[QUOTE=yawmwen;33916955]At a certain point a fetus can survive outside the womb.[/QUOTE]
Which is why late term abortions aren't routinely provided except for in cases where the life of the mother is severely threatened.
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33928521]Do you like keeping your head up your ass all day? It must make it a bit easier when you can just act stupid about every issue that comes your way instead of actually thinking about it.[/quote]
How so? Contag (when he isn't shitposting) frequently cites statistics and studies to back up his shit, and that's not something you can say about most internet posters. Have you even read any of his posts? I can post a selection for you if you find searching for them a bit too difficult.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33929889]Which is why late term abortions aren't provided except for in cases where the life of the mother is severely threatened.[/QUOTE]
Hold up. You have to put what I said into context. Someone said that life [i]only[/i] starts at birth because that is the time a child can survive outside the womb. That's why I claimed it was a flawed way to put it because fetus' are able to live outside the womb at a certain stage.
I'm not even arguing about whether abortion should be legal or not. I'm only explaining the moral significance of putting specific dates on when a human becomes a human with rights and protections. I'm not really trying to say any one of your guys definition is in any objective way, wrong. I'm trying to challenge the logic you guys use so hopefully you question your own viewpoint and think it over a little harder.
I'm playing devil's advocate, so to speak.
Also lol at you going on about him 'acting stupid' when your main (and apparently only) argument against abortion is basically comparable to that of Justin Bieber's: "It's like killing a baby."
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33929530]Yea, they invalidated just about the only hypothesis that even makes a claim that abortion has a causal effect on crime rates.[/QUOTE]
Are you [I]sure[/I] about that?
Do you promise to post a "permaban me" thread if I find more of the (easily available) evidence?
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
It's we've fucking been over this. Even if you consider a fetus a person, it's still not murder because murder is about taking life, not providing the necessary support for it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33929942]Hold up. You have to put what I said into context. Someone said that life [i]only[/i] starts at birth because that is the time a child can survive outside the womb. That's why I claimed it was a flawed way to put it because fetus' are able to live outside the womb at a certain stage.
I'm not even arguing about whether abortion should be legal or not. I'm only explaining the moral significance of putting specific dates on when a human becomes a human with rights and protections. I'm not really trying to say any one of your guys definition is in any objective way, wrong. I'm trying to challenge the logic you guys use so hopefully you question your own viewpoint and think it over a little harder.
I'm playing devil's advocate, so to speak.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so you're backpedaling now? "I don't really mean what I say, guys! I'm just trying to make you into a [i]better person[/i]. You really should be thanking me, you know!!!!"
Fuck off. Don't be so condescending. We've thought about it; how could we not? We're constantly being bombarded with discussions about the morality of abortion everywhere. I have thought about my views at length, and I know why I believe what I believe. I do [i]not[/i] need your help.
[QUOTE=Contag;33930004]Are you [I]sure[/I] about that?
Do you promise to post a "permaban me" thread if I find more of the (easily available) evidence?
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
It's we've fucking been over this. Even if you consider a fetus a person, [B]it's still not murder because murder is about taking life, not providing the necessary support for it.[/B][/QUOTE]
never thought of this to be honest, really good argument imo
i mean granted i agreed with you beforehand but yeah that's pretty solid
[QUOTE=Contag;33930004]Are you [I]sure[/I] about that?
Do you promise to post a "permaban me" thread if I find more of the (easily available) evidence?
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
It's we've fucking been over this. Even if you consider a fetus a person, it's still not murder because murder is about taking life, not providing the necessary support for it.[/QUOTE]
You have no idea what you're even talking about. I've researched it before. Find me something not linked to Levitt or Donahue in any fashion, that is also reputable, peer reviewed, and hasn't already been refuted.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33930027]Oh, so you're backpedaling now? "I don't really mean what I say, guys! I'm just trying to make you into a [i]better person[/i]. You really should be thanking me, you know!!!!"
Fuck off. Don't be so condescending. We've thought about it; how could we not? We're constantly being bombarded with discussions about the morality of abortion everywhere. I have thought about my views at length, and I know why I believe what I believe. I do [i]not[/i] need your help.[/QUOTE]
It's not backpedaling when it was your intention to begin with.
Also you obviously haven't thought hard enough about it when you are so simple minded I don't have any problem challenging your flawed logic.
So yea, I'll be condescending all I want.
EDIT: And by the way if you find that information Contag, I will shut my mouth on the abortion issue and not participate in any debate about it on facepunch anymore. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and I will concede that. However, I want convincing evidence.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33929658]
Here is the post I was quoting.
And this was my reply.[/QUOTE]
fair enough
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33930260]Find me something not linked to Levitt or Donahue in any fashion[/QUOTE]
Well of course they'd link to that, and of course people would attempt to refute them
fuck me you're bloody unbelievable
creationists dispute evolution, that doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist
They're an influential study in the area, every bloody academic worth their salt would say mention Levitt and Donahue
[QUOTE=Contag;33930363]Well of course they'd link to that, and of course people would attempt to refute them
fuck me you're bloody unbelievable
creationists dispute evolution, that doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist[/quote]
The difference is that creationists aren't reputable in the field of biology.
[quote]They're an influential study in the area, every bloody academic worth their salt would say mention Levitt and Donahue[/QUOTE]
Find one that doesn't use the same methodology, I mean. Find something independent that isn't basically a mouthpiece for Levitt and Donahue.
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
I'm not saying it can't mention the study, I'm saying it shouldn't be linked to the study.
If you can't understand that difference you obviously aren't well equipped mentally to find the evidence anyways.
[url]http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/30/1088767911428960.abstract[/url]
There's your study
I don't personally agree with the 'abortion and crime' theory presented by American economists in the early 21st century, but to say that there is no evidence of abortion having an effect on any crimes is laughable
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33930260]
It's not backpedaling when it was your intention to begin with.[/QUOTE]
Of course it was. Sure. I totally believe that.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33930260]Also you obviously haven't thought hard enough about it when you are so simple minded I don't have any problem challenging your flawed logic. [/quote]
Excuse me? Do you mind explaining how I'm 'simple minded'? And what my 'flawed logic' is? I'm eager to hear this.
I'm sorry, not mentally equipped?
According to you there [I]isn't[/I] any evidence.
I like how your criteria continue to change.
First it was any evidence.
Then it was any evidence not disputed.
Now, any evidence not disputed and not operating under a similar methodology as Levitt and Donahue
What is your next limiting measure?
[QUOTE=Contag;33930417][url]http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/30/1088767911428960.abstract[/url]
There's your study
I don't personally agree with the 'abortion and crime' theory presented by American economists in the early 21st century, but to say that there is no evidence of abortion having an effect on any crimes is laughable[/QUOTE]
Do you have access to the full pdf so I can see that it actually says something about abortion? The abstract doesn't mention anything.
I mean, do you actually want to try to attack something I've said or my logic, rather than throwing out insults at people and claiming that you're being the devil's advocate when you realize you're losing this argument?
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33930428]Of course it was. Sure. I totally believe that.
Excuse me? Do you mind explaining how I'm 'simple minded'? And what my 'flawed logic' is? I'm eager to hear this.[/QUOTE]
Nothing, I'm so sorry I offended you, great spam. Please don't textually rip me a new one with your great thinking skills.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33930442]Nothing, I'm so sorry I offended you, great spam. Please don't textually rip me a new one with your great thinking skills.[/QUOTE]
I'm curious as to why you're being so juvenile when you haven't replied to any of the points I've made.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33930455]I'm curious as to why you're being so juvenile when you haven't replied to any of the points I've made.[/QUOTE]
Because I wasn't particularly addressing anything you said, because I don't think you have really posted in this thread much. So my post was pretty inaccurate and I didn't want to "backpedal" and try and explain myself.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33930462]Because I wasn't particularly addressing anything you said, because I don't think you have really posted in this thread much. So my post was pretty inaccurate and I didn't want to "backpedal" and try and explain myself.[/QUOTE]
That's my point. You're accusing me of being 'simple minded' and using 'flawed logic', but you haven't explained what that logic is, or why you have that impression of me. The only thing you can really discern is that I'm pro-choice (or at least I have posted things that are arguments that pro-choicers use, even if I haven't explicitly identified myself as such), and that's against your views. So, then, the only reason you think I'm unintelligent or use faulty logic is because I haven't come to the same conclusion as you. Which, as I said before, comes down to, "But it's murder!", without giving any particularly valid evidence as to why you believe that.
So who, of the two of us, is simple minded? Who's the one using flawed logic?
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33930533]That's my point. You're accusing me of being 'simple minded' and using 'flawed logic', but you haven't explained what that logic is, or why you have that impression of me.[/quote]
I was speaking to you instead of the people that I was arguing with. You got caught in the crossfire and that is my bad.
[quote]The only thing you can really discern is that I'm pro-choice (or at least I have posted things that are arguments that pro-choicers use, even if I haven't explicitly identified myself as such), and that's against your views.[/quote]
I'm not pro-choice or pro-life, but either way discerning your viewpoint is the opposite of what I'm trying to do. More pro-choice people are in this thread, so I tend to challenge their logic and arguments more. If this were a christian forum with mostly pro-lifers I would be challenging their logic. It allows me to gain a better insight into the issue and if someone isn't closed minded they gain insight from it as well. I am challenging what I find flawed, and refuting what I can, because when someone truly beats me logically, it allows me to change my view in some way, however small.
[quote]So, then, the only reason you think I'm unintelligent or use faulty logic is because I haven't come to the same conclusion as you. Which, as I said before, comes down to, "But it's murder!", without giving any particularly valid evidence as to why you believe that. [/quote]
That isn't my conclusion. My conclusion, overall, is that abortion is a horrible thing, and that I would never want to have to make a choice about raising a child I wasn't ready for/didn't want, or killing an unborn child(because whether murder or not, it is killing).
[QUOTE=Contag;33927820]'People disagree that it does!'[/QUOTE]
Jesus Christ, it's like you have shitpost clairvoyance.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33930605]I am challenging what I find flawed, and refuting what I can, because when someone truly beats me logically, it allows me to change my view in some way, however small.[/QUOTE]
Anything you've said on the subject has been annihilated immediately. It's nice that you've got a good intent, I guess, it doesn't mean much when you're being bullheaded about shit you don't understand.
I know everybody takes this hard and it's pretty embarassing to actually deal with, but you need to face up that you haven't the slightest fuck:
-what the actual ethical issues around abortion are
-what the link between it and crime is
-how academic papers and subsequent criticism works
As is, you're behaving in a way that would leave me to believe you couldn't pass a physics course, because you'd argue there isn't solid enough proof mechanical forces can heat something.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33930605]I was speaking to you instead of the people that I was arguing with. You got caught in the crossfire and that is my bad.[/quote]
I'd believe that, except that you said it directly and explicitly in response to something I said. You quoted what I wrote and responded, and your response was obviously crafted in reference to mine.
I said:
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33930027]I have thought about my views at length, and I know why I believe what I believe. I do [i]not[/i] need your help.[/QUOTE]
You said:
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33930260]Also you obviously haven't thought hard enough about it when you are so simple minded I don't have any problem challenging your flawed logic.
[/QUOTE]
If you deny that what you wrote was in response to me, I'm going to have to assume you're lying.
Also, just in case it [i]wasn't[/i] in reference to me, I asked:
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33930428]
Excuse me? Do you mind explaining how I'm 'simple minded'? And what my 'flawed logic' is? I'm eager to hear this.[/QUOTE]
There. If it wasn't directed to me (which it clearly was), you had the opportunity right there to explain. Instead, you just further insulted me (or attempted to):
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33930442]Nothing, I'm so sorry I offended you, great spam. Please don't textually rip me a new one with your great thinking skills.[/QUOTE]
Such wit.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33930605]I'm not pro-choice or pro-life, but either way discerning your viewpoint is the opposite of what I'm trying to do. More pro-choice people are in this thread, so I tend to challenge their logic and arguments more. If this were a christian forum with mostly pro-lifers I would be challenging their logic. It allows me to gain a better insight into the issue and if someone isn't closed minded they gain insight from it as well. I am challenging what I find flawed, and refuting what I can, because when someone truly beats me logically, it allows me to change my view in some way, however small.[/quote]
Basically what Xenocidebot said in response to this. I feel like you do this in every single thread I encounter you in. You argue for pages and pages in one direction, and when you start to realize that your arguments are not holding up, you claim that you actually believe what your opponents are espousing, and you are just testing their arguments to find potential flaws. Why?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33930605]That isn't my conclusion. My conclusion, overall, is that abortion is a horrible thing, and that I would never want to have to make a choice about raising a child I wasn't ready for/didn't want, or killing an unborn child(because whether murder or not, it is killing).[/QUOTE]
So... um, defining you as 'pro-life' wouldn't, then, exactly be a stretch.
And no, I don't think abortion is killing a child - so even that conclusion isn't one that everyone shares.
Are you a male? Honestly? I'm guessing you are, but I don't want to make an assumption.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33929982]Also lol at you going on about him 'acting stupid' when your main (and apparently only) argument against abortion is basically comparable to that of Justin Bieber's: "It's like killing a baby."[/QUOTE]
What other argument do you need?
"Pfft, those guys think murder is wrong. Like that's much of a case"
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33931628]
Are you a male? Honestly? I'm guessing you are, but I don't want to make an assumption.[/QUOTE]
Nothing bothers me more than pro-life men. 'Hey, let's outlaw a procedure that we'll never have to think about getting for a pregnancy we'll never have!'
[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;33934903]Nothing bothers me more than pro-life men. 'Hey, let's outlaw a procedure that we'll never have to think about getting for a pregnancy we'll never have!'[/QUOTE]
If men are not allowed to be pro-life, they should not be allowed to be pro-choice either and it should be entirely debated by women.
[QUOTE=Glent;33935293]If men are not allowed to be pro-life, they should not be allowed to be pro-choice either and it should be entirely debated by women.[/QUOTE]
No, they should only be pro choice because it isn't up to them to regulate something that they can't understand.
one of the most baffling things in the world to me is the fact that any woman can claim to be pro-life
[editline]1[/editline]
well it's not so much baffling as it is depressing
[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;33935570]No, they should only be pro choice because it isn't up to them to regulate something that they can't understand.[/QUOTE]
No, they should not be pro-choice because that is also deciding on regulation relating to "something they can't understand." If what you're saying were gone by, they would be neither and only women would decide on those laws.
You can't say men should only be for one stance on an issue because they don't understand it - if they don't understand it they shouldn't have a stance.
[QUOTE=Glent;33935632]No, they should not be pro-choice because that is also deciding on regulation relating to "something they can't understand." If what you're saying were gone by, they would be neither and only women would decide on those laws.
You can't say men should only be for one stance on an issue because they don't understand it - if they don't understand it they shouldn't have a stance.[/QUOTE]
Still I disagree. The difference between being pro choice and pro life is that pro life decides the rule for EVERYONE. If you're for pro choice legislation, all that does is enable women to have a choice. If you are still against abortion, you can choose not to have one. It's that simple.
Pro choice does not equate to pro abortion (if there even is such a standpoint).
[QUOTE=Sanius;33935593]one of the most baffling things in the world to me is the fact that any woman can claim to be pro-life
[editline]1[/editline]
well it's not so much baffling as it is depressing[/QUOTE]
Same reason some women still think their rightful place is in the kitchen
it is quite depressing yes
and no this isn't the time for kitchen jokes
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
