Isn't this Ironic

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
Damn everyone is getting into it like Grantt is still around!

I choose to be on the pro-choice side because I am practical. Mothers could do lots of other things, should she be tried for murder for not taking vitamins or drinking while pregnant and the fetus dies? And as I suggested before, how about the doctor just takes the fetus out and gives it a nice warm place under a light until it dies, would that be inhumane killing? I am sorry, I know others disagree but a fetus is just that, a living thing yes, but not a living human until it can survive on its own outside a mother. Until then I have to agree its first and foremost the choice of the host (mother) and not the choice of the church or some politician, let alone some psychopath that can't live with himself without picking off law-abiding doctors.
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
>> but a fetus is just that, a living thing yes, but not a living human until it can survive on its own outside a mother

Bill,
Can a newborn survive on its own? Can it find it's own food & shelter? Can the severely ill survive on their own (no hosipitals, "on it's own")?

Let me know.
Thanks.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
It breathes and lives for more than a few minutes on its own. I am just saying what if instead of taking the fetus' life, the doctor just took it out of the mother and laid it out on a table. It can't live, so therefore I don't see the connection in saying this organism is a human being until it makes it out of the mother and breathes on its own. Just my definition. And no one ever answers my quesion about if you make this incredibly high standard about protecting the fetus, how come there are no laws forcing pregnant mothers to take utmost care of their child? How about if a mother gets into a typical car accident and the mother hits her stomach and loses the child, should we hold the other driver liable for involuntary manslaughter for a fender bender???
 

New member
Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
2,857
Tokens
Wildbill,

If it's not human then why in California they are trying the Peterson guy for double murder of his pregnant wife?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,724
Tokens
"A medical procedure?

So, if a Doctor were to say - take your organs against your will & leave you to die ... then that would not be murder because it is a medical procedure?

Right. Way to twist legal terms into morality "

Actually I'm not twisting anything, I'm not even expressing my own opinion on the issue. I'm saying the way those that do perform abortions see it. There's no criminal intent or premeditation because they don't see what they are doing as crime, oh yeah and if I remember right the law doesn't either.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Posted by lander:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Phadeus[sic],
You are a condescending prick. You seek not to debate, but rather to preach your philosophies.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, um, thanks.

I said that a fetus meets the scientific criteria of a parasite.

You said that people who are metaphorically referred to as parasites are therefore justifiable in being killed, according to me.

I pointed out that this was incorrect and that you were either misunderstanding or deliberately twisting my words.

You said, "No I'm not." Although you did.

And I said, "Yes you did." Because you did.

And I'm a condescending prick? I am only trying to keep you from either misunderstanding or deliberately distorting my words.

As far as debate goes, I love a good one, but whenever we disagree you go into a shit-fit. When I told you you needed to better-research a position you had taken on gun control, which was shakily-supported at best, you went into a similar ad hominem attack of me. Are you sure that it is I who do not seek to debate?


Phaedrus
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Riiiight.
Certainly this is another example of your patronizing ways.
icon_rolleyes.gif


You love a "good (debate)", yet you defend your premises by attacking the character of the opposition. Clearly the qualities of a "good debate"
icon_rolleyes.gif


You'd be a better politician than a philosopher - perhaps you should change your your handle to Politicus
1036316054.gif
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
A recent survey by Lake Snell Perry reveals that voters believe the right to an abortion is currently being challenged and that they are worried about this challenge. Furthermore, voters nationwide support Roe v. Wade and believe that access to abortion is important. The survey reached 1150 registered voters ages 18 or older who reported they are likely to vote in the November 2000 general election for President and Congress. The survey was conducted between December 13 and December 19, 1999. The total margin of error for this survey is +/- 3.1%.

Roe versus Wade:

Voters are aware of Roe v. Wade and favor the 1973 decision. Eighty-three percent of voters say they have heard of Roe v. Wade, compared to just 17 percent who say they have not heard of the decision or are unsure. At least two-thirds of every demographic, geographic and political sub-group has heard about Roe v. Wade.

Of those who know about Roe v. Wade, more than six out of ten favor the decision (62 percent favor), including more than a third who are strongly favorable (38 percent). In contrast, less than one third of voters oppose the decision (33 percent; 22 percent strongly oppose) and 5 percent are unsure.

Support for Roe v. Wade significantly increases as you look at the younger cohorts. Voters under 30 are the most favorable toward the decision (77 percent favor, 52 percent strongly favor), followed by voters ages 30 to 39 (63 percent favor, 44 percent strongly favor). In contrast, seniors are the least favorable, with a plurality in favor of Roe v. Wade (45 percent favor, 25 percent strongly favor).


Furthermore, voters believe it is likely that the next President will have a large say in whether the right to an abortion is overturned through the appointment of new Supreme Court Justices and a plurality are worried about the possibility. Half of voters say it is likely that the next President could overturn a woman's right to choose through Supreme Court appointments (51 percent; 17 percent very likely), while 41 percent of voters say that this is not likely to happen (11 percent not likely at all). Only 7 percent of voters are unsure.


Forty-three percent of voters say they would be worried if the next President tried to overturn Roe v. Wade through Supreme Court Appointments, including 18 percent who would be very worried. However, 54 percent say that they would not be worried (29 percent not worried at all).

Notably, there is a strong age difference evident in terms of concern about overturning Roe v. Wade. Twenty-seven percent of seniors say they would be worried if the next President tried to overturn Roe v. Wade through Supreme Court Appointments (11 percent very worried), compared to over half of voters under 30 (54 percent, 23 percent very worried). In particular, younger women say they would be the most worried — 58 percent worried including 25 percent who say they would be very worried.

This issue has the potential to affect the upcoming Presidential elections, as 52 percent of Democrats say they would be worried, 46 percent of Independents — who will be key swing voters — say they would be worried, and 62 percent of pro-choice voters say they would be worried if the next President tried to overturn Roe v. Wade through Supreme Court Appointments.


Notably, more than four in ten voters believe it is likely that a woman's right to an abortion will be overturned in their lifetime (42 percent; 11 percent very likely). In contrast, half of voters believe it is unlikely this right will be overturned (50 percent), including 20 percent who believe it is very unlikely. Eight percent of voters are unsure.

Anti-choice voters are overall more likely and more intense than pro-choice voters in their belief that this right will end in their lifetime (46 percent; 16 percent very likely to 40 percent; 9 percent very likely, respectively). Furthermore, Republican voters are the most likely to believe the right to an abortion will be overturned (47 percent; 17 percent very likely), compared to Democrats (42 percent; 12 percent very likely) and Independents (36 percent; 4 percent very likely).

Attitudes on Abortion Rights:


Nearly three-fourths of voters believe the right to an abortion is currently being challenged, including a plurality who strongly believe this right is being challenged (72 percent; 43 percent strongly). Only two in ten voters do not believe the right to an abortion is currently being challenged (19 percent; 8 percent strongly), and 8 percent are unsure. Moreover, of those voters who believe the right to an abortion is being challenged, half are worried by the perceived challenges (50 percent; 19 percent very worried).

Strong majorities of voters across every demographic, geographic and political sub-group believe the right to an abortion is currently being challenged. Notably, a gender gap exists with women more likely than men to believe the right to an abortion is currently being challenged (76 percent to 69 percent, respectively). Women are also more worried about this challenge than men (56 percent to 42 percent, respectively).


Additionally, as seen in past surveys, nearly six out of ten voters say it is personally important to ensure that abortion remains accessible (59 percent important), including 29 percent who say it is very important. Less than four in ten voters believe accessibility to abortion is not important (39 percent; 25 percent not important at all).

Not surprisingly, ensuring access to abortion is more important to women than to men (63 percent to 54 percent, respectively), as well as to pro-choice voters compared to anti-choice voters (85 percent to 26 percent, respectively). Politically, Democrats are the most likely overall and the most intense in believing that ensuring accessibility to abortion is important (71 percent; 41 very important), followed by Independents (67 percent; 27 percent very important) and then Republicans (39 percent; 15 percent very important).

Furthermore, younger voters place more importance on access to abortion than older voters. Younger voters (66 percent), especially voters under 30 (74 percent), are more likely than older voters (51 percent) to say it is important to ensure access to abortions.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Posted by lander:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Certainly this is another example of your patronizing ways.

You love a "good (debate)", yet you defend your premises by attacking the character of the opposition. Clearly the qualities of a "good debate"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look, I made a statement based on a scientific (literal) definition. You then took that statement and applied it to a metaphorical (figurative) context. I took exception. I am not attacking you; I am defending my premise. Yes, I did cite an earlier example of this same behaviour on your part, this tendency to go batshit if someone questions you, but I think that if you look at my posts you'll agree that I'm being for the most part very cordial and simply trying to restate my original point until it is understood in the context in which it was meant.

If you understood it and simply deliberately twisted it around because you found my characterisation of a fetus as a parasite offensive, wouldn't it have saved a lot of time and bandwidth to just say that you found my position offensive? I don't understand these pissing contests you and I get into lander, I really don't.


Phaedrus
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Would you please clarify your argument?
Am I going batshit or having a shit-fit?

Or, alternatively, are these simply futher examples of your "scientific literal terms" that happen to be both synonymous with each other and an example of "good debate?"

Thanks.
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Is batshit what batman takes in his batcave?

Wil,
Would you like to be Robin? Do you look good in tights?
icon_biggrin.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
That one is intersting
icon_smile.gif


The Peterson case is a double homicide because she was 8 months pregnant, that would consititue a viable child in almost every case. I agree with that thinking. I just think before 5 months or so its not a viable child and its not murder. Simply my opinion. I respect that of others, but what pisses me off is how the anti-abortion crowd that always gets on TV these days doesn't respect my opinion or that of the majority of this country. They always make some statement like "I don't pay attention to the opinions of those that condone murder". Nice. Face it, this is a democracy and an agnostic one at that, we shouldn't have all these people holding up bibles and telling us what the laws should be regarding this and a plethora of other issues.
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Bill,
In fairness, one certainly must concede that majority does not always equate to correctness. The history of slavery is proof enough.

I see nothing wrong with civil protest, however the extremists, like the doctor's murderer, destroy the cause that the these people fight for. It's beyond me how one can justify murder, because the murdered was a murderer. It's complete hypocracy, a lie. This is the same logic that makes me against the death sentance, against *most* wars.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Would you please clarify your argument?
Am I going batshit or having a shit-fit?

Or, alternatively, are these simply futher examples of your "scientific literal terms" that happen to be both synonymous with each other and an example of "good debate?"

Thanks.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep twisting, lander. I wonder if you can even see the silliness of these posts. Can we stick to the original point, or failing that drop it?


Phaedrus
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
>> Keep twisting, lander

this tendency to go batshit if someone questions you


but whenever we disagree you go into a shit-fit

Sorry for "twisting" your words by directly quoting them.
icon_rolleyes.gif


Politicus, you are absolutely correct -- I should check the credibility of my sources before publishing them.
Thanks for the tip.
icon_wink.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Twist, twist, twist. You can be so childish, lander. Please, return to the subject of the thread, or my post re the subject of the thread, or drop this. You won't even go back to the original disagreement we had here, which says to me that you realise that you were wrong, but would never say so. All of this pointless back-and-forth stems from the simple fact that you either misunderstood what I said, or deliberately took my words out of context. You say my pointing out your tendency to go into childish derisive tirades when disagreed with constitutes an "assault on your character." What does calling me a condescending, patronising prick with no credibility simply because I won't just let you have your way constitute?

Please, don't even bother answering. Let's return to the thread topic, which was interesting, rather than keep this up.


Phaedrus
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,157
Messages
13,564,700
Members
100,752
Latest member
gamebet888host
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com