Forums | MacLife

Remember that firebombing abortion clinics is a form of "social welfare".

NokX wrote:

funny how conservatives want to protect the innocent, and kill the guilty.  while the liberals want to kill the innocent, and protect the guilty.

So you reject the idea of original sin? How liberal of you.

jkahless wrote:

That non obvious sanctity of human life is the basis of free western civilization.

I could have sworn it was freedom.

matt wrote:

NokX wrote:

funny how conservatives want to protect the innocent, and kill the guilty.  while the liberals want to kill the innocent, and protect the guilty.

What's not funny is when people who don't understand others' points of view try to make witty remarks about said points of view and completely fail.

Is it funny when someone doesn't realize that pro-life and pro-choice folks tend to do exactly that to each other in every argument?

Metacell wrote:

jkahless wrote:

That non obvious sanctity of human life is the basis of free western civilization.

I could have sworn it was freedom.

And how does those two not tie together?  Your freedom can't infringe on someone else's.

But only the one who suffers, or dies, makes that decision for himself.

You have no right - no smurfing right - to tell someone else that they are better off dead.

Last edited by Tallgeese (2007-08-22 11:06 pm)

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

Remember that firebombing abortion clinics is a form of "social welfare".

Actually, it is a form of murder.
Well, if anyone dies it is anyway.
If no one dies, it is destruction of private property, terrorism, and possibly attempted murder.

Last edited by resedit (2007-08-23 2:08 am)

bratboy wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

But only the one who suffers, or dies, makes that decision for himself.

You have no right - no smurfing right - to tell someone else that they are better off dead.

I agree, and phrasing the defense of abortion in such a manner certainly bothers me.

I didn't mean abortion (I meant that we fight wars, ostensibly over freedom), although re-reading it I can see how it could be a description of abortion. Except that we draw a line between the foetus and an adult and say that they have different rights because they have vastly different consciousness.

(Not that we're consistent as regards value of life vs. value of freedom. Or if we are consistent, we achieve that by handwaving; e.g. desire for suicide being an indisputable sign of 'mental illness', which, yes, I'm sure does derive from the ethical norms built on the religious concept of sanctity of life.)

Last edited by Zetetic Apparatchik (2007-08-23 3:08 am)

Which, if you decide that a foetus has the same rights as the woman (which I don't), is abrogated for the duration. Or you decide that the foetus is still part of the woman's body, then there's no discussion of foetal rights.

Yes, this is partly fuelled by the misogynistic view that it's fair enough to generally restrict female's right to ownership of their own bodies (and certainly repealing of abortion laws is a symbol of transfer of ownership from the state to the individual) but it's not the only point involved.

Last edited by Zetetic Apparatchik (2007-08-23 9:36 am)

Then I don't see any possible argument for criminalising abortion unless you assume "all females are scum (see Eve)".

Surely 'Viability' effectively refers to the fetus developing rights approaching that of the woman (but with the woman's health still being superior to that fetus')? Extrautrine survival is fairly arbitrary as a general attribute and entirely subjective on a case-by-case basis. Or am I missing the point? (Answers longer than 'Yes' appreciated. )

Last edited by Zetetic Apparatchik (2007-08-23 10:39 am)

robco wrote:

That's one thing I never got, what do we gain by criminalizing it? What sort of punishment would be meted out to providers and/or patients? How will that help?

Well in mexico, it's 6-12 months prison time, and some party introduced a bill that would increase that to 12-36 months.




That's for the murderess. Doctors face longer sentences.

jerwin wrote:

I'm partial to the "Pregnancy as disease" model.

Except...pregancy isn't a disease.  And even if it were, we generally don't permit sick people to murder innocents (e.g., organ harvesting) to get healthy.  Hence the question breaks back down to, "do fetuses have rights?"

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

Yes, this is partly fuelled by the misogynistic view that it's fair enough to generally restrict female's right to ownership of their own bodies (and certainly repealing of abortion laws is a symbol of transfer of ownership from the state to the individual) but it's not the only point involved.

I just don't see where misogyny comes into the abortion debate.  By nature, women get pregnant, not men.  That's an unchangeable fact, and linking certain legal burdens to pregnancy isn't inherently "misogynistic," it can simply reflect an unchangeable fact of nature. 

E.g., should a woman in eighth month of pregnancy have the legal right to an abortion on a whim?  To hit herself in the stomach--not hard enough to kill the fetus, but enough to do him/her damage?  To drink and smoke heavily?

To put it another way, in your world, a man has no power to prevent a woman from killing his unborn child.  Sexist?

Also, he fact that men and women are pro-life/choice in roughly equal proportions suggests I'm right.

Last edited by charon (2007-08-23 12:56 pm)