Senator pushes for Abortion discussions on the web to be restricted.

[(=Nemesis=)]

Uh-huh, well, I wasn't speaking solely on abortion. It was a "sweeping statement", like you said, on just... what I see as general hypocrisy.

No arithmetic needed. The topic is about "life-saving" abortions and censorship.

I don't agree with the censorship. I just want to get that out of the way.

And abortion, when it's a case of extreme Any Abortion Whenever and No Abortions Ever at least, is completely about arithmetic.

∵ deaths-through-abortion > deaths-through-childbirth
∴ abortion is not universally effective at saving lives; quite the opposite.

 

[Mr. X]

Life doesn't not equal a life.

The abortion might not save the mother either way.

But still, if the mother is is need of a abortion to save her life then the odds are good that she might have a miscarriage. The fact that a miscarriage is possible is the only reason why I am pro-choice instead of pro-life.

 

[Shining Raichu]

Aha. Well.

I personally don't appreciate having pro-abortion propaganda thrust down my throat. And I'm sure anyone else who doesn't agree with your views would feel the same. The difference is I'm not changing my rules of discussion to suit the current situation, and I would very much appreciate it if you showed the same courtesy.

A woman's right to choose is the official term for exactly that. If you disagree with that, that's fine, but facts are facts. In any event, referring to it as 'a woman's right to choose' is in no way anywhere near the same ballpark as what you were (and, looking at your subsequent posts, still are) doing. This is not a pro-choice vs. pro-life debate, please stop turning it into one.

 

[Esper]

What makes the whole idea of preventing discussion of abortion so ridiculous, aside from the sheer inanity of trying to censor the mere mention of something, is that what constitutes a "human being" is so nebulous that talking about birth control could be considered "abortion" in some people's minds if they consider that "life begins at conception."

On that note, no, life does not begin at conception. Life begins before that. Eggs and sperm are already alive. And "conception" is a nebulous term itself and saying that "life begins at conception" implies that it happens in an instant when it's more of a process.

And anyway, it's seems extreme to suggest that 4 human cells are a "person." Whatever your beliefs are I would hope that you'd accept that at some people in the process of going from sperm and eggs to birth a "person" is created. When that happens is when we have to protect them, but not before. We don't have to care about sperm that get lost because, even though each little one has the potential to become more, it's not a person yet.

 

[Livewire]

I don't agree with the censorship. I just want to get that out of the way.

And abortion, when it's a case of extreme Any Abortion Whenever and No Abortions Ever at least, is completely about arithmetic.

∵ deaths-through-abortion > deaths-through-childbirth
∴ abortion is not universally effective at saving lives; quite the opposite.

Yet you seem to agree that it's ok to censor others and make them conform to your idelology, or to force your narrow opinion down other's throats? Hmm!

And it's rather disingenuous and arrogant of you to assume you can condense this whole argument into a matter of simple arithmetic.

 

[GFA]

Thats unconstitutional. You cant ban someone from talking about Abortion just cause this guy is anti choice. This is a ridiculous waste. No way will this bill pass.

/late

Which is an issues in and of itself as it's being force-fed onto a completely unrelated act.

 

[Dawn]

In after exceedingly banal discussion about whether a fetus is alive. Are you guys aware of the basis on which abortion was legalized by the supreme court? It definitely wasn't on the basis that we don't believe fetuses are people yet. (As if anyone ever had the evidence to win via that argument.) I believe it was more about weighing rights against eachother in the end.

The question of how it was rationalized that anything could outweigh the right to life is unfortunately beyond me currently.

 

[Mr. X]

Just a random thought, but as the majority of pro-life rhetoric is driven by Religion ideal's, then wouldn't the separation of church and state forbid the federal government from passing laws effecting abortions?

 

[Oryx]

Just a random thought, but as the majority of pro-life rhetoric is driven by Religion ideal's, then wouldn't the separation of church and state forbid the federal government from passing laws effecting abortions?

Just because a religion supports an idea doesn't mean that the idea is inherently religious. For example, Catholicism is huge on volunteering. That doesn't mean volunteering cannot be associate with the government because of separation of church and state. The biggest argument for pro-life, life begins at conception, has nothing to do with religion really. You can believe it while being an atheist.

 

[GFA]

What? No. That doesn't ... What? Perhaps but ... Oh God that's a weird idea. I'm going to say no though, because of 4 things.

1: Their are health and biology standpoints on one side of the argument, and as long as their are disagreements, it's going to have to be settled somehow. And taking it to the courts makes the most sense.

2: Because if that's the way it worked, it'd be impossible to make legislation about anything mentioned in the 10 Commandments, so no laws regarding murder or theft.

3: Separation of Church and State was meant to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around. We have "One Nation under God" in our pledge and swear on the Bible in court. Have you forgotten?

4: Even if the Separation of Church and State was meant to keep the Church out of the State, it means that in the most literal of sense. As in, no mandating everyone go to Church on Sunday or everyone be Christian. (Not that people haven't tried to pass such laws.)

 

[Esper]

Just a random thought, but as the majority of pro-life rhetoric is driven by Religion ideal's, then wouldn't the separation of church and state forbid the federal government from passing laws effecting abortions?

As much as such a thing would be okay by me in this particular situation, that's not quite how it works since people can have ideals not based in religion. Like you could be a pacifist without being at all religious and you'd want that to be respected if there were a draft.

Of course, when you try to pass any beliefs as scientific fact without any science to back it up then I think there's room to argue that beliefs shouldn't be enforced by being made into laws.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Just a random thought, but as the majority of pro-life rhetoric is driven by Religion ideal's, then wouldn't the separation of church and state forbid the federal government from passing laws effecting abortions?

No. Just because the majority of religious people support a certain policy, that doesn't make that policy a government establishment of religion.

 

[Mr. X]

Thank you for misinterpreting my words. Didn't say people, said ideal's.

But still, this clarification pretty much neuters my own argument.

*facedesk*

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Thank you for misinterpreting my words. Didn't say people, said ideal's.

But still, this clarification pretty much neuters my own argument.

*facedesk*

Religious ideals are all over our law. It is against my religion to steal and to murder (I mean murder as it is now, not abortion). Does outlawing stealing and murdering equate to the government establishment or religion because those are ideals of my religion?

 

[Mr. X]

Stealing and Murder are completely diffrent from Abortion.

For one, you can say for certian what has been lost with the first two. You can't with abortion, know why? Miscarriage is a prime example. Sure, the pregenancy is not in danger of being aborted, but still, you can't stop a miscarriage. You CAN prevent some of the causes to make it rarer to occur, but you can't completely stop them.

But still, religion aside, murder is morally wrong. Stealing is wrong too, but not to the extent as murder is.

Basically, morals and religion are completely different.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Stealing and Murder are completely diffrent from Abortion.

For one, you can say for certian what has been lost with the first two. You can't with abortion, know why? Miscarriage is a prime example. Sure, the pregenancy is not in danger of being aborted, but still, you can't stop a miscarriage. You CAN prevent some of the causes to make it rarer to occur, but you can't completely stop them.

But still, religion aside, murder is morally wrong. Stealing is wrong too, but not to the extent as murder is.

Basically, morals and religion are completely different.

What is morally wrong is completely subjective. There are people who would argue that stealing and murder are justified under certain circumstances. In a similar light, people like me would argue that abortion is morally wrong, but is justified under certain circumstances like rape or to save the life of the mother under a balancing act between the lesser of two evils.

 

[Mr. X]

So, in other words, you support punishing the child for the sins of the father?

As for the lesser evil, this saying has been passed down my family. Evil is evil, and only the evil consider themselves greater or lesser then the other.

That said, abortion is one of them black and white area's. Your either pro-life, or pro-choice. Not pro-life-unless-this-this-this-this-or-this-happened.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So, in other words, you support punishing the child for the sins of the father?

What on Earth did I say that can even remotely be interpreted as that?

 

[Mr. X]

people like me would argue that abortion is morally wrong, but is justified under certain circumstances like rape.

You posted this 10 minutes ago.

Rape is usually done by the man. Man rapes woman. Woman gets pregnant. Women get's abortion, killing unborn child.

Essentially, punishing the child for the sins of the father.

 

[Esper]

You posted this 10 minutes ago.

Rape is usually done by the man. Man rapes woman. Woman gets pregnant. Women get's abortion, killing unborn child.

Essentially, punishing the child for the sins of the father.

I would think that rather than "punishing the child for the sins of the father" it's more about not punishing a woman after she's already suffered such a horrible offense by making her carry to term the offspring of her attacker. Not every woman would feel that way, of course, but I think most sensible people, regardless of their views, accept that this is a justifiable use of abortion.