Abortion: A Sad Reality

[TemplarKormac]

Are you honestly going to rely on the ad hominem argument? Please enlighten me to which of my opinions are fallacious and I will gladly destroy your false logic.

You are seriously barking up the wrong tree my friend.

"You are far too distant from the facts to be relevant." Argumentum ad hominem is when you attack the poster instead of the post. You essentially referred to clevergirl as stupid and irrelevant.

In my world you back up these claims, you don't sit there and expect people to believe them.

As for your other claim is concerned, the most expensive form of birth control pills are in the neighborhood of 20-40 bucks, which for most women are mildly or totally affordable. Now, if you wish to make more opinions for me to consider logically fallacious, please, continue. I will be happy to snap you back to reality.

+
I attacked the post as opposed to the poster, as far as I am concerned. She spent her two cents and has since forth been unheard of. It wasn't that she was stupid, merely that she was relevant to a time in which preceded our own both in terms of the measure of care as well as the affordability of medication. You would simply love to see me consider her stupid in order to solidify your own arguments, but no matter the feeling of either party the same truth remains the same. The question, really, is motives.

In the form of your last admission, you know nothing of the facts. I have lived in this life, and I have paid the price for condoms as well as birth control in a baptist and even poor home. I know with absolute certainty that the bare minimum on birth control is $100 through planned parenthood, and even though that is what we both wanted, it was never enough for uncle sam. A complacent people do not make a cooperative people, and where birth control was once considered free it is now considered a privilege. I will pick up on this topic tomorrow when I am fully sober and better rested, for now I bid you a due and best of luck in contradicting me come morning; you will soon find that which i profess to be truth has little to do with goodness and less to do with godliness, so goodluck.

I make my own arguments, I need not your acknowledgement of someone else's to lend them any credence. But if you want to be seen as reasonable and rational, you will argue someone's points rather than their character flaws.

And I honestly cannot believe I am about to say this, but your experience in life as it stands now is insufficient to lecture an elder about his knowledge of the facts. Did it ever occur to you that Planned Parenthood might have been ripping you off?

As you can see, a simple pricing query proves that this whole notion of unaffordable contraception is a lie:

birth control - Walmart.com

http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/contraception/lowcost_pills.htm



On top of that, I remember as recently as 5 years ago Planned Parenthood offering birth control pills for as little as $15 to 20 without insurance. What I profess to be the truth relies on my god given talent for digging for the facts, and less to do with personal experiences and political ideologies.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So, what does attacking my faith have to do with abortion, precisely?

because you are trying to impose your faith on others.

If your interpretation of the BIble says abortion is a sin (although Jesus never said it was, unlike being rich and greedy) then that's your decision. Not that you will ever have to make that decision, not having a uterus.

But you want to make that decision for everyone else. Except rape victims. You'd give them an out, even though by your own logic, you shouldn't.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

So, what does attacking my faith have to do with abortion, precisely?

because you are trying to impose your faith on others.

If your interpretation of the BIble says abortion is a sin (although Jesus never said it was, unlike being rich and greedy) then that's your decision. Not that you will ever have to make that decision, not having a uterus.

But you want to make that decision for everyone else. Except rape victims. You'd give them an out, even though by your own logic, you shouldn't.

How have I been proselytizing you or anyone else, exactly? Your whole religion argument is a non sequitur, a red herring, with stawmen mixed in.

My own logic says that there are circumstances beyond your control, being raped is one of them.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So, what does attacking my faith have to do with abortion, precisely?

because you are trying to impose your faith on others.

If your interpretation of the BIble says abortion is a sin (although Jesus never said it was, unlike being rich and greedy) then that's your decision. Not that you will ever have to make that decision, not having a uterus.

But you want to make that decision for everyone else. Except rape victims. You'd give them an out, even though by your own logic, you shouldn't.

How have I been proselytizing you or anyone else, exactly? Your whole religion argument is a non sequitur, a red herring, with stawmen mixed in.

My own logic says that there are circumstances beyond your control, being raped is one of them.

But that's not your logic.

Your logic is that a fetus has all the same rights as an adult, and it's "right to life" trumps any rights that a woman might have, like having a baby would bankrupt them or ruin their college plans.

Clearly, we would never, ever wait until a baby was born, do a DNA test on it, and then smother it if DNA proved it was the rapist's baby and not her husband's.

So what you are saying is that fetuses DO have less rights than babies... if you really can't political defend your outrageous position.

 

[TemplarKormac]

because you are trying to impose your faith on others.

If your interpretation of the BIble says abortion is a sin (although Jesus never said it was, unlike being rich and greedy) then that's your decision. Not that you will ever have to make that decision, not having a uterus.

But you want to make that decision for everyone else. Except rape victims. You'd give them an out, even though by your own logic, you shouldn't.

How have I been proselytizing you or anyone else, exactly? Your whole religion argument is a non sequitur, a red herring, with stawmen mixed in.

My own logic says that there are circumstances beyond your control, being raped is one of them.

But that's not your logic.

Your logic is that a fetus has all the same rights as an adult, and it's "right to life" trumps any rights that a woman might have, like having a baby would bankrupt them or ruin their college plans.

Clearly, we would never, ever wait until a baby was born, do a DNA test on it, and then smother it if DNA proved it was the rapist's baby and not her husband's.

So what you are saying is that fetuses DO have less rights than babies... if you really can't political defend your outrageous position.

Do you have any idea what you're trying to argue now, Joe? I doubt you do. You're an Atheist who uses the Bible and God to guilt trip Christians into agreeing with your opinions, and you use children (unborn or otherwise) to push a political point. And who the heck are you to tell me what my logic is?

 

[JoeB131]

How have I been proselytizing you or anyone else, exactly? Your whole religion argument is a non sequitur, a red herring, with stawmen mixed in.

My own logic says that there are circumstances beyond your control, being raped is one of them.

But that's not your logic.

Your logic is that a fetus has all the same rights as an adult, and it's "right to life" trumps any rights that a woman might have, like having a baby would bankrupt them or ruin their college plans.

Clearly, we would never, ever wait until a baby was born, do a DNA test on it, and then smother it if DNA proved it was the rapist's baby and not her husband's.

So what you are saying is that fetuses DO have less rights than babies... if you really can't political defend your outrageous position.

Do you have any idea what you're trying to argue now, Joe? I doubt you do. You're an Atheist who uses the Bible and God to guilt trip Christians into agreeing with your opinions, and you use children (unborn or otherwise) to push a political point. And who the heck are you to tell me what my logic is?

Guy, I don't bother to "guilt trip" Christians into agreeing with anything. Most of you are neck deep in your own hypocrisy.

But you've made a statement that fetuses are human beings and have human rights.

We do not execute children for the crimes of their parents. Not even children we would find might have a genetic predisposition for crime themselves.

If you support the right of a woman to abort her rapist's baby, then you really don't believe that a fetus has all the rights of a person.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But that's not your logic.

Your logic is that a fetus has all the same rights as an adult, and it's "right to life" trumps any rights that a woman might have, like having a baby would bankrupt them or ruin their college plans.

Clearly, we would never, ever wait until a baby was born, do a DNA test on it, and then smother it if DNA proved it was the rapist's baby and not her husband's.

So what you are saying is that fetuses DO have less rights than babies... if you really can't political defend your outrageous position.

Do you have any idea what you're trying to argue now, Joe? I doubt you do. You're an Atheist who uses the Bible and God to guilt trip Christians into agreeing with your opinions, and you use children (unborn or otherwise) to push a political point. And who the heck are you to tell me what my logic is?

Guy, I don't bother to "guilt trip" Christians into agreeing with anything. Most of you are neck deep in your own hypocrisy.

But you've made a statement that fetuses are human beings and have human rights.

We do not execute children for the crimes of their parents. Not even children we would find might have a genetic predisposition for crime themselves.

If you support the right of a woman to abort her rapist's baby, then you really don't believe that a fetus has all the rights of a person.

Oh boy, if you only knew just how much you exemplify that hypocrisy! How can you call Christians hypocrites, when you went all Billy Graham on me in my own thread yesterday? You're an Atheist for crying out loud.

Yes they do have human rights, so says the law of the land. Special exceptions can be made when in rape, incest or health of the mother. You've gone from defending the rights of the mother to defending the rights of the unborn child. You have no clue as to what you're trying to defend now, do you?

Please spare me, you ol' crackpot.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Oh boy, if you only knew just how much you exemplify that hypocrisy! How can you call Christians hypocrites, when you went all Billy Graham on me in my own thread yesterday? You're an Atheist for crying out loud.

Yes they do have human rights, so says the law of the land. Special exceptions can be made when in rape, incest or health of the mother. You've gone from defending the rights of the mother to defending the rights of the unborn child. You have no clue as to what you're trying to defend now, do you?

Please spare me, you ol' crackpot.

No, guy, I just point out your logical inconsistancies. My position has been as steady as the Northern Star.

If it's in her body, it's her decision. Period.

By the way, there's no hypocrisy of an atheist reading the bible and pointing out what is actually in it.

Here's the thing. I have no problem with Jesus as a philosopher. (Although I think he was as much a literary creation of Saul of Tarses just like Socrates was a literary device for Plato.)

Treat people the way you'd want to be treated. Give generously to the poor. Forgive those who've wronged you. (Okay, I have a problem with that last part. I'm not the forgiving sort.) These are all pretty good philosophies, no matter who came up with them.

I just don't think his mother was a virgin, his Dad was God, he walked on water or turned into a zombie.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Oh boy, if you only knew just how much you exemplify that hypocrisy! How can you call Christians hypocrites, when you went all Billy Graham on me in my own thread yesterday? You're an Atheist for crying out loud.

Yes they do have human rights, so says the law of the land. Special exceptions can be made when in rape, incest or health of the mother. You've gone from defending the rights of the mother to defending the rights of the unborn child. You have no clue as to what you're trying to defend now, do you?

Please spare me, you ol' crackpot.

No, guy, I just point out your logical inconsistancies. My position has been as steady as the Northern Star.

If it's in her body, it's her decision. Period.

By the way, there's no hypocrisy of an atheist reading the bible and pointing out what is actually in it.

Here's the thing. I have no problem with Jesus as a philosopher. (Although I think he was as much a literary creation of Saul of Tarses just like Socrates was a literary device for Plato.)

Treat people the way you'd want to be treated. Give generously to the poor. Forgive those who've wronged you. (Okay, I have a problem with that last part. I'm not the forgiving sort.) These are all pretty good philosophies, no matter who came up with them.

I just don't think his mother was a virgin, his Dad was God, he walked on water or turned into a zombie.

I really have better things to do than to debate minutia with you.

 

[JoeB131]

I accept your concession of defeat...

 

[TemplarKormac]

I accept your concession of defeat...

There is no defeat from an inconsistent argument, Joe. I have taken you down so many times already, it's quite embarrassing that you have to gloat about it as some sort of game to be won. Childish. Negged.

Here's an idea. You practice treating others the way you want to be treated first, that goes for putting down people's religion. Have I put you down for being an Atheist? Nope. In fact I've been friends with Atheists before.

You not only pointed out what was in the Bible, you started preaching it to people. You started random religious discussions in completely irrelevant threads, including mine. You're a hypocrite, Joe. Deal with it.

 

[JoeB131]

I accept your concession of defeat...

There is no defeat from an inconsistent argument, Joe. I have taken you down so many times already, it's quite embarrassing that you have to gloat about it as some sort of game to be won. Childish. Negged.

Here's an idea. You practice treating others the way you want to be treated first, that goes for putting down people's religion. Have I put you down for being an Atheist? Nope. In fact I've been friends with Atheists before.

You not only pointed out what was in the Bible, you started preaching to people about how the Bible says the "rich should give without question"; this, that and the other thing.

I didn't say I practiced it... I said it was a good philosophy.

I think turning the other cheek is a good philosophy, but I'd feel really sorry for the next guy who wants to see if I'll do it. (Spoiler alert- I won't!)

point is, guy, you are kind of inconsistant in your arguments. You preach one thing, unless it is a position you can't hold.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I accept your concession of defeat...

There is no defeat from an inconsistent argument, Joe. I have taken you down so many times already, it's quite embarrassing that you have to gloat about it as some sort of game to be won. Childish. Negged.

Here's an idea. You practice treating others the way you want to be treated first, that goes for putting down people's religion. Have I put you down for being an Atheist? Nope. In fact I've been friends with Atheists before.

You not only pointed out what was in the Bible, you started preaching to people about how the Bible says the "rich should give without question"; this, that and the other thing.

I didn't say I practiced it... I said it was a good philosophy.

I think turning the other cheek is a good philosophy, but I'd feel really sorry for the next guy who wants to see if I'll do it. (Spoiler alert- I won't!)

Guy, I'm slapping you around like George Zimmerman does his girlfriends.

And like them, you keep coming back for more.

This discussion has turned completely away from abortion, because clearly your logic on abortion is flawed. Not mine.

I can derive scientific bases for my argument, all you have are political talking points and religious slurs. Really, you had no serious argument to begin with, so I fail to see how you would be "slapping" me "around like George Zimmerman does his girlfriends."

 

[lakeview]

I really have better things to do than to debate minutia with you.

I wouldn't call this a minor thing. I would have asked you the same thing if Joe hadn't already done so.

If you really believe that abortion is murder then why would you allow exceptions for rape or incest? That's not an unreasonable question, it deals with an apparent flaw in your reasoning and should be addressed much more seriously than it has been so far.

I would think that the only exception you would be alright with is aborting in order to save the mother's life but strangely enough I don't recall seeing you mention that anywhere in this thread.

If you really think that exceptions should be made for rape or incest then you're no different from anyone else who's drawn an arbitrary line which has nothing to do with the sanctity of life.

 

[JoeB131]

[

This discussion has turned completely away from abortion, because clearly your logic on abortion is flawed. Not mine.

I can derive scientific bases for my argument, all you have are political talking points and religious slurs. Really, you had no serious argument to begin with, so I fail to see how you would be "slapping" me "around like George Zimmerman does his girlfriends."

What's the "Scientific Basis" for letting a rape victim abort her baby but not letting a girl who just had a one-night stand not do so?

There isn't one.

Either a fetus is a person or it isn't.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I really have better things to do than to debate minutia with you.

I wouldn't call this a minor thing. I would have asked you the same thing if Joe hadn't already done so.

If you really believe that abortion is murder then why would you allow exceptions for rape or incest? That's not an unreasonable question, it deals with an apparent flaw in your reasoning and should be addressed much more seriously than it has been so far.

I would think that the only exception you would be alright with is aborting in order to save the mother's life but strangely enough I don't recall seeing you mention that anywhere in this thread.

If you really think that exceptions should be made for rape or incest then you're no different from anyone else who's drawn an arbitrary line which has nothing to do with the sanctity of life.

Actually not. I have a problem with rapists and incest in general. A) Rape is a crime, a violation of the woman. B) incest can lead to severe genetic deformities in the child. So, am I not allowed to have limits? Or will you hold me to standards that you yourself do not hold to? Unlike you, I don't use rape victims to further a political agenda, I carry a genuine concern for the well being of the victim.

There are two studies, the only of their kind about rape victim abortions, that show regardless of my opinion on the subject, nearly three quarters of the women polled in the year 1981 chose to keep their babies instead of aborting them. How about that? The studies: Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, M.D. and William V. Dolan, M.D. “Sexual Assault and Pregnancy” in Thomas Hulgers, Dennis Horan and David Mall, “New Perspectives on Human Abortion” (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1981) 194

Funny how the two of you suddenly care for the child, when you've spent the entirety of this thread defending a woman's right to needlessly kill it. I find it strange that I managed to completely reverse your line of reasoning in one simple discussion about abortion.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Actually not. I have a problem with rapists and incest in general. A) Rape is a crime, a violation of the woman. B) incest can lead to severe genetic deformities in the child. So, am I not allowed to have limits? Or will you hold me to standards that you yourself do not hold to? Unlike you, I don't use rape victims to further a political agenda, I carry a genuine concern for the well being of the victim.

There are two studies, the only of their kind about rape victim abortions, that show regardless of my opinion on the subject, nearly three quarters of the women polled in the year 1981 chose to keep their babies instead of aborting them. How about that?

Funny how the two of you suddenly care for the child, when you've spent the entirety of this thread defending a woman's right to needlessly kill it. I find it strange that I managed to completely reverse your line of reasoning in one simple discussion about abortion.

I have a standard.

Her body. Her decision. But this is interesting.

B) incest can lead to severe genetic deformities in the child.

Okay, if that's a standard, then you would support women who abort fetuses with Down Syndrome and other genetic defects? You are widening the net even further.

There are two studies, the only of their kind about rape victim abortions, that show regardless of my opinion on the subject, nearly three quarters of the women polled in the year 1981 chose to keep their babies instead of aborting them. How about that?

I think that if you had actually been alive in 1981, you'd know how really worthless a study like that was. Most women in 1981 didn't report being raped. There was still a stigma attached to it.

Funny how the two of you suddenly care for the child, when you've spent the entirety of this thread defending a woman's right to needlessly kill it. I find it strange that I managed to completely reverse your line of reasoning in one simple discussion about abortion

Where did I say I cared about the child? Or that I even considered it to be one?

For the record, I said no such thing.

I pointed out your double standard that your belief that a fetus is a child, unless he was conceived from rape or incest or had severe genetic deformities, in which case we need to totally kill the fuck out of it!

 

[lakeview]

Actually not. I have a problem with rapists and incest in general. A) Rape is a crime, a violation of the woman. B) incest can lead to severe genetic deformities in the child. So, am I not allowed to have limits? Or will you hold me to standards that you yourself do not hold to? Unlike you, I don't use rape victims to further a political agenda, I carry a genuine concern for the well being of the victim.

A. If someone does you wrong you're not allowed to kill an innocent third party.
B. Great argument for Eugenics.

Of course you're allowed to have limits, and others are allowed to ask about those limits when your positions appear to contradict, as they do in this case.

There are two studies, the only of their kind about rape victim abortions, that show regardless of my opinion on the subject, nearly three quarters of the women polled in the year 1981 chose to keep their babies instead of aborting them. How about that? The studies: Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, M.D. and William V. Dolan, M.D. “Sexual Assault and Pregnancy” in Thomas Hulgers, Dennis Horan and David Mall, “New Perspectives on Human Abortion” (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1981) 194

So what? This has nothing to do with the underlying reasoning of your position.

Funny how the two of you suddenly care for the child, when you've spent the entirety of this thread defending a woman's right to needlessly kill it. I find it strange that I managed to completely reverse your line of reasoning in one simple discussion about abortion.

The two of us? Show me any post where I take a stance one way or another. For that matter, show any post from me in this thread other than the one you just responded to. You should probably read threads before you start talking about them. If I haven't given a position in the thread then how can you reverse my reasoning? You don't even know what my position or my reasoning is yet you claim to have reversed what I've been doing in the entirety of the thread...is what you do on this board based at all in reality? Do you even care?

 

[Spoonman]

I really wish people could change their mind on this issue.

We live in america and with that comes a thing called "freedom". The law of the land is the constitution, not the bible. You far right wingnuts need to understand that,..

Isn't the concept at issue what the Nuremberg Trials were about?

One, of necessity, must fight for what is right.


"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito" meaning "do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it."


Killing an innocent human being seems to fall within that proscription.

as soon as we can determine when it is right to live it won't be long before we start determining when it is right to die

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

Actually not. I have a problem with rapists and incest in general. A) Rape is a crime, a violation of the woman. B) incest can lead to severe genetic deformities in the child. So, am I not allowed to have limits? Or will you hold me to standards that you yourself do not hold to? Unlike you, I don't use rape victims to further a political agenda, I carry a genuine concern for the well being of the victim.

There are two studies, the only of their kind about rape victim abortions, that show regardless of my opinion on the subject, nearly three quarters of the women polled in the year 1981 chose to keep their babies instead of aborting them. How about that?

Funny how the two of you suddenly care for the child, when you've spent the entirety of this thread defending a woman's right to needlessly kill it. I find it strange that I managed to completely reverse your line of reasoning in one simple discussion about abortion.

I have a standard.

Her body. Her decision. But this is interesting.

B) incest can lead to severe genetic deformities in the child.

Okay, if that's a standard, then you would support women who abort fetuses with Down Syndrome and other genetic defects? You are widening the net even further.

There are two studies, the only of their kind about rape victim abortions, that show regardless of my opinion on the subject, nearly three quarters of the women polled in the year 1981 chose to keep their babies instead of aborting them. How about that?

I think that if you had actually been alive in 1981, you'd know how really worthless a study like that was. Most women in 1981 didn't report being raped. There was still a stigma attached to it.

Funny how the two of you suddenly care for the child, when you've spent the entirety of this thread defending a woman's right to needlessly kill it. I find it strange that I managed to completely reverse your line of reasoning in one simple discussion about abortion

Where did I say I cared about the child? Or that I even considered it to be one?

For the record, I said no such thing.

I pointed out your double standard that your belief that a fetus is a child, unless he was conceived from rape or incest or had severe genetic deformities, in which case we need to totally kill the fuck out of it!

"Her body. Her decision."


No it isn't.


Unless you can explain how 'her body' can have two different sets of fingerprints, and two different blood types.