses, mental and physical health compromised), having your genitalia violated without your consent - they all have one thing in common: your body is being used against your will. So either you need to admit that you believe it's only sometimes wrong for people's bodies to be used without their consent (like in the case of rape), but other times (like in the case of pregnancy), it's okay for them to be used without their consent, or you need to say you change your mind and you believe no one's body should ever be used without their consent.   
That is exactly what I am saying. 

Okay, LAST THING (and this is also from my journal - they are statistical facts):
Statistical facts is an oxymoron.
 The same number of fetuses will die whether abortion is legal or illegal because making it illegal does not decrease the number of abortions.
Providing affordable birth control and teaching children REAL sex education is what decreases the number of abortions.
Real sex education is just teaching children not to even try to have self-control. You think a bunch of teenagers, drunk and so high they're walking in the clouds, are gonna stop to put on condoms? They won't. All these so-called logical answers to the problems of modern society, are all a bunch of bullshit.
When abortion is illegal, more lives are lost because women STILL find ways to obtain abortions, but illegal ones are NOT SAFE.
Illegal things tend not to be.
So all you're doing when you vote to make it illegal, ban it, etc. is bringing more pain, suffering and death into the world. You're only adding pain and suffering because women who are forced to look for back-alley and unsafe methods will be in pain and will suffer, and some will die. You're adding women's bodies to the pile of fetus's bodies. If you really want to decrease the number of abortions, DON'T VOTE TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL. VOTE FOR AFFORDABLE BIRTH CONTROL, VOTE OUT ABSTINENCE-ONLY PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS, AND ADVOCATE FOR REAL SEX EDUCATION.
All of this, is a whole lot of bullshit. All your statistics are just a bunch of numbers put together for the benefit of some political agenda or another. Teaching kids to use condoms and other birth control in the long run, won't make a dent in any of these problems. Until people learn self-control, all these things will continue to afflict us.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

catz537 In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-11-06 23:22:27 +0000 UTC]

The point is, right and wrong have nothing to do with how something affects me, personally, it has to do with whether or not what is done is morally right or wrong.
Then you should've said that you believe it's a threat to justice, not that it directly and personally affects everyone. 

Okay, I'm tired of arguing whether abortion rights are a law. I already provided you with a link saying it's in the 14th Amendment.
I provide an argument saying that forcing someone to carry to term is more like slavery than abortion is in my journal. You should read it.

If it were possible then the unborn would be put in artificial wombs, to be carried to term.
That doesn't answer my question. Would it be acceptable to you if we forced men to carry pregnancies to term against their will, since you think it's acceptable to force women to?

To violate suggest something unnatural. Rape is unnatural because it is the sexual act without the consent of the victim. I fail to see anyway which pregnancy, however, can be unnatural, and therefore a violation.
So you're saying that if something is natural, it's impossible for it to be a violation, or to be wrong? Then would you say that since some species only reproduce through rape, it is not wrong, or does this only apply to humans? Also, if you don't like the word "violation," fine. I can phrase it a different way: In both the case of rape and the case of an UNWANTED pregnancy, someone's body is being *used* without the person's consent, against their will. That was what I kept claiming to be an undeniable fact. You're trying to tell me that it's not true that women with unwanted pregnancies are having their bodies used against their will, but they are. That's what 'unwanted' means. There are many barriers in place making it extremely difficult for women to obtain abortions, which is effectively forcing them to carry a fetus and eventually birth it when they don't want to. I don't understand how you're getting a fact and opinion mixed up. You don't get to decide whether the pregnancy is wanted or not; the woman decides that. And if she says it's unwanted, then the fetus is there without her consent. And therefore, not allowing her an abortion is forcing her to let something use her body without her consent, just like rape forces someone to use their body without their consent. I can't spell it out any more clearly than that...

That is five tons of horseshit and you know it. Bodily autonomy may dictate that, but not moral code I'm obligated to follow does. Any and all moral codes I adhere maintain the belief that the destruction of human life is the ultimate evil. No "right" may ever abridge that. No legislature will ever abolish that.

I already explained that you can't just decide whether a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is having her body used against her will or not. It's a fact that it is being used against her will, again, because she does not want it there. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Oh, and having sex doesn't mean you don't respect your body.*

Drowning is an unforeseeable circumstance of swimming. Becoming pregnant by having sex is not.

Uh, that's not true though. There is always a chance you could drown if you go in the water. Sometimes there's a higher chance of someone drowning than there is other times. But sometimes there's a higher chance of someone getting pregnant than there is other times, too. Just because there's a chance of something happening to someone doesn't mean they should always absolutely have to face that happening.

Allowing a child to grow up unloved and suffer their entire life is more responsible than terminating a pregnancy and "killing" a clump of non-sentient cells. Okay...
I'm tired of hearing pro lifers say that women should not be allowed to have sex if they don't want to get pregnant. Men can have as much sex as they want and don't have to worry about pregnancy. It's a double standard to say only women shouldn't be able to have sex if they want to avoid it.

I don't give much of a damn what a bunch of Mengele-esque quacks have for opinions.
So in other words, you deny any kind of empirical evidence that you don't like. I see. I'm probably going to link more evidence to you anyway. I hope you eventually accept that not everything that has been studied and proven that you don't like is a conspiracy.

No one has pregnancy forced upon them. They may be force upon sexually, but the resultant pregnancy is not forced, least of all by the child.
Women with unwanted pregnancies are being forced to continue the pregnancies by pro-life politicians and voters, because the laws they impose put up too many barriers for women to get through, so they can't access abortions. I never said anything about children forcing it on them. 

They do have the ability to suffer. And given they're being mutilated in the womb, they're the ones I hold empathy for.
Again, you should really read my journal. Scientists have studied this; fetuses can't feel pain in the overwhelming majority of abortions, because the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed very early on in the pregnancy, before the nervous system develops enough for the fetus to have that ability. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic… ;
("Conclusion: The neural circuitry for pain in fetuses is immature. More importantly, the developmental processes necessary for the mindful experience of pain are not yet developed.")
www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does…

 So all your "logic" is just as full of shit as my faith is. You're every inch the zealot I am, just on the other side. Only difference is I don't have to deny that fact to make myself feel justified.
You're wrong. I was using logical arguments. Yeah, they're still my opinions, but they're not just based on faith and moral absolutes alone. They are informed and consistent with my other opinions. I have given a lot of thought to it and realized that it simply isn't logical to say that women's bodies should be used without their consent in the case of unwanted pregnancies if I think no one else's bodies should be used against their will in any other case. Then my opinions would be inconsistent with one another.

So you do believe that the only time anyone's body should ever be used without their consent is when there is a pregnant woman, who you believe to be obligated to carry and birth the fetus against her will? Well, thanks for admitting it.

All of this, is a whole lot of bullshit. All your statistics are just a bunch of numbers put together for the benefit of some political agenda or another. Teaching kids to use condoms and other birth control in the long run, won't make a dent in any of these problems. Until people learn self-control, all these things will continue to afflict us.

You really don't believe the evidence, do you? It's amazing how someone can be presented with tons of evidence and still deny that it's true. In the one link - to one of my deviations, I believe the stamp - I have links to articles in which they found that statistically, more lives are lost when abortion is illegal.  Here's the study showing that more lives are lost in places where abortion is illegal: www.who.int/reproductivehealth…
And here's the study claiming that up to 71% of abortions could be prevented if everyone had access to affordable and effective contraceptives: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic… "In fact, based on our calculations in Table 3, changes in contraceptive policy simulating the Contraceptive CHOICE Project would prevent as many as 41% to 71% of abortions performed annually in the U.S."
Here's an article explaining how contraceptives reduce abortion rates: www.desmoinesregister.com/stor…

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to catz537 [2016-11-07 00:57:45 +0000 UTC]

Then you should've said that you believe it's a threat to justice, not that it directly and personally affects everyone.
I do believe threats to justice are threats to everyone.
Okay, I'm tired of arguing whether abortion rights are a law. I already provided you with a link saying it's in the 14th Amendment.
I provide an argument saying that forcing someone to carry to term is more like slavery than abortion is in my journal. You should read it.
You argue that and I disagree. Why do you think that your argument is the only one?

That doesn't answer my question. Would it be acceptable to you if we forced men to carry pregnancies to term against their will, since you think it's acceptable to force women to?
For on thing, there is a difference between cutting open and inserting into a person an organism that they are incapable of keeping alive and they are incapable of surviving having within them, and a child growing within a woman. For another, a scenario that insane is entirely useless in this discussion.

So you're saying that if something is natural, it's impossible for it to be a violation, or to be wrong? Then would you say that since some species only reproduce through rape, it is not wrong, or does this only apply to humans?
I'm not certain you can qualify something done by animals as "rape" given that whether or not animals are capable of consent in the first place is questionable.
Also, if you don't like the word "violation," fine. I can phrase it a different way: In both the case of rape and the case of an UNWANTED pregnancy, someone's body is being *used* without the person's consent, against their will. That was what I kept claiming to be an undeniable fact. You're trying to tell me that it's not true that women with unwanted pregnancies are having their bodies used against their will, but they are.That's what 'unwanted' means. There are many barriers in place making it extremely difficult for women to obtain abortions, which is effectively forcing them to carry a fetus and eventually birth it when they don't want to. I don't understand how you're getting a fact and opinion mixed up. You don't get to decide whether the pregnancy is wanted or not; the woman decides that. And if she says it's unwanted, then the fetus is there without her consent. And therefore, not allowing her an abortion is forcing her to let something use her body without her consent, just like rape forces someone to use their body without their consent. I can't spell it out any more clearly than that...
You're making the statement that rape and forcing a woman to carry her pregnancy to term are indecipherable. That is your opinion you can't argue it as though it were a real point.

I already explained that you can't just decide whether a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is having her body used against her will or not. It's a fact that it is being used against her will, again, because she does not want it there. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
That isn't the problem. I understand she doesn't want it there. I don't care. That woman's right to her body doesn't trump the child's right to life.
Oh, and having sex doesn't mean you don't respect your body.*
Getting pregnant because you had sex on your period, despite not wanting a child, does. (mean you don't respect your body)

Uh, that's not true though. There is always a chance you could drown if you go in the water. Sometimes there's a higher chance of someone drowning than there is other times. But sometimes there's a higher chance of someone getting pregnant than there is other times, too. Just because there's a chance of something happening to someone doesn't mean they should always absolutely have to face that happening.
This qualifies as the "Faulty Analogy Fallacy", because there is a wide difference between a drowning person and pregnant woman.

Allowing a child to grow up unloved and suffer their entire life is more responsible than terminating a pregnancy and "killing" a clump of non-sentient cells. Okay...
As a clump of cells, I take offense at that. Life brings chances and the possibility of improvement.
I'm tired of hearing pro lifers say that women should not be allowed to have sex if they don't want to get pregnant. Men can have as much sex as they want and don't have to worry about pregnancy. It's a double standard to say only women shouldn't be able to have sex if they want to avoid it.
I didn't say "not allowed". I said they shouldn't have sex. And it's not a double standard. It's just the way it works. It's not right. It's not wrong. It just is.

So in other words, you deny any kind of empirical evidence that you don't like. I see. I'm probably going to link more evidence to you anyway. I hope you eventually accept that not everything that has been studied and proven that you don't like is a conspiracy.
If I showed you a site, belonging to a Catholic Church-run healthcare service, that argued against the necessity of abortion, would you treat it as an empirical source?

Women with unwanted pregnancies are being forced to continue the pregnancies by pro-life politicians and voters, because the laws they impose put up too many barriers for women to get through, so they can't access abortions. I never said anything about children forcing it on them. 
What laws? Were you not just on about how the Supreme Court legalized it so tough tits if I didn't like it? 

Again, you should really read my journal. Scientists have studied this; fetuses can't feel pain in the overwhelming majority of abortions, because the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed very early on in the pregnancy, before the nervous system develops enough for the fetus to have that ability.
("Conclusion: The neural circuitry for pain in fetuses is immature. More importantly, the developmental processes necessary for the mindful experience of pain are not yet developed.")
Here are some sources to the contrary.
www.mccl.org/unborn-babies-can…
wrtl.org/abortion/babies-feel-…
www.nrlc.org/abortion/fetalpai…

You're wrong. I was using logical arguments.
And yet, throughout this argument you have resorted to utilizing logical fallacies and insane scenarios to try and strawman my argument.
Yeah, they're still my opinions, but they're not just based on faith and moral absolutes alone.
They are informed and consistent with my other opinions.
What have I said that is inconsistent?
I have given a lot of thought to it and realized that it simply isn't logical to say that women's bodies should be used without their consent in the case of unwanted pregnancies if I think no one else's bodies should be used against their will in any other case. Then my opinions would be inconsistent with one another.
Explain where you derive this moral standard of your from. 

So you do believe that the only time anyone's body should ever be used without their consent is when there is a pregnant woman, who you believe to be obligated to carry and birth the fetus against her will? Well, thanks for admitting it.
Yes. I never denied it in the first place. That is the only real situation where someone's life is on the line and requires someone else's body to survive.

You really don't believe the evidence, do you? It's amazing how someone can be presented with tons of evidence and still deny that it's true. In the one link - to one of my deviations, I believe the stamp - I have links to articles in which they found that statistically, more lives are lost when abortion is illegal.  Here's the study showing that more lives are lost in places where abortion is illegal: 
And here's the study claiming that up to 71% of abortions could be prevented if everyone had access to affordable and effective contraceptives: "In fact, based on our calculations in Table 3, changes in contraceptive policy simulating the Contraceptive CHOICE Project would prevent as many as 41% to 71% of abortions performed annually in the U.S."
Here's an article explaining how contraceptives reduce abortion rates:
If you have read the sources I gave, and believe them with the same veracity you expect me to hold in these, I'll accept you're right.
Or let me save you the time and explain what will happen. You will be wholly unmoved. You can make any argument for why I'm an ignorant zealot and you're a champion of reason and logic. Which is, as most of your commentary upon my beliefs, horseshit. You won't believe it because at the end of the day, it's just somebody with a different opinion arguing why you should share that opinion, no different then you've given me. So don't bitch endlessly about how I refuse to just accept your sources as divine revelation. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

catz537 In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-12-14 01:56:49 +0000 UTC]

For on thing, there is a difference between cutting open and inserting into a person an organism that they are incapable of keeping alive and they are incapable of surviving having within them, and a child growing within a woman. For another, a scenario that insane is entirely useless in this discussion.

You still haven't answered my question. My question was, if men were able to get pregnant like women are, would you deem it acceptable to force men to carry the fetus inside of their bodies without their consent? I'm just going to assume that you would not force men to carry to term despite the fact that you want to force women to, since you avoided answering the question.

 I'm not certain you can qualify something done by animals as "rape" given that whether or not animals are capable of consent in the first place is questionable.

You do not need to verbally communicate in order for you to be raped. You simply need to have a concept of wanting or not wanting something. Animals have that concept. Animals understand when something is being done to them that they don't like and don't welcome. I would argue that animals with a certain cognitive ability absolutely can be raped. Anyway, there are many things that are natural but still damaging and harmful - take earthquakes, for example. They are completely natural, but they can kill millions. Something that is natural is not automatically a good thing. Pregnancy is not automatically a good thing - and by the way, NOT wanting to be pregnant or become a parent is ALSO completely natural. 

That isn't the problem. I understand she doesn't want it there. I don't care. That woman's right to her body doesn't trump the child's right to life.

I see now that I cannot convince you that the right to your own body should ever trump the "right to life," and that even you would be willing to give up your body/body parts if it meant saving someone else's life. I also see that you place non-sentient fetuses and cells on the same pedestal as born, thinking, feeling people. Just remember that if fetuses were granted legal personhood, a whole slew of issues would come up. For example, women who fall down the stairs while they are pregnant would potentially be charged with homicide, even if the pregnancy was wanted. This has happened in my own state. Embryos would be legally allowed to sue women, despite the fact that embryos do not have autonomy and are unable to grasp the concept of "suing" someone. Would you let a 2 year old sue you? They don't have a concept of what that means either. Here are some other problems with granting fetuses personhood: www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-…

Getting pregnant because you had sex on your period, despite not wanting a child, does. (mean you don't respect your body)

So let me get this straight: if I, as a woman, have sex and end up with an unwanted pregnancy, that means I disrespected my body. But if you, as a man, have sex and your partner ends up with an unwanted pregnancy, it has nothing to do with you respecting your body or not? Yeah, fuck you. I'm tired of that bullshit double standard that women who are promiscuous are somehow less "respecting" of themselves than men who are promiscuous. That is misogyny flat out and you know it.

This qualifies as the "Faulty Analogy Fallacy", because there is a wide difference between a drowning person and pregnant woman.

LOL it doesn't matter if the pregnant person is on a different planet than the drowning person is. The point of the analogy is that in both cases, someone is responsible for taking an action that could potentially harm them. But you only want to grant the person the right to prevent that harm in ONE of those cases. The person who's drowning made the choice to go swimming, knowing full well that drowning was a potential risk. The person who's pregnant made the choice to have sex, knowing full well that becoming pregnant was a potential risk. And yet you would only allow the person who's drowning to have help. 

I said they shouldn't have sex. And it's not a double standard. It's just the way it works. It's not right. It's not wrong. It just is.

Women shouldn't have sex if they don't want to become pregnant, but it's okay for men to have all the sex they want because they'll always be absolved of any responsibility even if they knock someone up. Yep, sounds about right. Misogynistic horse shit. It absolutely is a double standard. If men can have sex without having to worry about pregnancy, then women deserve the same God damn right. Equal. Rights. Oh, and what about trans men? Do they get to have sex with people who have penises and then never have to deal with the consequences? Probably not in your narrow world view. I doubt you even recognize them as valid men.

If I showed you a site, belonging to a Catholic Church-run healthcare service, that argued against the necessity of abortion, would you treat it as an empirical source?

Depends. Empirical evidence is gathered in a specific way - with the use of the scientific method - by scientists. If scientists gathered the evidence using the scientific method and then posted their evidence on that site, I would consider it (as long as they weren't lying like that guy who said vaccines cause autism).

What laws? Were you not just on about how the Supreme Court legalized it so tough tits if I didn't like it?

You really don't pay attention to what happens to women with unwanted pregnancies in this country, do you? I said the Supreme Court legalized it with Roe v. Wade. But at the STATE and LOCAL levels, women are finding it very difficult to obtain safe and legal abortions in many places; politicians will pass ridiculous laws, such as "The hallways in this clinic/hospital need to be ___ feet wide in order for doctors to perform abortions here." That's only one example of hundreds used to prevent women from having access; they basically find a bunch of loopholes in the Supreme Court decision and use them to keep women desperate.

Here are some sources to the contrary.
www.mccl.org/unborn-babies-can…
wrtl.org/abortion/babies-feel-…
www.nrlc.org/abortion/fetalpai…  

The first thing I noticed about all the sites you linked me to is that they are heavily biased towards the "pro-life" stance. Bias is not a good thing to have in scientific studies. The second thing I noticed is that on these websites, the "scientists" speaking continually use inaccurate medical terms. They refer to fetuses and embryos as "babies." I am having trouble finding these sources legitimate because they use inaccurate terms. I would also like to point out, once again, that the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed before 20 weeks; usually between 1-12 weeks. Honestly, I'm less interested in when fetuses begin to feel pain and more interested in the fact that when safe abortion is not accessible to women, more lives are lost.

Explain where you derive this moral standard of your from.

If I believe that people's bodies should never, under any circumstances, be used without their consent, then that means it would be inconsistent for me to believe that rape is unacceptable BECAUSE it involves a violation of someone's bodily autonomy, but abortion is also unacceptable even though forcing someone to carry to term violates their bodily autonomy as well. Inconsistent.

 Yes. I never denied it in the first place. That is the only real situation where someone's life is on the line and requires someone else's body to survive.

Wrong. Situations in which someone needs an organ donation from a living person can still happen. 

If you have read the sources I gave, and believe them with the same veracity you expect me to hold in these, I'll accept you're right.

The sources you gave me above were arguing that fetuses feel pain, not that death rates do not increase when abortion is inaccessible. I will repeat the best argument I have that you are most willing to listen to if you truly give a shit about the lives of anyone besides fetuses: When safe abortion procedures are inaccessible, high rates of women and girls die. Period. They die because abortion is not a matter of "convenience" or "selfishness." They are desperate. And it makes logical sense that if the "procedures" they are using are not safe, they are at a higher risk of dying and/or becoming seriously injured. I hope you at least understand that. Because the safe procedures are only available when abortion is legal (D&C, D&E, pharmaceutical drugs etc.), women and girls do not have access to them when abortion is made illegal (as is the case in many third world countries) or virtually inaccessible (as is the case in the U.S). Therefore, women turn to other methods, which are unsafe; unsafe procedures are illegal (coat hangers, bleach, pills, plants/herbs that can make you sick, foreign objects inserted into the vagina etc.) 

I'm going to go back to what I said above in my other comment, which you almost completely ignored: 
"Here's the study showing that more lives are lost in places where abortion is illegal: www.who.int/reproductivehealth…
And here's the study claiming that up to 71% of abortions could be prevented if everyone had access to affordable and effective contraceptives: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic… "In fact, based on our calculations in Table 3, changes in contraceptive policy simulating the Contraceptive CHOICE Project would prevent as many as 41% to 71% of abortions performed annually in the U.S."
Here's an article explaining how contraceptives reduce abortion rates: www.desmoinesregister.com/stor… "
I'd like to add this article to the list too: www.complex.com/life/2016/12/b…
And this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UCxF3… This video explains what is happening right now, today, in a different country where safe abortions are inaccessible and illegal. This is the kind of thing that happened before Roe v. Wade in America, as the new article I posted explains. 

You mentioned that you believe in abstinence, something that has been widely proven to be ineffective. It is human nature to have sex; surely you know all about human nature, as someone who so stubbornly dictates its superiority over anything "unnatural."
www.advocatesforyouth.org/topi…
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic… "...we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates...These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S." 

The facts are that contraceptives are responsible for preventing more unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and abortions than anything else including abstinence-only sex ed, and that when abortion is illegal or inaccessible, more lives are lost than when it is legal and accessible. If you are not willing to first acknowledge these facts and then understand that compromising with the pro-choice side is the only solution that saves more lives than anything else, you are failing to support your belief in the sanctity of life because you are passively (or actively, if you vote for laws restricting abortion access) allowing more death to occur. The compromise is to teach accurate and effective sex education, to keep abortion legal and accessible, and to keep birth control widely available and affordable, and in turn abortion rates will be reduced as much as possible (but not completely). This is the only way to make even a dent in the number of lives lost due to abortion. Because as long as you remain extreme and polarized to the far right, and as long as you refuse to allow women and girls access to effective methods of reducing the likelihood of unwanted pregnancies, they will continue to harm and kill themselves along with their fetuses. It has happened over and over throughout history and is still happening in many countries today. I leave you with this argument and these statistics. It is your choice whether you decide to acknowledge the reality. Goodbye.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Orphically In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-09-02 10:31:09 +0000 UTC]

So...making reproductive decisions on things that don't concern you...well then. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

LadyLambdadelta In reply to Orphically [2017-09-12 13:40:18 +0000 UTC]

Murder concerns everybody.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PeteSeeger In reply to Orphically [2016-09-02 11:07:31 +0000 UTC]

They do concern me when they pertain to the life of an innocent human being.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Orphically In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-09-02 11:13:44 +0000 UTC]

And the pregnant person is clearly a slut. Well, nice chit-chatting with you. I'll take my leave now. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to Orphically [2016-09-02 19:21:47 +0000 UTC]

Why is it no one can make an argument that does not center on personal feelings? Is it truly so alien to think some of us view this as an abject moral matter?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Astrall99 In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-01-08 08:57:46 +0000 UTC]

Are you seriously going to use a Strawman?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to Astrall99 [2016-01-08 11:54:48 +0000 UTC]

That is in essence what this is arguing for. This individual doesn;t want the beliefs and/or morals of others to be the basis for law, but expects that people respect what she perceives as her rights because that is what her morals dictate.
It's the fanatic fallacy: When you're in power, you must respect my rights because it's what your beliefs dictate, but when I'm in power I don't because my beliefs dictate that I don't.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

catz537 In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-02-26 22:29:49 +0000 UTC]

I don't think you understand. It's about the freedom of choice. People should have choices to live how they'd like to live, without other people telling them they can't live that way. Unless, of course, it's hurting people. For example, gay rights: Allowing gay people the right to get married is NOT forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do. It's not forcing morals or beliefs on anyone else. It is simply allowing gay people to live the way they want to live, and it is not hurting any other people.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to catz537 [2016-02-27 00:39:07 +0000 UTC]

That's your belief. You are entitled to a right to support a movement which will do waht you feel is best. Just so I will support a movement which will do what I feel is best.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

catz537 In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-02-27 01:27:33 +0000 UTC]

...What does that have to do with this? I'm not talking about what you support or don't support. I'm talking about laws. It should be legal for gays to marry because regardless of what homophobics think, gays having the ability to marry isn't harming anyone.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to catz537 [2016-02-27 05:02:50 +0000 UTC]

You believe it causes no harm. And for the record, it's a rather shallow moral understanding to define what's right and wrong solely upon whether or not it causes harm.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

catz537 In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-02-27 18:57:20 +0000 UTC]

Lol, enlighten me, then, on how allowing someone to get married is harming someone who isn't involved in the marriage at all. I'd REALLY like to know.
How would you define morality, if not in the way I've defined it? It's a very simple definition, and it's one that almost everyone (aside from many religious people or psychopaths) agrees on: Don't harm other people. In what types of cases should we allow someone to hurt another person? And just because YOU believe we should harm people in some cases and that morality shouldn't be defined as "don't hurt other people," why should we adopt your view? 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to catz537 [2016-02-27 20:35:35 +0000 UTC]

While I'm more or less indifferent to the subject, the concern is that legalizing gay marriage will cause a degradation of society and culture in America. Another matter is the recent Supreme Court ruling, which many argue violates the Constitution as the federal government is not allotted the right to redefine such things as marriage.
Right and wrong. That is how I define morality. What I define as right and wrong is that which contradicts natural moral law.
Comparing religious people to psychopaths. Very endearing. -_-
You shouldn't adopt my view just because I view it that way, but that doesn't mean I won't stand by it, and that doesn't mean that I won't support such a state where legislation reflects my beliefs.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

catz537 In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-02-27 20:45:42 +0000 UTC]

Culture and society aren't static. They change all the time; and changing for the better is always something we should try to do. Allowing gay couples the same legal rights as we allow straight married couples by allowing gays to marry is FAIR. It's equality, and the right of gay people to be treated fairly and equally trumps the problem of "changing the definition of marriage". It's a definition; it's not a person. Real people - namely, gays - are more important; they have feelings and lives. Why on earth shouldn't we support equal rights for all people? On what grounds?
When religious zealots argue that we should harm others for trivial reasons or on the basis of personal belief, they are similar to psychopaths in the sense that psychopaths also harm others for either no reason or for trivial reasons. Just because you believe something different from me, it doesn't grant you the right to hurt me. Yet religious people use that excuse all the time.

Right and wrong are subjective beliefs. That's a ridiculously vague definition of morality; no one can understand what it means because everyone has a different opinion on what's right or what's wrong. 
 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to catz537 [2016-02-28 00:07:26 +0000 UTC]

As I said I don't particularly care about the whole morality of gay marriage personally, but the Supreme Court's overstepping it's boundaries matters a whole lot. If they can violate the Bill of Rights for this, it sets a precedent that they can do so for anything.
Everyone does everything on the basis of personal belief. Even if you're following the law, that is based off the personal beleif that one ought to follow the law. Saying that something is bad because it's based on one's personal belief is inherently hypocritical. 
Some religious people use it sometimes. To argue that it's a common occurence is strawman fallacy bullshit.

You maintain that they are subjective. I don't. It's a vague definition because morality is an ethereal, spiritual thing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

catz537 In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-02-28 17:46:34 +0000 UTC]

So you're saying it's bad that the Supreme Court "violated the Bill of Rights" in order to allow gays the same freedoms as everyone else? You're saying we should always simply follow the law, even if it is hurting people?
Yeah, the laws are based on people's beliefs. They're a mix of lots of beliefs. The majority of people, though, agree that hurting other people is a bad thing and is a moral wrong. Even most religious people believe that. Yes, I'm aware of that.

"Right" and "wrong" ARE subjective. Each person has his or her OWN beliefs about what is "right" or "wrong." You must be able to see that. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to catz537 [2016-02-28 19:12:40 +0000 UTC]

By violating the Constitution the Supreme Court has set a precedent that lawmakers can do as they please so long as people like it. That is very dangerous. More importantly, it's entirely illegal.
I didn't say that hurting people wasn't wrong (for the most part, the whole "intrinsic moral value" thing is rather complicated) I said it wasn't the ultimate decider of what was and wasn't right or wrong.

All human being have a conscience which shows them right from wrong. Any differences are derived from upbrgining. Their perceptions have no effect on what is absolute moral fact.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

catz537 In reply to PeteSeeger [2016-02-28 19:17:14 +0000 UTC]

So, why is it acceptable to segregate people and not allow everyone the same equal rights? Why should the law be more important?

Nothing is the "ultimate decider" of what is right or wrong.

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense. THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE MORAL FACT. Morality is SUBJECTIVE. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to catz537 [2016-02-28 20:14:03 +0000 UTC]

That has nothing to do with anything. The Bill of Rights states that the federal government can't step in on matters like that. It is solely up to the state governments.

In your opinion. In my opinion, there is. My entire point from the onset was that two people with differing views will want the government to enact policies which reflect those views. Therefore, criticizing someone for pursuing their personal beliefs in a political stage is inherently hypocritical.
The fanatic fallacy: When you're in power, you must respect my rights because it's what your beliefs dictate, but when I'm in power I don't because my beliefs dictate that I don't.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1