Your view on abortion. Atheist welcome.

[Comicaze247]

Wow. Grasp at straws much?

If your argument for abortion says the mother might die if she has the child then all women who have this problem should have their tubes tied so they will not conceive in the first place.

These cases are usually unforseen. Should she still just suck it up and die?

Why should an innocent child die because it's parents didn't think about the possibility that they might get pregnant?

Why should an innocent mother die because pro-lifers won't let her abort a child that's killing her?

As for the girl who gets an abortion because her parents might beat her if they find out she's pregnant, what do you think they'll do to her if they find out she had an abortion?

You don't get out much, do you? Abortions are a lot easier to hide than a belly, much less a baby. Wow . . . my forehead is sore again.

 

[Comicaze247]

Yes.
You can keep trying to challenge me with situations that it would be okay with.
You won't find one that I agree with, I assure you.

Wow, talk about closed-minded.

You realize that just pretty much translates as this :ignore::ignore::ignore::ignore::ignore: right?

Wow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

These cases are usually unforseen. Should she still just suck it up and die?

To a certain extent... though it's easier for certain races to find unrelated bone marrow donors than others. This would seem to imply that it's more moral for a white woman to have an abortion than a Pacific Islander or a woman of mixed race, going by the relative probabilities that an unrelated donor won't be found if needed.

Of course, this is all assuming that you accept pray4me's argument, which is a bit of a stretch to begin with, at least for me.

 

[leahrachelle]

The fact that there's been a recent trend toward stacking the Supreme Court with people chosen for their political position instead of their judicial ability doesn't mean that this is an ideal situation.

Then why the controversy?

The most recently departed president did do that, but I think the general trend through history has been to elect judges who are chosen for their ability to do their job well.

Ehh, I'd have to disagree.

Let me put it this way: say you're on a hockey team. You and the other team get to choose who you want as your referees (you get 2) and linesmen (you get 2 as well):

Option 1: Two fans for each team randomly chosen from the stands. They'll each consistently call in favour of the team they root for.

Option 2: Four professionals who interpret the rules to the best of their abilities, in such a way that you wouldn't be able to tell which team they like best.

Are you really saying that option 1 is better than option 2? As a player, would you really prefer that?

Or, to put it yet another way,I work in a quasi-judicial role myself sometimes: I'm a race marshal. I may have drivers I like and drivers I dislike, but if I see a driver commit some infraction on the track, I'll report it to race control just as quickly and consistently regardless of whether it's a driver I like, dislike, or am indifferent toward who committed it. I would like to think that people who have made a career out of making judgements would be at least as capable of exercising personal detachment as I am.

Honestly, I'd go with option 1 :/ That's just me, maybe.

 

[leahrachelle]

Why should an innocent mother die because pro-lifers won't let her abort a child that's killing her?

Why should the baby die because pro-choicers dont consider him/her to be human?

 

[leahrachelle]

Wow, talk about closed-minded.

You realize that just pretty much translates as this :ignore::ignore::ignore::ignore::ignore: right?

Wow.

I think people will take you a lot more seriously when you stop reading what you want to read.
How about try not twist people's words around every now and then and assume things without even asking?
Because I doubt I'll respond to that crap next time..

 

[McBell]

Honestly, I'd go with option 1 :/ That's just me, maybe.

Then you may as well toss out the rules.

 

[Storm]

Yes, I get that..

Apparently not, or you wouldn't have implied we should appoint Supreme Court Justices so that they're evenly split on one issue.

I like the example, but I doubt it will poke at any feelings in them..

It did in me. The idea of treating a child like a bin of spare parts created immediate feelings of revulsion.

Same here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then why the controversy?

Because a Supreme Court with eight people who interpret the law faithfully and one person who is always biased in one particular direction would create an overall bias for the Court as a whole. This can be negated somewhat by appointing someone else who has the opposite bias, but this just cancels out the first biased person, leaving the remaining seven members to fulfil the duty of the Court: to interpret the law. Effectively, you get a seven-member Supreme Court instead of a nine-member one.

Honestly, I'd go with option 1 :/ That's just me, maybe.

So, you'd choose being reasonably certain of getting half the rulings in your favour over having a fair game?

Frankly, the only way I could see that as being better than option 2 is if I planned to cheat.

 

[Comicaze247]

I think people will take you a lot more seriously when you stop reading what you want to read.
How about try not twist people's words around every now and then and assume things without even asking?
Because I doubt I'll respond to that crap next time..

Yes.
You can keep trying to challenge me with situations that it would be okay with.
You won't find one that I agree with, I assure you.

How does that NOT translate to willful ignorance?

 

[Willamena]

Honestly, I'd go with option 1 :/ That's just me, maybe.

May I ask, why?

 

[Willamena]

Why should the baby die because pro-choicers dont consider him/her to be human?

Because it's not about whether or not the offspring (at any stage of development) is human. There can never be any question that it is.

 

[Willamena]

How does that NOT translate to willful ignorance?

Or fortitude.

 

[McBell]

Why should the baby die because pro-choicers dont consider him/her to be human?

Who does not consider a baby human?
For that matter, who does not consider the zygote, embryo, and or fetus human?

For that matter, it is illegal in all 50 US states to kill a baby regardless of age.

 

[Sonic247]

I don't understand why some people that are Pro-choice keep talking about situations where the mother could die. They are not trying to fight for that woman's right, but also for the "right" of any woman getting an abortion regardless of the reason. I also think the term fetus is very misleading. A picture is worth a thousand words, I bet most people who saw what a fetus looked like would realize they had the wrong image in their minds.

 

[Comicaze247]

I don't understand why some people that are Pro-choice keep talking about situations where the mother could die. They are not trying to fight for that woman's right, but also for the "right" of any woman getting an abortion regardless of the reason. I also think the term fetus is very misleading. A picture is worth a thousand words, I bet most people who saw what a fetus looked like would realize they had the wrong image in their minds.

That's the thing. If you make abortion illegal, you make it illegal for these women as well. That's the point I'm trying to get across, but with selective listening, people don't seem to see that. And just because YOU wouldn't want to get an abortion, what makes you think you can tell other people not to?

Examples:
-Abortions. Somebody that you don't know is getting an abortion. That does not affect your life in any way, does it? Why should you get to tell them what to do? They don't even know you.
-Think of gay marriage. Whether or not a homosexual gets married does not affect your life in any way, correct? Why should you be able to tell them whether or not they are allowed to get married?
-A bill comes around banning . . . the sale of water bottles in some city you don't live in (just to throw something out there) and everyone in the nation gets to vote. Why would people who don't live in that town be able to determine whether or not that town gets water bottles?
-Presidential elections come around. What if everyone in the WORLD, not just the U.S.A., got to vote on who becomes OUR President? Does that make sense to you?

I'd really like to hear answers for this.

 

[McBell]

I also think the term fetus is very misleading. A picture is worth a thousand words, I bet most people who saw what a fetus looked like would realize they had the wrong image in their minds.

Appeal to emotion argument.

 

[logician]

Why should the baby die because pro-choicers dont consider him/her to be human?

Some religions consider all human life to be sacred(and not to be killed), and therefore push the idea that the fetus is a full-fledged human. Others of us don't believe human life is sacred, although all life is important, and also don't believe a fetus is a full-fledged human until viability. In that case the mother's moral compass should be the guide, although no abortion should be taken lightly, as a decision either way has major consequences.

 

[McBell]

What do you mean by "full fledged" human?

 

[Willamena]

What do you mean by "full fledged" human?

That would be after their feathers molt.