Toxicfluff on 4/6/2009 at 21:00
Quote Posted by Queue
No wonder these kids are fucked up and will stick anything in 'em when they can.
Hahaha. Yeah, that's why they keep the crucifixes high up on the walls.
june gloom on 4/6/2009 at 21:31
Quote Posted by Matthew
Never underestimate the buttfuck insanity of a Northern Irish politician. Living here is nearly evidence of what would happen if Rush Limbaugh was made President.
That's a terrifying thought. Hide your prescription painkillers.
Namdrol on 4/6/2009 at 21:59
(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/anderson/) http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/anderson/
Hit and sometimes not a hit. always a hit if Sean's working.
(and if your lucky he'll talk about abortion;).)( Actually, in the Province he'd be off in a second if he came up with that sort of talk)
Don't get the music in the pod cast. 4 -5 songs maybe 6 an hour.
Mr Anderson has impeccable taste.
Check the iplayer for that
Phatose on 4/6/2009 at 22:38
Quote Posted by Morte
I guess you are, so I will spell it out for you: On the one hand, you're claiming to be supremely concerned about the rights of the supposedly sentient fetus. One the other hand, you toss those rights straight out the window in cases of rape. If you actually were committed to the premise that this is an actual sentient being, you wouldn't care about the circumstances of how it came into being, because those are entirely outside its control.
It doesn't matter if you call it punishment, nature, or facing the consequences of their behaviour, you don't care about fetuses nearly as much as you care about the women's behaviour.
Rape exemptions and fertility clinics are a good litmus test for the "the fetus is a real human being with all the rights a real baby has" spiel. If you balk at denying a couple children, or forcing someone to carry their rapist's baby to term, then you don't actually believe that a clump of cells are worth as much as a real person, and should stop spewing that bullshit.
Whether or not I believe the fucking fetus is a real fucking human hasn't even come into goddamn question here, because it's totally fucking irrelevant.
The claim was made on like page 3 that the woman's right to her body allows her to terminate a pregnancy in all cases, even if we allow that the fetus is equivalent to a human being, no questions asked - I'm saying that's bullshit. Get it yet?
So, here's a litmus test for you. The baby is due in a week. The mother willingly and intentionally concieved the child. But oh look, she's changed her mind.
Is an abortion OK there? Cause if it's fucking not, then we're on the same goddamned side and you should shut the fuck up.
DDL on 4/6/2009 at 22:44
baby's due in a week and it's going to kill both the mother and itself coz it done grew all fucked up and nobody could tell till now. Is an abortion OK there?
Because making shit up and then making sweeping statements is apparently a valid approach. :nono:
Phatose on 4/6/2009 at 23:12
Quote Posted by DDL
baby's due in a week and it's going to kill both the mother and itself coz it done grew all fucked up and nobody could tell till now. Is an abortion OK there?
Because making shit up and then making sweeping statements is apparently a valid approach. :nono:
Actually, when you're arguing against a claim of the form "For all A, B" demonstrating in any case "A, but not B" is completely sufficient to disprove the premise.
Of course, your example is completely irrelevant, cause I ain't claiming all abortion is wrong, or even for that matter that abortion is wrong. I'm claiming that this statement
Quote:
Since you missed it the first time I will say it again - even if we accept the fetus is a fully entitled human being, from conception, the right of that still forming "person" to be carried, is secondary to the right of a already existing, fully adult person, to determine what is done with their body.
Made by nicker on page 4 is simply wrong.
june gloom on 4/6/2009 at 23:14
Quote Posted by DDL
baby's due in a week and it's going to kill both the mother and itself coz it done grew all fucked up and nobody could tell till now. Is an abortion OK there?
Except that's a completely different hypothetical situation from what Phatose was saying.
Might want to try actually answering his question.
DDL on 4/6/2009 at 23:21
The problem is phatose is getting fixated entirely on the question "OMG WOMAN HAS ALL TEH RIGHTS LOL", and is basically setting himself up to go "HAH UR AGREEN WIT ME ROFL" if anyone points out that that it's not actually that simple.
In essence, he wants it to be a case of WOMEN CAN ALWAYS KILL THEIR UNBORN vs WOMEN CAN NEVER KILL THEIR UNBORN, which is..well, retarded.
The whole point of having thresholds beyond which you are no longer legitimately permitted to get an abortion except in cases of medical threat is that it's entirely NOT THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.
So, to answer the question, no: I don't believe it should be permissable for a woman to arbitrarily abort a foetus a week before term (medical cases excepted), and lo and behold, that appears to be what the general legal consensus is too. Not to mention common fucking sense.
I'm still confused as to where phatose comes down on the whole rape issue, though. Is it ok to kill a foetus a week before term if it's a "rape baby", phatose?
SubJeff on 4/6/2009 at 23:23
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Except that's a completely different hypothetical situation from what Phatose was saying.
Phatose and Displacer have pretty much said that irrc though.
And Phatose, what you are suggesting is removal of the rights of the mother and transference of those rights to the foetus.
a. That's just messed up.
b. Great way to really mess with people's plans to have children. Do you know how many women would choose NOT to have children because of the fear of a death they are told MUST happen? Yeah, that's not a problem, til its your wife.
All you anti-abortion people - if your wife was likely to die unless she had an abortion what would you do?
june gloom on 4/6/2009 at 23:34
Phatose would certainly be better off if he would just actually describe, in detail, where he stands with abortion, instead of arguing it in black and white terms.
It still doesn't make arguing against a hypothetical situation by using a hypothetical situation good debate skills. Just wanted to point that out.
(fwiw before anyone decides to jump on me, I'm pro-choice but I believe in accountability and education because abortion- that is, the procedure itself- is fucking horrible no matter which way you slice it.)
