|
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
By Jassik 2015-09-28 01:09:54
A fetus's viability is completely dependent on a mother's willingness to carry it. From that point, every fetus that is unable to survive outside of it's mother is not viable, and it's rights are subject to the mother's decision.
According to what? The law? Because the law says 24 weeks regardless of what the mother decides (barring medical exceptions blah blah blah).
The law determines when it is legal, not whether a fetus is viable. I still don't see why a procedure should be subject to arbitrary and highly variable developmental landmarks, or again, why the exceptions to those laws that effect a minuscule amount of the medical procedures performed by an organization are going to be the centerpoint to a probable government shutdown and further damaging our reputation and credit.
 Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-28 01:14:06
A fetus's viability is completely dependent on a mother's willingness to carry it. From that point, every fetus that is unable to survive outside of it's mother is not viable, and it's rights are subject to the mother's decision.
According to what? The law? Because the law says 24 weeks regardless of what the mother decides (barring medical exceptions blah blah blah).
The law determines when it is legal, not whether a fetus is viable. I still don't see why a procedure should be subject to arbitrary and highly variable developmental landmarks, or again, why the exceptions to those laws that effect a minuscule amount of the medical procedures performed by an organization are going to be the centerpoint to a probable government shutdown and further damaging our reputation and credit.
Boehner said that there would be no shutdown. In any case, if that's your opinion, I don't care. Practically none of the crap that you guys have brought up has anything to do with what I've been talking about anyway, so whatever. I didn't even want this argument in the first place but, *shock*, people would rather argue against the conservative box instead of what I was actually saying.
[+]
By Jassik 2015-09-28 01:21:48
Boehner said that there would be no shutdown. In any case, if that's your opinion, I don't care. Practically none of the crap that you guys have brought up has anything to do with what I've been talking about anyway, so whatever. I didn't even want this argument in the first place but, *shock*, people would rather argue against the conservative box instead of what I was actually saying.
You're saying that convenience shouldn't be a reason for a late-term abortion, but you haven't bothered to give a compelling reason why. It's a pretty common thing you do: present a seemingly reasonable point while attempting to conceal the far less reasonable motives behind it.
Also, Boehner doesn't have a say in it, and it's the opinion of analysts all over the spectrum that they will push a short term extension and delay the deadline for a November/December shutdown scare.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-28 01:29:00
You're saying that convenience shouldn't be a reason for a late-term abortion, but you haven't bothered to give a compelling reason why. It's a pretty common thing you do: present a seemingly reasonable point while attempting to conceal the far less reasonable motives behind it.
I got a chuckle out of this, thanks. Ask yourself why it is illegal to kill your own day-old preemie, then ask yourself why I (and apparently a crapload of other people) think that a 24-week-old fetus/baby/whatever also shouldn't be legally able to be killed without a good reason. The difference? One is out, the other is still in. Woo, that was hard.
Edit: Floppy... stop trying so hard to twist my words into something that isn't there. Kthx.
By Jassik 2015-09-28 01:37:42
You're saying that convenience shouldn't be a reason for a late-term abortion, but you haven't bothered to give a compelling reason why. It's a pretty common thing you do: present a seemingly reasonable point while attempting to conceal the far less reasonable motives behind it.
I got a chuckle out of this, thanks. Ask yourself why it is illegal to kill your own day-old preemie, then ask yourself why I (and apparently a crapload of other people) think that a 24-week-old fetus/baby/whatever also shouldn't be legally able to be killed without a good reason. The difference? One is out, the other is still in. Woo, that was hard.
Edit: Floppy... stop trying so hard to twist my words into something that isn't there. Kthx.
You realize the human gestation is 40 weeks right and that a 24 week old fetus cannot survive outside of it's mother? At the point when it can survive outside of the womb, you can argue that it has some rights. At 25 or even 35 weeks, it's viability is directly reliant on the mother's willingness to carry it, period.
Part of having civil liberties is accepting that other people will be able to do things you don't agree with for no good reason.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2015-09-28 01:38:07
So I come back from watching tv and we're already at the "stop picking on me phase".
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-28 01:40:43
Just come out and say what you mean, Jassik. You support late-term abortions of convenience. Don't take it out on me, it's not my stupid view on the matter.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-28 01:41:31
So I come back from watching tv and we're already at the "stop picking on me phase".
They're not picking on me, they're picking on what they think is me. I don't even know who you guys are arguing with half of the time.
[+]
By Jassik 2015-09-28 01:45:40
Just come out and say what you mean, Jassik. You support late-term abortions of convenience. Don't take it out on me, it's not my HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE view on the matter.
You're talking in circles trying not to admit that you don't have a compelling rationale behind the arbitrary limitations you put on when and why an abortion should be allowed or why you should be allowed to impose those arbitrary limitations on everyone else. I support worrying about yourself, don't like abortions, don't have one.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-28 01:58:23
Just come out and say what you mean, Jassik. You support late-term abortions of convenience. Don't take it out on me, it's not my HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE view on the matter.
You're talking in circles trying not to admit that you don't have a compelling rationale behind the arbitrary limitations you put on when and why an abortion should be allowed or why you should be allowed to impose those arbitrary limitations on everyone else. I support worrying about yourself, don't like abortions, don't have one.
That's like saying "I support worrying about yourself, don't like murders, don't commit one." Even though it's not exactly the same, it's a very similar mindset. Instead, you'd rather claim that my stance is unreasonable because I haven't written out a huge explanation for every minute detail of my viewpoint. And again, I'm only talking late-term abortions, which apparently is something you deemed reasonable but can't stand because you worry about my ulterior motives.
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »Yes, but it is just easier to argue that way. 
By Jassik 2015-09-28 02:07:18
That's like saying "I support worrying about yourself, don't like murders, don't commit one." Even though it's not exactly the same, it's a very similar mindset. Instead, you'd rather claim that my stance is unreasonable because I haven't written out a huge explanation for every minute detail of my viewpoint. And again, I'm only talking late-term abortions, which apparently is something you deemed reasonable but can't stand because you worry about my ulterior motives.
Of course, we're back to the whole fetus = person thing. You haven't bothered to spell out ANY details of your viewpoint. You just keep saying that late-term abortions for the sake of convenience shouldn't be allowed. Not only is there no evidence that it's even a thing, you haven't even given a reason why. You are presenting a seemingly reasonable idea in a very vague way and that's supposed to be justification for wanting to limit other people's rights. Are you dancing around it because you don't want to use the "feel" word?
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-28 02:13:53
That's like saying "I support worrying about yourself, don't like murders, don't commit one." Even though it's not exactly the same, it's a very similar mindset. Instead, you'd rather claim that my stance is unreasonable because I haven't written out a huge explanation for every minute detail of my viewpoint. And again, I'm only talking late-term abortions, which apparently is something you deemed reasonable but can't stand because you worry about my ulterior motives.
Of course, we're back to the whole fetus = person thing. You haven't bothered to spell out ANY details of your viewpoint. You just keep saying that late-term abortions for the sake of convenience shouldn't be allowed. Not only is there no evidence that it's even a thing, you haven't even given a reason why. You are presenting a seemingly reasonable idea in a very vague way and that's supposed to be justification for wanting to limit other people's rights. Are you dancing around it because you don't want to use the "feel" word?
It's seriously not that hard, man. Why is infanticide of even a seconds-old baby illegal? Do you agree that it should be? Why then is the murder of something that is at almost the exact same stage of development but is still in the womb something that is A-OK in your book?
"It has felt air! That makes it so much more important!"
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-28 02:14:59
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
[+]
By Jassik 2015-09-28 02:23:25
That's like saying "I support worrying about yourself, don't like murders, don't commit one." Even though it's not exactly the same, it's a very similar mindset. Instead, you'd rather claim that my stance is unreasonable because I haven't written out a huge explanation for every minute detail of my viewpoint. And again, I'm only talking late-term abortions, which apparently is something you deemed reasonable but can't stand because you worry about my ulterior motives.
Of course, we're back to the whole fetus = person thing. You haven't bothered to spell out ANY details of your viewpoint. You just keep saying that late-term abortions for the sake of convenience shouldn't be allowed. Not only is there no evidence that it's even a thing, you haven't even given a reason why. You are presenting a seemingly reasonable idea in a very vague way and that's supposed to be justification for wanting to limit other people's rights. Are you dancing around it because you don't want to use the "feel" word?
It's seriously not that hard, man. Why is infanticide of even a seconds-old baby illegal? Do you agree that it should be? Why then is the murder of something that is at almost the exact same stage of development but is still in the womb something that is A-OK in your book?
"It has felt air! That makes it so much more important!"
Why should abortion of a 23 week old fetus be ok but abortion of a 24 week old fetus be illegal? The answer is that is the arbitrary line we've put on it. Why is traveling 45 miles per hour ok but 50 isn't? Again, it's the line we've put. The difference between infant and fetus is birth. "It's seriously not that hard"
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-28 02:32:09
That's like saying "I support worrying about yourself, don't like murders, don't commit one." Even though it's not exactly the same, it's a very similar mindset. Instead, you'd rather claim that my stance is unreasonable because I haven't written out a huge explanation for every minute detail of my viewpoint. And again, I'm only talking late-term abortions, which apparently is something you deemed reasonable but can't stand because you worry about my ulterior motives.
Of course, we're back to the whole fetus = person thing. You haven't bothered to spell out ANY details of your viewpoint. You just keep saying that late-term abortions for the sake of convenience shouldn't be allowed. Not only is there no evidence that it's even a thing, you haven't even given a reason why. You are presenting a seemingly reasonable idea in a very vague way and that's supposed to be justification for wanting to limit other people's rights. Are you dancing around it because you don't want to use the "feel" word?
It's seriously not that hard, man. Why is infanticide of even a seconds-old baby illegal? Do you agree that it should be? Why then is the murder of something that is at almost the exact same stage of development but is still in the womb something that is A-OK in your book?
"It has felt air! That makes it so much more important!"
Why should abortion of a 23 week old fetus be ok but abortion of a 24 week old fetus be illegal? The answer is that is the arbitrary line we've put on it. Why is traveling 45 miles per hour ok but 50 isn't? Again, it's the line we've put. The difference between infant and fetus is birth. "It's seriously not that hard"
So instead of answering the question, we've shifted it to a discussion about the magic number where it's okay. 24 weeks is the law, I didn't set that myself. Part of it is scientific study, part of it is subjective.
22 weeks is a 0-10% chance of survival. 23 weeks is a 10-35% chance. 24 weeks is a 40-70% chance. Where do you set the bar? That's subjective. Like a lot of laws, there's no clear-cut magical divide and you have to just pick one that experts can more or less come to a consensus on.
[+]
By Jassik 2015-09-28 02:33:49
So instead of answering the question, we've shifted it to a magic number where it's okay. 24 weeks is the law, I didn't set that myself. Part of it is scientific study, part of it is subjective.
22 weeks is a 0-10% chance of survival. 23 weeks is a 10-35% chance. 24 weeks is a 40-70% chance. Where do you set the bar? That's subjective. Like a lot of laws, there's no clear-cut magical divide and you have to just pick one that experts can more or less come to a consensus on.
Exactly, and they have decided that the difference between a fetus and an infant is birth. Go figure.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-28 02:36:38
So instead of answering the question, we've shifted it to a magic number where it's okay. 24 weeks is the law, I didn't set that myself. Part of it is scientific study, part of it is subjective.
22 weeks is a 0-10% chance of survival. 23 weeks is a 10-35% chance. 24 weeks is a 40-70% chance. Where do you set the bar? That's subjective. Like a lot of laws, there's no clear-cut magical divide and you have to just pick one that experts can more or less come to a consensus on.
Exactly, and they have decided that the difference between a fetus and an infant is birth. Go figure.
Yes, but that isn't the point. Is a fetus okay to kill but a fresh infant not? What is the real difference between the two besides the fact that one has, as I put it, felt air? It's as arbitrary and stupid as trying to pick an exact week where it's okay to destroy it.
[+]
By Jassik 2015-09-28 02:43:27
So instead of answering the question, we've shifted it to a magic number where it's okay. 24 weeks is the law, I didn't set that myself. Part of it is scientific study, part of it is subjective.
22 weeks is a 0-10% chance of survival. 23 weeks is a 10-35% chance. 24 weeks is a 40-70% chance. Where do you set the bar? That's subjective. Like a lot of laws, there's no clear-cut magical divide and you have to just pick one that experts can more or less come to a consensus on.
Exactly, and they have decided that the difference between a fetus and an infant is birth. Go figure.
Yes, but that isn't the point. Is a fetus okay to kill but a fresh infant not? What is the real difference between the two besides the fact that one has, as I put it, felt air? It's as arbitrary and stupid as trying to pick an exact week where it's okay to destroy it.
If it's so arbitrary, why does any distinction exist at any point? What it really boils down to is you know you can't hope to argue that all abortion for "convenience" should be illegal, so you're choosing to argue against one incredibly unusual and less defensible instance where it sounds like a reasonable position. But, you're still using all the same circular arguments that people use for all abortion and avoiding any substantive point. No, dude, I don't think it should be ok to bludgeon a newborn, but that doesn't prove any portion of your argument.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-28 02:52:55
So instead of answering the question, we've shifted it to a magic number where it's okay. 24 weeks is the law, I didn't set that myself. Part of it is scientific study, part of it is subjective.
22 weeks is a 0-10% chance of survival. 23 weeks is a 10-35% chance. 24 weeks is a 40-70% chance. Where do you set the bar? That's subjective. Like a lot of laws, there's no clear-cut magical divide and you have to just pick one that experts can more or less come to a consensus on.
Exactly, and they have decided that the difference between a fetus and an infant is birth. Go figure.
Yes, but that isn't the point. Is a fetus okay to kill but a fresh infant not? What is the real difference between the two besides the fact that one has, as I put it, felt air? It's as arbitrary and stupid as trying to pick an exact week where it's okay to destroy it.
If it's so arbitrary, why does any distinction exist at any point? What it really boils down to is you know you can't hope to argue that all abortion for "convenience" should be illegal, so you're choosing to argue against one incredibly unusual and less defensible instance where it sounds like a reasonable position. But, you're still using all the same circular arguments that people use for all abortion and avoiding any substantive point. No, dude, I don't think it should be ok to bludgeon a newborn, but that doesn't prove any portion of your argument.
Just because you don't see it doesn't make my point not substantive. You're the one with the cognitive dissonance between the nearly equal states. I'm not going to give in just because I don't live in a world where clear-cut lines exist for everything.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-28 02:53:57
Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Is a fetus okay to kill but a fresh infant not? What is the real difference between the two besides the fact that one has, as I put it, felt air? It's as arbitrary and stupid as trying to pick an exact week where it's okay to destroy it. 
How many times will the same question be asked? Can we finally settle at you feel a certain way regardless of others logic, civil liberties, etc?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand my first ever block. Man that feels good. I'm going to bed now and feeling happy as I do it.
[+]
By Jassik 2015-09-28 02:57:59
So instead of answering the question, we've shifted it to a magic number where it's okay. 24 weeks is the law, I didn't set that myself. Part of it is scientific study, part of it is subjective.
22 weeks is a 0-10% chance of survival. 23 weeks is a 10-35% chance. 24 weeks is a 40-70% chance. Where do you set the bar? That's subjective. Like a lot of laws, there's no clear-cut magical divide and you have to just pick one that experts can more or less come to a consensus on.
Exactly, and they have decided that the difference between a fetus and an infant is birth. Go figure.
Yes, but that isn't the point. Is a fetus okay to kill but a fresh infant not? What is the real difference between the two besides the fact that one has, as I put it, felt air? It's as arbitrary and stupid as trying to pick an exact week where it's okay to destroy it.
If it's so arbitrary, why does any distinction exist at any point? What it really boils down to is you know you can't hope to argue that all abortion for "convenience" should be illegal, so you're choosing to argue against one incredibly unusual and less defensible instance where it sounds like a reasonable position. But, you're still using all the same circular arguments that people use for all abortion and avoiding any substantive point. No, dude, I don't think it should be ok to bludgeon a newborn, but that doesn't prove any portion of your argument.
Just because you don't see it doesn't make my point not substantive. You're the one with the cognitive dissonance between the nearly equal states. I'm not going to give in just because I don't live in a world where clear-cut lines exist for everything.
You'd prefer to argue semantics, which you constantly chastise others for, instead of either making a point or giving up. Is there grey area? Yeah, the 240 days leading up to the instant of birth, but you only seem to want to talk about that incredibly tiny variance for some reason.
By Jetackuu 2015-09-28 07:08:11
Did we ever cover how many late-term abortions that aren't medically necessary are performed in the US? In actual clinics?
No?
Didn't think so.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-09-28 08:26:09
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »I can't say you're wrong Bacon, which is why I direct my comments exclusively to abortions that are performed out of mere convenience and not out of medical concern/necessity. If I went to med school, my opinion on the matter would be more diverse.
Women don't get abortions as a contraceptive tool. They do it as a last resort. Especially in rape due to incubation period of retroviruses.
Most statistics that I've found show that around 6% of abortions are deemed medically necessary. Rape or incest? 1%.
Random Politics & Religion is for topics that aren't thread worthy on their own and do not have their own existing thread.
Rules and Guidelines
Forum Rules and P&R Section Guidelines still apply.
Satire is tolerated.
If your topic covers a story over 6 months old (Watergate, Benghazi, 2012 Election, etc.) post it here.
Discussions on racism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like are allowed, targeted insults based on these will not be tolerated.
Political debates get heated and are meant to be intense, if you take offense to being called or proven wrong, you don't belong here.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen; if you prove you can't handle the criticism you bring upon yourself in this thread, you may be removed from it. You are responsible for what you post.
Along those lines, heat is fine, but sustained, clearly personal hostility is not okay. The personal attack rules still apply. Attack positions, not posters. Failure to adhere to this will result in your removal from the thread.
This thread is NOT the Flame Core.
These rules are subject to change and modification where and when needed.
Random Politics & Religion may be mained or demained depending on the activity within at a Moderator's discretion.
With that out of the way, let the debates begin!
/bow
|
|
