Rob's House Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 Not really. Neither side can prove when life begins- we have no comprehension of that. I can't argue or refute either side, and I know that- I would just be BSing my way through it, like everyone else does. As far as hypocrisy, I grow tired of that word, we are all hypocrites, although some refuse to admit it. Whether for altruistic reasons or selfish reasons, we all adjust what we do. The point is, when talking hypocrisy in this case you are discussing an internal contradiction between beliefs. If a person believes that baby is alive, protecting that baby's right to life in no way contradicts the belief that people should be free to make their own personal decisions because based on the premises of those beliefs, which are not mutually exclusive, the woman's right to kill the child inside her is superseded by the child's right to live. This aspect isn't that complicated. Anyone who understands this point of view & persists in claiming hypocrisy is either dishonest or incredibly stupid. I don't think you are either & I'm therefore baffled that I'm having this discussion with you.
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 Although there is an issue I have with people on both sides wanting government interference on what they want, then they slander the other side for what they want the government to do, there is some real hypocrisy elsewhere in this issue. Both sides are just so insistent on when life begins, they feel that their lack of knowledge is somehow better than somebody else's lack of knowledge. The billboard I brought up (which I guess is supposed to be anti abortion) is an example of the debate being taken way too far. Those people are clearly fundamentalists who don't want to engage in discussion, they just want the government to asserts their will on others. I get what you are saying, but I don't think the situations equate. It just isn't equal here though. It's not both sides forcing their opinion on the other. Pro-choice lets people reproduce how they see fit (with reasonable exceptions for really late abortions and whatnot perhaps)...pro-life does not.
Adam Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 The point is, when talking hypocrisy in this case you are discussing an internal contradiction between beliefs. If a person believes that baby is alive, protecting that baby's right to life in no way contradicts the belief that people should be free to make their own personal decisions because based on the premises of those beliefs, which are not mutually exclusive, the woman's right to kill the child inside her is superseded by the child's right to live. This aspect isn't that complicated. Anyone who understands this point of view & persists in claiming hypocrisy is either dishonest or incredibly stupid. I don't think you are either & I'm therefore baffled that I'm having this discussion with you. Believe is one thing, fact is another. Neither side has facts. Believe is very dangerous It just isn't equal here though. It's not both sides forcing their opinion on the other. Pro-choice lets people reproduce how they see fit (with reasonable exceptions for really late abortions and whatnot perhaps)...pro-life does not. There is no potential life to have the faux debate about with the vasectomy.
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 We are talking about a rape situation here. But even in a domestic relationship, yes it is still her decision. It is her womb. Flip it another way, say you want a vasectomy but society frowns on it. It's your life, your nuts, your decision. Why should society dictate such a personal decision. If you force a woman to always have a child, society better well be prepared to pay for that child and not complain once about that child. Since its all sacred and all. Regardless of your stance on the position, there is no equivalence here. Whether you consider it deserving of life, a developing baby is killed by abortion. Giving yourself a vasectomy kills nothing. A valid comparison would be a woman having her tubes tied, yet there are no activists, right-wing or otherwise that I know of, seeking governmental intervention in such cases. It just isn't equal here though. It's not both sides forcing their opinion on the other. Pro-choice lets people reproduce how they see fit (with reasonable exceptions for really late abortions and whatnot perhaps)...pro-life does not. That's not accurate either. Pro-life doesn't impose itself on how people reproduce; it imposes itself on those who want to kill the baby after the fact. Pro-choice wants to allow people to impose their will on a baby against its will. Can't we just be honest & accept the undeniable truth that the answer turns exclusively on whether or not you believe the fetus is a baby? Playing out someone else's philosophy after subbing in your underlying premise for theirs is bull ****.
Adam Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 Regardless of your stance on the position, there is no equivalence here. Whether you consider it deserving of life, a developing baby is killed by abortion. Giving yourself a vasectomy kills nothing. A valid comparison would be a woman having her tubes tied, yet there are no activists, right-wing or otherwise that I know of, seeking governmental intervention in such cases. That's not accurate either. Pro-life doesn't impose itself on how people reproduce; it imposes itself on those who want to kill the baby after the fact. Pro-choice wants to allow people to impose their will on a baby against its will. Can't we just be honest & accept the undeniable truth that the answer turns exclusively on whether or not you believe the fetus is a baby? Playing out someone else's philosophy after subbing in your underlying premise for theirs is bull ****. Agreed on that point- you summed up what both sides do to prove their point, perfectly. On that note, I am calling it a night. Tomorrow is going to be a loooong day........
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 That's not accurate either. Pro-life doesn't impose itself on how people reproduce; it imposes itself on those who want to kill the baby after the fact. Pro-choice wants to allow people to impose their will on a baby against its will. Can't we just be honest & accept the undeniable truth that the answer turns exclusively on whether or not you believe the fetus is a baby? Playing out someone else's philosophy after subbing in your underlying premise for theirs is bull ****. The reason that it is factually/logically correct (IMO of course hehe) to view pro-choice as the more pro-rights (liberal..or even conservative..lol however you see it) stance...is because BOTH sides necessarily have to acknowledge that however they feel about the fertilized egg being life...they aren't God and there is a good faith and contentious disagreement about if it is. Therefore, given the regulation prohibiting abortion would interfere with the most intimate of experiences humans have...it's not appropriate. That's really why it's not an even handed debate where either way one side is forcing their view on the other. No matter how you slice it it's a parasite living in the body of another person who is charged by nature with turning into a full human being or not...one side of this issue controls their decisions from that point on regarding their reproduction the other does not.
IDBillzFan Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 I see it this way. It's the woman's womb, it's her choice to make what is right for her or what is not right for her. We need to stay out of that decision nor do I believe we have any right to interfer in her personal decision. That is between her and her doctor. Awesome. So that means the government can no longer force anyone to provide "free" birth control for a woman, right? I mean...the woman's decision to use birth control should be between her and her doctor since, y'know, it involves the woman's womb. No need to make anyone pick up the tab for that decision, right? Or is the decision up to the woman, with the understanding that she would otherwise be too stupid to figure out how to pay for her decision? Man, being a liberal should comes with a lot of contradictions. Maybe Sandra Fluke can figure it out for the rest of you gals.
Oxrock Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 I wish the left would exercise ther choice more often. I hope the classical liberals and conservatives pro-create like horn dogs on coke.
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 Awesome. So that means the government can no longer force anyone to provide "free" birth control for a woman, right? I mean...the woman's decision to use birth control should be between her and her doctor since, y'know, it involves the woman's womb. No need to make anyone pick up the tab for that decision, right? Or is the decision up to the woman, with the understanding that she would otherwise be too stupid to figure out how to pay for her decision? Man, being a liberal should comes with a lot of contradictions. Maybe Sandra Fluke can figure it out for the rest of you gals. B/c making healthcare available to people who can choose to use it or not is the same as denying healthcare to people whether or not they choose to use it?
Fan in San Diego Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 Although there is an issue I have with people on both sides wanting government interference on what they want, then they slander the other side for what they want the government to do, there is some real hypocrisy elsewhere in this issue. Both sides are just so insistent on when life begins, they feel that their lack of knowledge is somehow better than somebody else's lack of knowledge. The billboard I brought up (which I guess is supposed to be anti abortion) is an example of the debate being taken way too far. Those people are clearly fundamentalists who don't want to engage in discussion, they just want the government to asserts their will on others. I get what you are saying, but I don't think the situations equate. I don't see any difference. Thats the closest guys can get to the same issue. Shooting blanks or shooting bullets. If society says you should shoot blanks, how would you feel? Is it really up for popular vote in American society whether or not you shoot blanks or bullets? Same difference IMHO. Awesome. So that means the government can no longer force anyone to provide "free" birth control for a woman, right? I mean...the woman's decision to use birth control should be between her and her doctor since, y'know, it involves the woman's womb. No need to make anyone pick up the tab for that decision, right? Or is the decision up to the woman, with the understanding that she would otherwise be too stupid to figure out how to pay for her decision? Man, being a liberal should comes with a lot of contradictions. Maybe Sandra Fluke can figure it out for the rest of you gals. Birth control is the womans decision. Whether it is free or not is a different issue for a different thread.
IDBillzFan Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 B/c making healthcare available to people who can choose to use it or not is the same as denying healthcare to people whether or not they choose to use it? Democrats 2012: Women are smart enough to make their own choices for their body...but too stupid to figure out how to pay for the choices they make.
meazza Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 B/c making healthcare available to people who can choose to use it or not is the same as denying healthcare to people whether or not they choose to use it? Why does health care include birth control? Even in Canada, it's not free.
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 I don't see any difference. Thats the closest guys can get to the same issue. Shooting blanks or shooting bullets. If society says you should shoot blanks, how would you feel? Is it really up for popular vote in American society whether or not you shoot blanks or bullets? Same difference IMHO. Birth control is the womans decision. Whether it is free or not is a different issue for a different thread. The lack of a male equivalence does not thereby make two dissimilar thing similar. I already explained the female equivalence & summarily defeated your argument, but you persist on in defiance of logic without even addressing the rebuke because you'd rather validate something you previously thought than pursue truth.
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) Democrats 2012: Women are smart enough to make their own choices for their body...but too stupid to figure out how to pay for the choices they make. All women in all circumstances should have access to birth-control. It should be as easy as possible. It benefits not only the women who is helped by it, but all of society. You can be angry for no reason or you can pick a better issue to get riled up about as a partisan maniac. Why does health care include birth control? Even in Canada, it's not free. I cannot think of anything more easily classified as healthcare then birth control/managing reproduction. Edited August 22, 2012 by TheNewBills
meazza Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 All women in all circumstances should have access to birth-control. It should be as easy as possible. It benefits not only the women who is helped by it, but all of society. You can be angry for no reason or you can pick a better issue to get riled up about as a partisan maniac. It is easy. Go to a drug store and buy rubbers.
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 It is easy. Go to a drug store and buy rubbers. lol spoken like a true man
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 The reason that it is factually/logically correct (IMO of course hehe) to view pro-choice as the more pro-rights (liberal..or even conservative..lol however you see it) stance...is because BOTH sides necessarily have to acknowledge that however they feel about the fertilized egg being life...they aren't God and there is a good faith and contentious disagreement about if it is. Therefore, given the regulation prohibiting abortion would interfere with the most intimate of experiences humans have...it's not appropriate. That's really why it's not an even handed debate where either way one side is forcing their view on the other. No matter how you slice it it's a parasite living in the body of another person who is charged by nature with turning into a full human being or not...one side of this issue controls their decisions from that point on regarding their reproduction the other does not. Let's look at it another way. Except in cases of rape, the woman, rather than the "parasite", is the one responsible for the situation. It hardly seems just to give her exclusive authority to decide whether or not to kill it. You get pregnant, it's your responsibility to care for the child. Unless of course you're arguing that it's not a baby, but rather a mass of cells not dissimilar from a tumor, in which case all ethical questions become moot.
meazza Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 lol spoken like a true man Well you ignored (or missed) the comment I made above. Canada which is supposed to be the highlight of what liberals believe health care should look like (until they try and get a family doctor of course) doesn't even provide free birth control. It's actually paid out of pocket or provided with employer insurance (sound familiar?). Now that being said, if you want to !@#$ and not pay the consequences, go buy contraceptives.
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 Let's look at it another way. Except in cases of rape, the woman, rather than the "parasite", is the one responsible for the situation. It hardly seems just to give her exclusive authority to decide whether or not to kill it. You get pregnant, it's your responsibility to care for the child. Unless of course you're arguing that it's not a baby, but rather a mass of cells not dissimilar from a tumor, in which case all ethical questions become moot. My point is the clear ambiguity is whether or not it's "human life" or even "human life...enough." Any sense of humility will compel anybody regardless of their beliefs and no matter how sincere to acknowledge that they are not the final arbiter on that question. Where there is absolutely 0 ambiguity is the known, real world impact outlawing abortion has on the woman with a fertilized egg. Provided you acknowledge that you are not god, there is absolutely nothing conservative, or even really just...about outlawing all abortion.
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 All women in all circumstances should have access to birth-control. It should be as easy as possible. It benefits not only the women who is helped by it, but all of society. You can be angry for no reason or you can pick a better issue to get riled up about as a partisan maniac. I cannot think of anything more easily classified as healthcare then birth control/managing reproduction. I happen to think birth control is a wonderful thing & I think the Catholic stance is a little loony, but I don't see why they should be compelled to provide it. I just don't see any justification for making that kind of an imposition.
Recommended Posts