Pro-life and a national health care program

[SouthernBelle82]

I find these two difficult topics to talk about with conservatives who I come across. How do you guys do it? With the national health care program if the person is religious I bring up Jesus and him healing people. Of course conservatives supposedly don't like the government except for the 2nd amendment and controlling my uterus. Earlier this week I got into an argument sorta with a person about that and they don't want the government to take their money but they want to take my life. I just find it so hypocritical that they don't like the govt and services except when it's what they want. I just feel like I can't win. :bored:

[Richard Nixon]

I find these two difficult topics to talk about with conservatives who I come across. How do you guys do it? With the national health care program if the person is religious I bring up Jesus and him healing people. Of course conservatives supposedly don't like the government except for the 2nd amendment and controlling my uterus. Earlier this week I got into an argument sorta with a person about that and they don't want the government to take their money but they want to take my life. I just find it so hypocritical that they don't like the govt and services except when it's what they want. I just feel like I can't win. :bored:

Same as everyone supporting government banning murder since conservatives such as me feel abortion IS murder.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Same as everyone supporting government banning murder since conservatives such as me feel abortion IS murder.

That doesn't mean it is. If conservatives really thought abortion was murder, then far more of them would be advocating the death penalty for women who get abortions. But apart from the handful (who are also considered murderous criminals by rational people) that actually go out and shoot abortion doctors, none of them do this.

Hypocrisy much?

[Richard Nixon]

That doesn't mean it is. If conservatives really thought abortion was murder, then far more of them would be advocating the death penalty for women who get abortions. But apart from the handful (who are also considered murderous criminals by rational people) that actually go out and shoot abortion doctors, none of them do this.

Hypocrisy much?

My frank opinion is that yes abortionists and women who have abortions should be tried with possibility of the death penalty. However this should be in the court of law and I don't support people shooting abortion doctors. They are like the John Browns and Nat Turners of the anti-slavery movement-merely discrediting the anti-abortion movement and turning public opinion against them.

[SouthernBelle82]

That doesn't mean it is. If conservatives really thought abortion was murder, then far more of them would be advocating the death penalty for women who get abortions. But apart from the handful (who are also considered murderous criminals by rational people) that actually go out and shoot abortion doctors, none of them do this.

Hypocrisy much?

I was also recently thinking you really aren't pro-life either because most of them I talk to make acceptance like rape and incest. I guess they think that life is okay to exclude.

[SouthernBelle82]

My frank opinion is that yes abortionists and women who have abortions should be tried with possibility of the death penalty. However this should be in the court of law and I don't support people shooting abortion doctors. They are like the John Browns and Nat Turners of the anti-slavery movement-merely discrediting the anti-abortion movement and turning public opinion against them.

The last time I checked it takes two to make a baby. What about men who jack off? Aren't you letting potential babies die down the toilet or wherever? And someone on the S-E forum made the point about sterilizing men.

[#FF0000]

My frank opinion is that yes abortionists and women who have abortions should be tried with possibility of the death penalty.

How stomach-churning.

I'll just quote Melbicimni's blog since he had a great take on the abortion bit.


In the case of abortion: the fetus is, for all intents and purposes engaging in an act of violence against its carrier. The woman carrying the fetus, can reasonably either choose to consent to this violence (knowing fully the risks, and desiring the long-term consequences of doing so) or to, in an act of self-defense (in protection of her body, state of mind, etc.) abort the fetus.

[SouthernBelle82]

How stomach-churning.

I'll just quote Melbicimni's blog since he had a great take on the abortion bit.

Hmm that's an interesting way to look at it.

[TC]

Same as everyone supporting government banning murder since conservatives such as me feel abortion IS murder.

Except they don't, its just hyperbole, because what they really think (that they have a property interest in another person's womb) is so offensive to the mainstream liberal dominant ideology that they wont articulate it even to each other. If you really thought abortion was murder you'd be in jail for shooting a health provider (thereby preventing 'murder', not all murder, but some murder, totally plausible if you targeted a late term provider in the mid west) and not babbling on a political forum.

[TC]

My frank opinion is that yes abortionists and women who have abortions should be tried with possibility of the death penalty. However this should be in the court of law and I don't support people shooting abortion doctors. They are like the John Browns and Nat Turners of the anti-slavery movement-merely discrediting the anti-abortion movement and turning public opinion against them.

1. John Brown and Nat Turner were heros, violence was and is the correct answer to slavery and it was mass violence that ended slavery in the United States. You would have to be an ultrarightwinger to dispute this.

2. You realize that as a basic fact of human reproduction about a third of all pre-embryos are naturally destroyed for failure to conceive...should these all be investigated for possible murder? You also realize that the natural 'rythem method' entails a high rate of embryotic death (it works by preventing implamentation) but without this conservatives like you would be reproducing uncontrollably (or be forced to resort to more effective less 'murderous' birth control methods)?

[Bud Struggle]

2. You realize that as a basic fact of human reproduction about a third of all pre-embryos are naturally destroyed for failure to conceive...should these all be investigated for possible murder? You also realize that the natural 'rythem method' entails a high rate of embryotic death (it works by preventing implamentation) but without this conservatives like you would be reproducing uncontrollably (or be forced to resort to more effective less 'murderous' birth control methods)?

That makes about as much sense as investigating all deaths from heart failure as murder. Natural deaths are quite a different thing from the taking of a human life.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Hmm that's an interesting way to look at it.

It seems to make ethics rather egoist though. Why care about the person attacking you at all, even though it isn't their fault?

From a utility standpoint, I'm not sure that argument escapes the typical criticism of abortion. Utilitarianism is supposed to apply morality to all things that can feel pain. If at point X a fetus feels pain, it seems difficult to give it no moral consideration.

Look at this comparison. If I had a medical condition that forced me to punch you daily, you wouldn't be justified in killing me, as I see it.

While I am intrigued by the line of thinking that the fetus is an attacker, I don't think it justifies killing a fetus as soon as it can feel pain. The value of an future pleasure is independent of our awareness of it. Any time we act against the fetus, we essentially choose the pain of the women over a lifetime of the individual fetus.

If we apply utilitarianism with no consideration to future pleasure or pain, I think utilitarianism could justify killing anyone in their sleep. Their future value doesn't apply. They aren't aware of it. Therefore, there is no "harm" technically done. However, the harm comes in eliminating potential pleasure.

Then the issue seems to come down to this. Does the life of the child increase utility. Does a person maximize pleasure as an individual agent? Most people decide to continue living. Perhaps the answer is invariably that, yes, most people do want to continue living.

Maybe someone can help me with this dilemma. I don't think utilitarianism is incompatible with being pro-choice. I feel like I'm missing a peace of the puzzle.

[TC]

I love how Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor comes out as anti-abortion as soon as he gets restricted...funny!



All ethics are egoist in the sense that they Why care about the person attacking you at all, even though it isn't their fault?


I care actually...just not enough to let others use my body in ways that adversely affect myself.

Similarly, I'm a vegan. I care enough about animals that I wont eat them, products that require them to suffer (dairy) or that typically entail their suffering (eggs). However, if I were to find myself with a shotgun and in a cave with a hungry aggressive bear...needless to say winnie the pooh would get it.

Caring about others only seems to entail sacrificing oneself in a truly major way when it comes to pregnant women...I wonder why that is!



From a utility standpoint, I'm not sure that argument escapes the typical criticism of abortion. Utilitarianism is supposed to apply morality to all things that can feel pain. If at point X a fetus feels pain, it seems difficult to give it no moral consideration.

Utility and utilitarianism aren't the same thing...and there are many types of utilitarianism...and utilitarianism is typically said to be pleasure maximizing not pain minimizing; and Marxists aren't utilitarian at all...but even pretending that what you say is valid...

Fetuses probably feel some pain at some point. So do cows. And pregnant women. Fetal pain from abortion is probably non-existent (when done early) or virtually non-existent (when done late...considering that they're dead before they're extracted) Since they don't have a coherent experience required to develop even the most minimum awareness I don't think they could be afforded much consideration...



Look at this comparison. If I had a medical condition that forced me to punch you daily, you wouldn't be justified in killing me, as I see it.

This seems like a fair comparison, and if you had a medical condition that forced you to punch me daily, I would totally kill you without hesitation. In fact every state in the world, whether capitalist, socialist, fascist or theocratic, would apply its police powers to protect me to your death, because I'd have you arrested for assault and you'd die in prison due to your medical condition.

See how totally clear cut it is when we're not talking about abortion?


While I am intrigued by the line of thinking that the fetus is an attacker, I don't think it justifies killing a fetus as soon as it can feel pain. The value of an future pleasure is independent of our awareness of it.

Any future pleasure is hypothetical.


Any time we act against the fetus, we essentially choose the pain of the women over a lifetime of the individual fetus.
Any time you use a condom its the same...again because the 'lifetime pleasure' is of a hypothetical and non-existent quasi-individual.



If we apply utilitarianism with no consideration to future pleasure or pain, I think utilitarianism could justify killing anyone in their sleep.

It does under some circumstances, and utilitarianism is ridiculous. Your arguments do more to undermine your weak version of utilitarianism than they do to argue against the self-defense argument for abortion.

I simply don't extend equal consideration to everyone's pleasure and everyones pain. Some people take pleasure or pain in things that are wrong. Some types of pleasure and avoidence of some pains require conditions that are intolerable. I don't want to live in a society that allows any person to unilaterally expropriate any other person's body, even if they need to do so to survive.



Then the issue seems to come down to this. Does the life of the child increase utility.

Lets say it does. Just like that child you gave your left kidney to and the child you gave your right lung to and the many recipients of your bone marrow and liver sections who are now living where they would otherwise be dead.

Oh wait...your potential organ recipients don't exist...they're dead...because you didn't give them your disposable organs?

I guess we know how you handle the question when its about your organs and not other peoples!

[Richard Nixon]

1. John Brown and Nat Turner were heros, violence was and is the correct answer to slavery and it was mass violence that ended slavery in the United States. You would have to be an ultrarightwinger to dispute this.

Actually no. Before Nat Turner's rebellion there was discussion to have a gradual manumission bill in the State of Virginia. Unfortunately that bill failed to pass due to Nat Turner's revolt. Also Nat Turner killed any whites indiscrimnantly including women and children-I wouldn't consider that "heroic". Unless you are black, had you been there you would have been killed by Nat Turner.


2. You realize that as a basic fact of human reproduction about a third of all pre-embryos are naturally destroyed for failure to conceive...should these all be investigated for possible murder? You also realize that the natural 'rythem method' entails a high rate of embryotic death (it works by preventing implamentation) but without this conservatives like you would be reproducing uncontrollably (or be forced to resort to more effective less 'murderous' birth control methods)?

Sperm cells aren't human, fetuses are.

[Demogorgon]

It seems to make ethics rather egoist though. Why care about the person attacking you at all, even though it isn't their fault?

From a utility standpoint, I'm not sure that argument escapes the typical criticism of abortion. Utilitarianism is supposed to apply morality to all things that can feel pain. If at point X a fetus feels pain, it seems difficult to give it no moral consideration.

Look at this comparison. If I had a medical condition that forced me to punch you daily, you wouldn't be justified in killing me, as I see it.

While I am intrigued by the line of thinking that the fetus is an attacker, I don't think it justifies killing a fetus as soon as it can feel pain. The value of an future pleasure is independent of our awareness of it. Any time we act against the fetus, we essentially choose the pain of the women over a lifetime of the individual fetus.

If we apply utilitarianism with no consideration to future pleasure or pain, I think utilitarianism could justify killing anyone in their sleep. Their future value doesn't apply. They aren't aware of it. Therefore, there is no "harm" technically done. However, the harm comes in eliminating potential pleasure.

Then the issue seems to come down to this. Does the life of the child increase utility. Does a person maximize pleasure as an individual agent? Most people decide to continue living. Perhaps the answer is invariably that, yes, most people do want to continue living.

Maybe someone can help me with this dilemma. I don't think utilitarianism is incompatible with being pro-choice. I feel like I'm missing a peace of the puzzle.Well I think Utilitarianism has to justify legal abortion, simply compare societies with legal abortion to those without it and you have the Utilitarian justification for legal abortion tied up.

I'm not satisfied with Utilitarianism however, not least because it is impossible to actually measure utility, so I'll try to justify legal abortion in another manner. The biggest mistake people make is to try and use individualistic arguments on the subject, that leads to silly statements about fetuses committing "acts of violence" and even trying to justify abortion based on property rights.

I think part of this comes from the way the pro-life crowd have been allowed to set the agenda here. They want it to be about the supposed "babies dying" and too many of the pro-choice crowd have let that be the grounds for debate, trying to argue it isn't about that or even that it is "babies dying" but the babies were being violent so they had to go!

Nope, these kinds of surreal argument are not very convincing and doom the pro-choice cause to be forever on the defensive. We have to look at it on the broader level. The abortion debate must be a debate on public policy rather than one of individual morality. Individual women considering an abortion may well weigh up some of the matters discussed here but when it comes to making the law that really isn't relevant. We can ban abortion or we can have it legal and if we have it legal we can impose restrictions on it or we can remove restrictions.

I happen to favour it being legal without restrictions for several reasons: One of them being of course that it simply leads to greater misery if you ban it anyway! More fundamentally, it is vital for gender equality. The fact that women had to bear children is the reason why they have been confined to second class status for millennia. It is as simple as that. Men were supposed to go out and do things. Women were meant to have children. We have come a long way from that view of course, but we have not broken from it completely and we will not break from it so long as women lack full reproductive freedom. This is what makes birth control so utterly necessary. Abortion is one aspect of birth control. There are other forms of birth control of course, but without abortion it is incomplete because the ability to stop conception most of the time goes a long way but it does not deal with those times when it happens anyway.

Certainly other forms of birth control on their own will take us a fair bit along the way to gender equality, but they cannot take us all the way. Incomplete birth control only means incomplete equality.

One thing though that must be emphasised because this is the most important thing of all is that the availability of abortion benefits all women, not just those who happen to require one. This is because any society in which women lack complete control over their reproduction will be one in which women will be seen to some degree as "baby makers". This will lead to all sorts of discrimination, blatant in more patriarchal societies, more subtle in others. Even a women who never has any need for an abortion or maybe even contraception will suffer from this discrimination. Therefore it is to the benefit of all women that abortion be legal.

To those who consider abortion as "killing children", I ask you to weigh up the termination of generally very undeveloped embryos against permanent subjugation of women. Not so simple now, is it?

[#FF0000]

Sperm cells aren't human, fetuses are.

No they aren't.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I didn't say I was anti-abortion anywhere in that post. I've always admitted that I think the issue is oversimplified by the left. I've also always been and remain pro-choice. I can like the logical opposition or form of an argument without supporting the conclusion. I've seen arguments for various terrible terrible conclusions that I find to be compelling arguments. It doesn't mean I accept the conclusion. I argue the opposing viewpoint to better understand the pro-choice perspectives.

***

How do I do the multiple quote thing, anyway?

1. When it comes to sacrifices being prejudiced against pregnant women, I will agree with you there. However, society typically structures obligations passively. Therefore, you technically don't have an obligation to do anything. You simply have an obligation to not do something. I don't agree with this distinction. The bottom line is that prejudices towards women doesn't justify women behaving unethically. I still should refrain from eating children even if everyone else does. The prejudices against women don't excuse them from any obligations associated with childbirth, as I see it.

2. Future pleasure is hypothetical within a high degree of certain if certain actions, abortion, are not taken. Without taking the interests of future agents into consideration, I fail to see how we can properly consider the obligations we have to ourselves, others, and future generations.

3. You really think it's ethical to kill someone who is simply punching you once a day? There interests should surely warrant some consideration with respect an an analysis? If you steal from me, and I shoot you, isn't that unethical? You could've called the police and pressed charges. It's an inconvenience that minimizes your utility - just like being punched. However, we'd still say you have an obligation to use "reasonable force" with response to crimes. I fail to see how terminating a pregnancy is legitimate, in most cases, under a utilitarian analysis that gives weight to the future of individuals, who are defined by their ability to feel pleasure and pain.

4. I'm saying the ability to feel pain is the criteria for moral consideration. Therefore, condoms are legitimate. Therefore, individuality is the ability to feel pleasure or pain. The future only becomes relevant later on, somehow.

5. I don't see how something can be wrong regardless of how much pleasure of pain it gives. Arguably, the idea of society that restricts bodily rights has a high negative utility value for many, including myself. Therefore, this outweighs other utilitarian issues. I think this argument needs to be justified further to stand up to criticisms.

6. If someone said they were going to shoot me and take my organs to save the lives of three children, I wouldn't be happy about it. I'd likely avoid their judgment. However, I'm not sure I could legitimately claim they are acting unethical. A position of neutrality towards individuals would hold them at equal weight. To let them die for my own benefit is prejudicial towards myself and seems reasonable primarily because of my bias towards my own interests over that of others.

Again, perhaps the idea of a society that does X makes things undesirable. Therefore, things are "right" or "wrong" in a sense outside their direct utility or pain values. They are wrong in a morally aesthetic sense, of some sort. However, I'm not sure opposition to particular actions is sufficient to prevent them in a legal setting as society is currently structured.

***

I'm pro-choice because something about restricting a the bodily rights of a women disgusts me on an emotional level. In theory, my emotions could be trained and unnatural. However, rational appeal doesn't seem sufficient to convince me of this. Therefore, there is something wrong in my thinking. As I see it, when intuition and rationality disagree, either the conclusion of the rationality is wrong, or the intuition is justified by a subconscious premise that may be true or false.

The pro-life movement is gaining support. I think it's because the pro-choice movement has considered the issue resolves instead of evolving its arguments to deal with new criticisms.

All I'm trying to do by arguing the alternate position is present so rational arguments for disliking abortion so I can, hopefully, find a way to resolve an internal dilemma. I don't think either side has a stand alone argument to "win" this issue that I've seen so far.

I'm pro-choice. If I ended up with a child and was "asked" the opinion on whether it should be aborted, what would I do? I'd like be in favor of the abortion. I'm 21, in school, and don't have the time, desire, or means to properly care for a child.

However, I'm still sympathetic to utilitarianism as a basic moral theory. The idea of maximizing pain and minimizing pleasure. I'll agree that some acts necessarily have a negative utility associated with them. I'd also argue that individuality has something intrinsically valuable about it. I just think utilitarianism is efficient because it deals with ethics mathematically, and mathematics is the most pure method of producing results as I see it.

I'm very conflicted on ethical and moral issues altogether. If someone told me I couldn't have an abortion (assuming I was female), I'd probably have one, perform 3, and shoot a politician out of spite (assuming I was going to end up dead anyway). I have a very strong intuitive support of the pro-choice position. I just want to reconcile it with some other views I hold. The best way to demonstrate my internal conflict is to show the opposing views that are giving me trouble, in the form of an argument.

Everyone seems so cynical. I'm bad at communicating my ideas. I say stupid shit. I must be intrinsically holding some evil and conservative agenda. No. I'm open-minded, arrogant, flawed, human, inquisitive, a devil's advocate, et cetera. I've been into internet forums since I was ten. I've always got in trouble. It's because I have a flawed character. I'm working on it!

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

To those who consider abortion as "killing children", I ask you to weigh up the termination of generally very undeveloped embryos against permanent subjugation of women. Not so simple now, is it?

That's an interesting perspective. I think the issues you brought up could provide an equality-based argument for the pro-choice position. It still might make individual abortions troubling, though.

It seems to me that individual abortions shouldn't be that troubling. Maybe killing something that isn't self-aware, when done relatively painlessly, doesn't warrant much worry. I think Singer writes about this position. Maybe I'll have to find what he said.

I'll have to think some more. I'm getting pretty hungry.

[SouthernBelle82]

I didn't say I was anti-abortion anywhere in that post. I've always admitted that I think the issue is oversimplified by the left. I've also always been and remain pro-choice. I can like the logical opposition or form of an argument without supporting the conclusion. I've seen arguments for various terrible terrible conclusions that I find to be compelling arguments. It doesn't mean I accept the conclusion. I argue the opposing viewpoint to better understand the pro-choice perspectives.

The issue isn't actually about being pro-life or whatever. The whole thing with Roe v Wade is about the privacy for us women and our medical records and the fact that we have the fourth amendment just as any man does. That we have that safety and security and so do our doctors.


***

How do I do the multiple quote thing, anyway?

1. When it comes to sacrifices being prejudiced against pregnant women, I will agree with you there. However, society typically structures obligations passively. Therefore, you technically don't have an obligation to do anything. You simply have an obligation to not do something. I don't agree with this distinction. The bottom line is that prejudices towards women doesn't justify women behaving unethically. I still should refrain from eating children even if everyone else does. The prejudices against women don't excuse them from any obligations associated with childbirth, as I see it.

And who are you to say your ethics are better than mine? I don't think my uterus is attached to your body.


2. Future pleasure is hypothetical within a high degree of certain if certain actions, abortion, are not taken. Without taking the interests of future agents into consideration, I fail to see how we can properly consider the obligations we have to ourselves, others, and future generations.

And what if a woman decides to abort a child because she's in an abusive relationship and can't get out and/or doesn't want the abuser to have another victim?


I'm pro-choice because something about restricting a the bodily rights of a women disgusts me on an emotional level. In theory, my emotions could be trained and unnatural. However, rational appeal doesn't seem sufficient to convince me of this. Therefore, there is something wrong in my thinking. As I see it, when intuition and rationality disagree, either the conclusion of the rationality is wrong, or the intuition is justified by a subconscious premise that may be true or false.

So you're pro-life?


The pro-life movement is gaining support. I think it's because the pro-choice movement has considered the issue resolves instead of evolving its arguments to deal with new criticisms.

How do you figure that? I don't think it's changed all that much. And please show citations that they're gaining support.


All I'm trying to do by arguing the alternate position is present so rational arguments for disliking abortion so I can, hopefully, find a way to resolve an internal dilemma. I don't think either side has a stand alone argument to "win" this issue that I've seen so far.

I'm pro-choice. If I ended up with a child and was "asked" the opinion on whether it should be aborted, what would I do? I'd like be in favor of the abortion. I'm 21, in school, and don't have the time, desire, or means to properly care for a child.

Why should it be your choice? Sure you were so kind to donate your sperm but in the end it's not your labor.


However, I'm still sympathetic to utilitarianism as a basic moral theory. The idea of maximizing pain and minimizing pleasure. I'll agree that some acts necessarily have a negative utility associated with them. I'd also argue that individuality has something intrinsically valuable about it. I just think utilitarianism is efficient because it deals with ethics mathematically, and mathematics is the most pure method of producing results as I see it.

I'm very conflicted on ethical and moral issues altogether. If someone told me I couldn't have an abortion (assuming I was female), I'd probably have one, perform 3, and shoot a politician out of spite (assuming I was going to end up dead anyway). I have a very strong intuitive support of the pro-choice position. I just want to reconcile it with some other views I hold. The best way to demonstrate my internal conflict is to show the opposing views that are giving me trouble, in the form of an argument.

It's not really about pro-choice it's about privacy rights for us women and we have the same rights as every man. That we should have the same opportunities. I betcha if men could be pregnant it would be totally different.


Everyone seems so cynical. I'm bad at communicating my ideas. I say stupid shit. I must be intrinsically holding some evil and conservative agenda. No. I'm open-minded, arrogant, flawed, human, inquisitive, a devil's advocate, et cetera. I've been into internet forums since I was ten. I've always got in trouble. It's because I have a flawed character. I'm working on it!

How are you open minded if you don't like what a woman decides to do isn't in line with you?

[Dr Mindbender]

Same as everyone supporting government banning murder since conservatives such as me feel abortion IS murder.

To quote George Carlin, If foetuses constitute people, why arent they included on the census?

[Radical]

Same as everyone supporting government banning murder since conservatives such as me feel abortion IS murder.

I must also note. That if you actually were that bothered and thought abortion was such an abomination, you would forcily do something about it. Thats if you really felt strongly about your beliefs. And thinking abortion is the same as any other murder, is feeling strong about your beliefs.

However, I dont see you really standing up for your beliefs.

Its pretty sick to allow all these mass-murderers to survive, when you could be doing something so great for humanity.

[SouthernBelle82]

To quote George Carlin, If foetuses constitute people, why arent they included on the census?

Oh I like that! I'll have to remember that.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The issue isn't actually about being pro-life or whatever. The whole thing with Roe v Wade is about the privacy for us women and our medical records and the fact that we have the fourth amendment just as any man does. That we have that safety and security and so do our doctors.

And who are you to say your ethics are better than mine? I don't think my uterus is attached to your body.

And what if a woman decides to abort a child because she's in an abusive relationship and can't get out and/or doesn't want the abuser to have another victim?

So you're pro-life?

How do you figure that? I don't think it's changed all that much. And please show citations that they're gaining support.

Why should it be your choice? Sure you were so kind to donate your sperm but in the end it's not your labor.

It's not really about pro-choice it's about privacy rights for us women and we have the same rights as every man. That we should have the same opportunities. I betcha if men could be pregnant it would be totally different.

How are you open minded if you don't like what a woman decides to do isn't in line with you?

That's an entirely different reason for being pro-choice. That reasoning is neutral about whether an individual women should have an abortion. I know plenty of liberals who hold to that reasoning, but they still think most women are making a poor choice if they choose an abortion.

Ethics being better is an entirely different debate. Pragmatically, it only matters who has the means to enforce their agenda. We stop people from murdering others. That's an ethical agenda. There aren't irrefutable arguments that make that a legitimate use of authority. It's quite subjective.

I'm not against abortion. I just think the arguments against abortion aren't as ridiculous as people imply. For instance, I think arguments against the moon landing are ridiculous and wrong. I think arguments for capitalism are rational but mistaken. It's the difference between a valid argument and a sound one. I think something is unsound about the pro-life argument within the context of my other views. I just haven't figured out what it is that I dislike about it. Until I do, I am pro-choice based on my intuitive moral sentiments and a love of freedom.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30771408/

That was the recent information. Perhaps that's always been the case. When I first heard about the pro-life position being dominant, I was under the impression this was a new phenomenon. I could very well be mistaken on this.

In the case of a person sparring a child an unjust life. That's a tricky issue. I don't have a clue how to deal with it. Of course, my current position is the individual can make the decision with respect to abortion however they wish. I'll hold know personal judgments against them for it. Well, there will be no moral objects in accordance with them exercising their right to an abortion. Even if the fetus has no moral consideration, I can think of some circumstances where having an abortion would be a bad decision. Some people can make bad decisions about any matter. It's simply the way a system respecting freedom works that we allow individuals to make mistakes. It's a sacrifice for the greater benefit of independence. You see some people regret having abortions. I used to think they were simply ridiculous. Now I think they realize they made a decision that was poor for "them." Not for everyone, for them. However, no one is in a better position to act on such an complex moral issue than the mother, at least in most cases.

I wouldn't like it if a women killed my dog. I'd stop her from doing it. It doesn't mean that I'm not open-minded. Open-minded entails a willingness to hear and consider alternative perspectives even if you dislike what they entail. I can listen to a Nazi and honestly consider his opinion as if it were legitimate. It doesn't mean I don't think his opinions are garbage and he is a worthless excuse for a human being. I can just "switch off" my prejudices for the purpose of discussion.

Really, I don't know how to communicate this properly. People seem to think that an appreciation for the form of an argument entails a support of that argument. A complicated math formula that proves 1+1=2 in an abstract and unnecessarily complicated way has a sort of beauty to it. That's all I'm saying here. I like how the pro-life position is put together. How the little kids glue their macaroni pictures together. When someone throws enough fancily decorated crafts at you, you'll start to lose track of why exactly you oppose a particular view. At an intuitive level, you know there is something wrong with the situation. You just haven't figured out what.

[SouthernBelle82]

That's an entirely different reason for being pro-choice. That reasoning is neutral about whether an individual women should have an abortion. I know plenty of liberals who hold to that reasoning, but they still think most women are making a poor choice if they choose an abortion.

They aren't really liberal in that regard. To me it's not my body. Not my labor. I have nothing to do with the decision. I wouldn't want some stranger to make a life changing choice for me like that. Since you're a man would you like me to tell you at what age, if at all, you have to have the snip-snip?


Ethics being better is an entirely different debate. Pragmatically, it only matters who has the means to enforce their agenda. We stop people from murdering others. That's an ethical agenda. There aren't irrefutable arguments that make that a legitimate use of authority. It's quite subjective.So why did you bring it up if it has nothing to do with what the thread is about?


I'm not against abortion. I just think the arguments against abortion aren't as ridiculous as people imply. For instance, I think arguments against the moon landing are ridiculous and wrong. I think arguments for capitalism are rational but mistaken. It's the difference between a valid argument and a sound one. I think something is unsound about the pro-life argument within the context of my other views. I just haven't figured out what it is that I dislike about it. Until I do, I am pro-choice based on my intuitive moral sentiments and a love of freedom.Sorry but what in all things holy does the moon landing have to do with anything? I was arguing recently with a so-called "pro-lifer" (who made acceptions so they aren't) and they mentioned what if aliens impregnated a woman. Why do people have to bring up nonsense that has nothing to do with anything? :rolleyes: Quite frankly unless you're directly involved your emotions have nothing to do with anything. Sorry to disappoint you but we women aren't moron's who need a man to hold our hand from peeing to giving birth. We're big girls.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30771408/

That was the recent information. Perhaps that's always been the case. When I first heard about the pro-life position being dominant, I was under the impression this was a new phenomenon. I could very well be mistaken on this.Uh sorry hon but they aren't dominant at all. People still are for keeping Roe v Wade majority the last time I checked polls on this. We have the fourth amendment just like anyone does with our records and our relationships with our doctors.


In the case of a person sparring a child an unjust life. That's a tricky issue. I don't have a clue how to deal with it. Of course, my current position is the individual can make the decision with respect to abortion however they wish. I'll hold know personal judgments against them for it. Well, there will be no moral objects in accordance with them exercising their right to an abortion. Even if the fetus has no moral consideration, I can think of some circumstances where having an abortion would be a bad decision. Some people can make bad decisions about any matter. It's simply the way a system respecting freedom works that we allow individuals to make mistakes. It's a sacrifice for the greater benefit of independence. You see some people regret having abortions. I used to think they were simply ridiculous. Now I think they realize they made a decision that was poor for "them." Not for everyone, for them. However, no one is in a better position to act on such an complex moral issue than the mother, at least in most cases.I really don't care why you think having an abortion is a bad decision. If your sperm wasn't involved, if the woman doesn't want you involved then your views on it really doesn't matter. I know that sounds mean but the same thing goes for me as a female. Who am I to tell another woman what to do? I'm not the doctor I'm not involved. Even if I was a doctor I wouldn't know their history or anything going on. People seriously need to get over this whole "it takes a village" thing with my and every other woman's uterus. Of course the people who want to have a say don't have anything to do most of the time with the child after wards. They don't want a national health care program or even welfare. Having a child is very expensive especially if it's someone like me who is a single person who has no health insurance at all and is a college student. If tomorrow I went out with friends and was sexually assaulted and it resulted in pregnancy I would be screwed pardon the expression. And that's my life not mine. My motto in life is if I'm so unsure about something not to do it. I learned that lesson a long time ago and it's always worked out for me. Some people don't learn lessons like that without going through difficult processes. They had the choice in the matter and their privacy was respected. That is the issue.


I wouldn't like it if a women killed my dog. I'd stop her from doing it. It doesn't mean that I'm not open-minded. Open-minded entails a willingness to hear and consider alternative perspectives even if you dislike what they entail. I can listen to a Nazi and honestly consider his opinion as if it were legitimate. It doesn't mean I don't think his opinions are garbage and he is a worthless excuse for a human being. I can just "switch off" my prejudices for the purpose of discussion.What again in all things holy does your dog have to do with anything? Your dog is not a fetus. Your dog doesn't give a woman so much pain physically and perhaps emotionally depending on the individual and circumstances. That's plainly crap. And yes Nazi's ARE garbage. Psst they wanted to control us women and our reproductive rights too. They did experiments on lesbians.


Really, I don't know how to communicate this properly. People seem to think that an appreciation for the form of an argument entails a support of that argument. A complicated math formula that proves 1+1=2 in an abstract and unnecessarily complicated way has a sort of beauty to it. That's all I'm saying here. I like how the pro-life position is put together. How the little kids glue their macaroni pictures together. When someone throws enough fancily decorated crafts at you, you'll start to lose track of why exactly you oppose a particular view. At an intuitive level, you know there is something wrong with the situation. You just haven't figured out what.News flash hon. Math isn't an opinion. 1+1=2 is a fact. You can have your own opinion. Opinions can't be right or wrong. As I told the so-called "pro-lifer" earlier this week everyone has an opinion. There is nothing wrong with my solution. My uterus is not your political football. Neither is my life. Maybe you would understand how I feel as a woman if you were a woman always being used by politicians and not giving two craps about my life or what I think and thinking we always need a man to tell us what to do. Get over yourselves.

[Conquer or Die]

My frank opinion is that yes abortionists and women who have abortions should be tried with possibility of the death penalty. However this should be in the court of law and I don't support people shooting abortion doctors. They are like the John Browns and Nat Turners of the anti-slavery movement-merely discrediting the anti-abortion movement and turning public opinion against them.

Only a person ignorant of history would say that John Brown and Nat Turner discredited the anti slavery movement. Shut the fuck up with your stupid analogy.

[Richard Nixon]

I must also note. That if you actually were that bothered and thought abortion was such an abomination, you would forcily do something about it. Thats if you really felt strongly about your beliefs. And thinking abortion is the same as any other murder, is feeling strong about your beliefs.

However, I dont see you really standing up for your beliefs.

Its pretty sick to allow all these mass-murderers to survive, when you could be doing something so great for humanity.

Did the Civil Rights movements use violence for instance? I will not commit violence against abortion as it would be hypocritical to kill in order to stop killing.


Only a person ignorant of history would say that John Brown and Nat Turner discredited the anti slavery movement. Shut the fuck up with your stupid analogy.

Nat Turner did discredit the anti-slavery movement in the South though not the North. In the Upper South before Nat Turner's rebellion there was as I've said discussion of graducal manumission but due to his rebellion such discussion evaporated and more restrictions placed on slavery.

[SouthernBelle82]

Did the Civil Rights movements use violence for instance? I will not commit violence against abortion as it would be hypocritical to kill in order to stop killing.



Nat Turner did discredit the anti-slavery movement in the South though not the North. In the Upper South before Nat Turner's rebellion there was as I've said discussion of graducal manumission but due to his rebellion such discussion evaporated and more restrictions placed on slavery.

Malcolm X was for using violence. There's a video on Youtube of some KKK members shooting communist's and the cops in the picture didn't do anything to help.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

They aren't really liberal in that regard. To me it's not my body. Not my labor. I have nothing to do with the decision. I wouldn't want some stranger to make a life changing choice for me like that. Since you're a man would you like me to tell you at what age, if at all, you have to have the snip-snip?

So why did you bring it up if it has nothing to do with what the thread is about?

Sorry but what in all things holy does the moon landing have to do with anything? I was arguing recently with a so-called "pro-lifer" (who made acceptions so they aren't) and they mentioned what if aliens impregnated a woman. Why do people have to bring up nonsense that has nothing to do with anything? :rolleyes: Quite frankly unless you're directly involved your emotions have nothing to do with anything. Sorry to disappoint you but we women aren't moron's who need a man to hold our hand from peeing to giving birth. We're big girls.

Uh sorry hon but they aren't dominant at all. People still are for keeping Roe v Wade majority the last time I checked polls on this. We have the fourth amendment just like anyone does with our records and our relationships with our doctors.

I really don't care why you think having an abortion is a bad decision. If your sperm wasn't involved, if the woman doesn't want you involved then your views on it really doesn't matter. I know that sounds mean but the same thing goes for me as a female. Who am I to tell another woman what to do? I'm not the doctor I'm not involved. Even if I was a doctor I wouldn't know their history or anything going on. People seriously need to get over this whole "it takes a village" thing with my and every other woman's uterus. Of course the people who want to have a say don't have anything to do most of the time with the child after wards. They don't want a national health care program or even welfare. Having a child is very expensive especially if it's someone like me who is a single person who has no health insurance at all and is a college student. If tomorrow I went out with friends and was sexually assaulted and it resulted in pregnancy I would be screwed pardon the expression. And that's my life not mine. My motto in life is if I'm so unsure about something not to do it. I learned that lesson a long time ago and it's always worked out for me. Some people don't learn lessons like that without going through difficult processes. They had the choice in the matter and their privacy was respected. That is the issue.

What again in all things holy does your dog have to do with anything? Your dog is not a fetus. Your dog doesn't give a woman so much pain physically and perhaps emotionally depending on the individual and circumstances. That's plainly crap. And yes Nazi's ARE garbage. Psst they wanted to control us women and our reproductive rights too. They did experiments on lesbians.

News flash hon. Math isn't an opinion. 1+1=2 is a fact. You can have your own opinion. Opinions can't be right or wrong. As I told the so-called "pro-lifer" earlier this week everyone has an opinion. There is nothing wrong with my solution. My uterus is not your political football. Neither is my life. Maybe you would understand how I feel as a woman if you were a woman always being used by politicians and not giving two craps about my life or what I think and thinking we always need a man to tell us what to do. Get over yourselves.

Here is the issue though. Does a fetus, when it feels pain, qualify for moral consideration with respect to its future pleasure. If not, how is this distinction made with respect to valuing the future of individuals. If I kill you, surely I did something wrongly with respect to denying you your future?

And secondly, if a fetus does gain moral consideration of its future interests, what is it that the pro-choice position does to justify allowing the woman's choice to supersede the value of an individual.

Judith Jarvis Thompson has an interesting example of a violinist. However, individuals have responded to her argument by simply saying it proves the alternative case. A person does have an obligation to act on behalf of others to secure their life and future, even if it means inconveniences to them.

Here are the following things I take to be good examples to support the pro-choice position:

1. Ethics are fairly flexible so imposing a specific ethical theory should be avoided. This would entail removing laws against murder, which I am sympathetic to doing.
2. As someone mentioned, controlling a specific sex under the law is demeaning and contrary to the woman's rights movement.
3. Respecting freedom has a significantly high value and may outweigh any theoretical life that exists in this circumstance.

I'm fine with the arguments for the pro-choice position. I think they could be improved. However, I think the main problem is arguments against abortion are fairly strong. I think they are mistaken, but I'm not sure what makes me think this. For instance, if I have the choice to give alcohol to a five year old, it may be unethical for me to do so, regardless of the law.

Assuming the notion of minimizing pain and respecting life, under the utilitarian view, there seems to be an issue. Wouldn't many abortions performed by women actually be unethical despite their right to perform them? If not, why not?

I realize it's rather restrictive to enforce the idea that utilitarianism is reasonable, a fetus' future deserves consideration, and that women have a choice all in one. Feel free to attack any of those assumptions in your response.

Again, I'm pro-choice. I have no idea how terrible my discussion is to a women. It's probably like if you started seriously debating whether to mutilate my gentles to maximize utility. I appreciate your patience in discussing the matter. Do keep in mind that I'm perhaps necessarily ignorant by virtue of not being a women..

On that line, assuming it's legitimate to vote on the abortion issue (I doubt it is), would it be legitimate to restrict men from voting as the issue does not pertain to them? Or does it pertain to them? Questions, Questions!

[ThorsMitersaw]

If conservatives really thought abortion was murder, then far more of them would be advocating the death penalty for women who get abortions

This is an excellent argument. It shows incongruity in their thoughts, actions, and rhetoric.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

This is an excellent argument. It shows incongruity in their thoughts, actions, and rhetoric.

That isn't really an argument honestly. It's more an attack on the integrity of people who hold that viewpoint.

If I think I have a moral obligation to help the poor, and I don't help the poor, it doesn't mean I don't have a moral obligation. It just means I'm lazy, unethical, et cetera.

[ThorsMitersaw]

That isn't really an argument honestly. It's more an attack on the integrity of people who hold that viewpoint.

If I think I have a moral obligation to help the poor, and I don't help the poor, it doesn't mean I don't have a moral obligation. It just means I'm lazy, unethical, et cetera.

well if their is no separation from out thoughts and actions, then it displays their revealed preferences or values in light of them not pushing to have it treated the same as retributive takes on murder. So on some level they do not hold it to be murder.

[Richard Nixon]

Malcolm X was for using violence. There's a video on Youtube of some KKK members shooting communist's and the cops in the picture didn't do anything to help.

Did Malcom X's ideas work? Martin Luther King Jr. and his pacifism was the correct mode to win civil rights- and it was pretty much proven.

[SouthernBelle82]

Here is the issue though. Does a fetus, when it feels pain, qualify for moral consideration with respect to its future pleasure. If not, how is this distinction made with respect to valuing the future of individuals. If I kill you, surely I did something wrongly with respect to denying you your future?

I'm not a fetus though.


And secondly, if a fetus does gain moral consideration of its future interests, what is it that the pro-choice position does to justify allowing the woman's choice to supersede the value of an individual.

You're not getting the pro-choice position. It's none of your business unless you're directly involved or if the person asks you. Other wise we have the fourth amendment as well as you do.


Judith Jarvis Thompson has an interesting example of a violinist. However, individuals have responded to her argument by simply saying it proves the alternative case. A person does have an obligation to act on behalf of others to secure their life and future, even if it means inconveniences to them.

And the same thing can be said with respecting a woman's decision to abort a child. It may be not only for her but the best interest of the child (the abuse situation I brought up) or any other number of reason's.


Here are the following things I take to be good examples to support the pro-choice position:

1. Ethics are fairly flexible so imposing a specific ethical theory should be avoided. This would entail removing laws against murder, which I am sympathetic to doing.
2. As someone mentioned, controlling a specific sex under the law is demeaning and contrary to the woman's rights movement.
3. Respecting freedom has a significantly high value and may outweigh any theoretical life that exists in this circumstance.

1. The laws of murder are with people who are living.

2. That's what the pro-life movement is trying to do.

3. Except when it's the freedom of my uterus.


I'm fine with the arguments for the pro-choice position. I think they could be improved. However, I think the main problem is arguments against abortion are fairly strong. I think they are mistaken, but I'm not sure what makes me think this. For instance, if I have the choice to give alcohol to a five year old, it may be unethical for me to do so, regardless of the law.

Doesn't matter what their positions are on either side. It has to do with what the laws are currently in this country and whether or not you believe people, regardless of sex, class, race etc. have the same opportunities as the next. As I believe I've said before if men could go through birth we wouldn't even be having this discussion.


Assuming the notion of minimizing pain and respecting life, under the utilitarian view, there seems to be an issue. Wouldn't many abortions performed by women actually be unethical despite their right to perform them? If not, why not?

My views of ethics may be different than another woman's so it really doesn't matter.


I realize it's rather restrictive to enforce the idea that utilitarianism is reasonable, a fetus' future deserves consideration, and that women have a choice all in one. Feel free to attack any of those assumptions in your response.

I have a choice too. A fetus can't make a decision about something like this the last time I checked.


Again, I'm pro-choice. I have no idea how terrible my discussion is to a women. It's probably like if you started seriously debating whether to mutilate my gentles to maximize utility. I appreciate your patience in discussing the matter. Do keep in mind that I'm perhaps necessarily ignorant by virtue of not being a women..

It doesn't matter if you are pro-choice or not in the end because you don't have a say in my specific uterus unless I ask you for advice and thus your opinion. And yes I don't think men would like us women talking about medical procedures with you. However the issue with Roe v Wade anyways is whether or not you have the fourth amendment with your medical records and your doctors.


On that line, assuming it's legitimate to vote on the abortion issue (I doubt it is), would it be legitimate to restrict men from voting as the issue does not pertain to them? Or does it pertain to them? Questions, Questions!

Doesn't matter. It depends on each state's laws and the rules of changing laws and if it's within the laws as it stands. And just because a law is gone doesn't mean women will stop having abortions. Look at what happened pre- Roe v Wade. We'll still have the fourth amendment as well unless Congress decides to change that or take it away all together. Only Congress can change laws right now and that includes the States as well.

[SouthernBelle82]

Did Malcom X's ideas work? Martin Luther King Jr. and his pacifism was the correct mode to win civil rights- and it was pretty much proven.

Different ways work for different situations and people.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm not a fetus though.

You're not getting the pro-choice position. It's none of your business unless you're directly involved or if the person asks you. Other wise we have the fourth amendment as well as you do.

And the same thing can be said with respecting a woman's decision to abort a child. It may be not only for her but the best interest of the child (the abuse situation I brought up) or any other number of reason's.

1. The laws of murder are with people who are living.

2. That's what the pro-life movement is trying to do.

3. Except when it's the freedom of my uterus.

Doesn't matter what their positions are on either side. It has to do with what the laws are currently in this country and whether or not you believe people, regardless of sex, class, race etc. have the same opportunities as the next. As I believe I've said before if men could go through birth we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

My views of ethics may be different than another woman's so it really doesn't matter.

I have a choice too. A fetus can't make a decision about something like this the last time I checked.

It doesn't matter if you are pro-choice or not in the end because you don't have a say in my specific uterus unless I ask you for advice and thus your opinion. And yes I don't think men would like us women talking about medical procedures with you. However the issue with Roe v Wade anyways is whether or not you have the fourth amendment with your medical records and your doctors.

Doesn't matter. It depends on each state's laws and the rules of changing laws and if it's within the laws as it stands. And just because a law is gone doesn't mean women will stop having abortions. Look at what happened pre- Roe v Wade. We'll still have the fourth amendment as well unless Congress decides to change that or take it away all together. Only Congress can change laws right now and that includes the States as well.

I meant you would be doing something wrong by denying a fetus its future under this view. Why does the future of the fetus "not matter" and the future of a person does?

I'm not talking legality. I'm talking morality. I wouldn't consult the United States government for a lesson in ethics. If you are killing someone, I am morally entitled to intervene regardless of the law. The issue is that the nature of abortion makes the situation different (or appears to, from my perspective).

Even in an abusive relationship, most people consider their lives worth living. It takes a considerable amount of pain for most people to consider suicide. They seem to value a life much higher than we would think. If it's ethical to abort someone who would be abused, why can't I kill someone who is being abused? In both cases, I have an alternative option. I can allow the person to live and deal with the problem of circumstance.

At the point a fetus feels pain, it should receive some moral consideration. There is nothing special about people. A person who couldn't feel pleasure or pain would deserve no moral consideration and would likely engage in no activities as their body would function improperly and any actions they performed would have no value.

If men could give birth, the same discussion would exist. That seems like a pretty unfounded claim to make. What justification is there for believing that?

What are we talking about with respect to "me" having a say. Laws can change. Morally, why does someone have no right to tell another person what to do with their body? I can tell someone not to shoot my friend. I can restrict them from doing so.

Why is it unethical for me to kill a person and not a fetus, if both feel pain. That's really the question that's being asked here.

[SouthernBelle82]

I meant you would be doing something wrong by denying a fetus its future under this view. Why does the future of the fetus "not matter" and the future of a person does?

I'm not talking legality. I'm talking morality. I wouldn't consult the United States government for a lesson in ethics. If you are killing someone, I am morally entitled to intervene regardless of the law. The issue is that the nature of abortion makes the situation different (or appears to, from my perspective).

It's only your opinion. Doesn't really matter.


Even in an abusive relationship, most people consider their lives worth living. It takes a considerable amount of pain for most people to consider suicide. They seem to value a life much higher than we would think. If it's ethical to abort someone who would be abused, why can't I kill someone who is being abused? In both cases, I have an alternative option. I can allow the person to live and deal with the problem of circumstance.

So you've talked to people who have been in abusive relationships? Just like with anything every person has an individual view point of that. There's plenty of stories out there of women who were abused and raped who didn't want to live on at the time. Unless you have some citation backup for your claims it's just what you would think. Also, you can only speak for yourself. Not some person who may or may not exist. What you're aborting with abortion isn't a "someone" yet according to science.


At the point a fetus feels pain, it should receive some moral consideration. There is nothing special about people. A person who couldn't feel pleasure or pain would deserve no moral consideration and would likely engage in no activities as their body would function improperly and any actions they performed would have no value.

Once again your morals do not equal my morals and mine don't equal anyone else's. That's the whole point. Everyone considers pain differently. My skin is sensitive and I can't stand people touching me. Never have as long as I can remember. If my mother pinches me on St Patrick's day for not remembering my green that brings me pain. May not to someone else. I hope you see my point. And who are you to say what has value and what doesn't? Once again it's only your opinion.


If men could give birth, the same discussion would exist. That seems like a pretty unfounded claim to make. What justification is there for believing that?

LOL! Are you serious? Do you honestly think if men could give birth we'd be having ANY discussions with abortion? Absolutely not. Compare the whole deal with birth control and Viagra. There are plenty of men who don't want us women to have birth control but then turn around and get Viagra every time they can get it.


What are we talking about with respect to "me" having a say. Laws can change. Morally, why does someone have no right to tell another person what to do with their body? I can tell someone not to shoot my friend. I can restrict them from doing so.

So would you like it if I said you had to be circumcised or sterilized by a certain point and then claim it's cause of my morals and my religious views or something else?


Why is it unethical for me to kill a person and not a fetus, if both feel pain. That's really the question that's being asked here.

A fetus isn't a person. What don't you get? No it is not. The whole question being asked is why do I as a woman am not treated the same as any man where it concerns the same opportunities to privacy and having medical procedures done? Please learn what the argument is and not what it isn't.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

If a persons life isn't worth living, why wouldn't they end it? People see to cling to live. Most of them would rather live a life of suffering than die. This is only evident by their actions. Or are they all simply irrational for not ending their life? I am only judging people on their actions, here, with respect to whether they value their life.

Pinching you gives you pain. Therefore, someone shouldn't do it. Pain is intrinsically bad. If we know doing X will cause pain, based on scientific evidence, we should not do X unless the benefits justify it.

Yes, I don't really understand why abortion wouldn't be an issue if men could have children. People who have sex almost always assume they won't get anyone pregnant. If men knew they'd get stuck with a kid every time an accident happened, it would alter how they approach sex. Abortion doesn't only effect the lifestyle of women. It's just primarily affecting women.

If they sterilized me I'd be upset. I don't want to have children. I don't think I should be having children based on my own reasons. However, I think to assume I'll make the wrong decisions on my own is insulting. Afterward, if I did make the wrong decision, I'd be open to criticism for it.

What I'm trying to figure out is why a rich women in perfect health who has an abortion isn't doing something unethical. I don't think she is. I haven't figured out a "why" that satisfies me yet. Right now I'm just operating my a "gut feeling" that says it's alright. Not the most compelling rational to discuss with someone who asks your political opinion. That's why I'm trying to find a reasoning I like by arguing the opposing viewpoint.

I'll give you the privacy. That's completely fine. Then let's say a rich women who can easily support the child gets the abortion and freely tells me about it. Should I be critical of them if they tell me the reason was, simply, they didn't want a child.

A fetus feels pain at point X. It doesn't have to be a person to warrant consideration of its interests in some respect.

[Verix]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXviTQZQZxM</object> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXviTQZQZxM)
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
"Conservatives want live babys so they can grow up to be dead soliders."

[SouthernBelle82]

If a persons life isn't worth living, why wouldn't they end it? People see to cling to live. Most of them would rather live a life of suffering than die. This is only evident by their actions. Or are they all simply irrational for not ending their life? I am only judging people on their actions, here, with respect to whether they value their life.

Who are these "most of them" you're speaking of? People you've actually talked to or just pulling stuff out of your butt? Just because these so-called people do that doesn't mean it applies to everyone else. What don't you get about that?


Pinching you gives you pain. Therefore, someone shouldn't do it. Pain is intrinsically bad. If we know doing X will cause pain, based on scientific evidence, we should not do X unless the benefits justify it.Not to everyone. Sometimes people don't feel it. I used myself as an example because not everyone is the same. I'm pretty sensitive and other people aren't. Some people can handle pain. Ever seen those people who walk bare footed across hot coal?


Yes, I don't really understand why abortion wouldn't be an issue if men could have children. People who have sex almost always assume they won't get anyone pregnant. If men knew they'd get stuck with a kid every time an accident happened, it would alter how they approach sex. Abortion doesn't only effect the lifestyle of women. It's just primarily affecting women.Because you wouldn't want someone else telling you how to handle situations. Just like you talking about your dog. Oh please. Who generally takes care of the child while the husband and/or father is off working or whatever? Majority of the child's life if their mother is involved for most people their mother is the main care giver. I know it was that way for me as a child and all of my friends.


If they sterilized me I'd be upset. I don't want to have children. I don't think I should be having children based on my own reasons. However, I think to assume I'll make the wrong decisions on my own is insulting. Afterward, if I did make the wrong decision, I'd be open to criticism for it.Exactly. You'd be upset. So why do you think it's okay for you to have some sort of say over my uterus? As I've said before we women aren't morons. Or at least I like to think I'm not.


What I'm trying to figure out is why a rich women in perfect health who has an abortion isn't doing something unethical. I don't think she is. I haven't figured out a "why" that satisfies me yet. Right now I'm just operating my a "gut feeling" that says it's alright. Not the most compelling rational to discuss with someone who asks your political opinion. That's why I'm trying to find a reasoning I like by arguing the opposing viewpoint.Because perhaps her ethics don't equal yours? Because ethics are like opinions? Your gut feeling? Sorry but I really don't care about your "gut feeling." It has to do with you. Not me. Instead of arguing the opposing viewpoint try the other end? Try talking to the people who it effects. Us women. One of my main professors made the point last term that he's not a woman and he's not involved so it shouldn't be his say because he wouldn't want a woman saying when he had to have a vasectomy. We treat each other as individuals and that we all deserve to be treated with respect and have the same opportunities as anyone else.


I'll give you the privacy. That's completely fine. Then let's say a rich women who can easily support the child gets the abortion and freely tells me about it. Should I be critical of them if they tell me the reason was, simply, they didn't want a child.Uh psst hon. She told you about it. You're involved. See my earlier posts about that. I don't have time to repeat myself or really want to. And it's up to this made up woman if she wants to listen to you be critical of her.


A fetus feels pain at point X. It doesn't have to be a person to warrant consideration of its interests in some respect.And I guess considerations of me are out the window. :rolleyes: Oh and I started this thread to ask how to deal with pro-life people and a national health care program not to argue on them.

[Radical]

Did the Civil Rights movements use violence for instance? I will not commit violence against abortion as it would be hypocritical to kill in order to stop killing.


How can you go about supporting the US Government and at the same time denounce violence against those that kill?

In what your saying, your now being hypocritical for supporting the the killing of terrorists. Because what you just said is, "I will not commit violence as it would be hypocritcal to kill in order to stop killing"

I must also ask you this very good question, as I ask it to all Conservatives.

Would you sacrifice your own son to capture Osama Bin Laden?

[TC]

Actually no. Before Nat Turner's rebellion there was discussion to have a gradual manumission bill in the State of Virginia. Unfortunately that bill failed to pass due to Nat Turner's revolt. Also Nat Turner killed any whites indiscrimnantly including women and children-I wouldn't consider that "heroic". Unless you are black, had you been there you would have been killed by Nat Turner.

Thats just a lie by racist southerners. Nat Turner's rebellion was an appropriate response to the singular evil of slavery; they spared poor whites deliberately and the failure of the white male slave masters to give up their "property" in response has no bearing on the appropriateness of a violent response in self-defense to a systematically violent society. Had I been there, it would only have been to shoot white slave owners.


Sperm cells aren't human, fetuses are.

I wasn't refering to sperm cells (which are destroyed by the billions naturally) but blastocysts which are multi-cellular embryos before implamentation; something like half of them are destroyed naturally for failure to implant...and afterwards a very large percentage of pregnancies are naturally aborted. The human body is built to destroy more of what you consider 'humans' than it is to allow them to survive.

[Conquer or Die]

Nat Turner did discredit the anti-slavery movement in the South though not the North. In the Upper South before Nat Turner's rebellion there was as I've said discussion of graducal manumission but due to his rebellion such discussion evaporated and more restrictions placed on slavery.

Fucking moron. Only a fucking lunatic would criticize slaves for rebelling against their oppressors. Suggesting that white legislation would end the "peculiar" slave industry is not only historically wrong but also makes any attempt for you to defend "humanity" however you define it as supremely hypocritical.

[mel]

Sorry to come so late to the conversation with this, but since my words were used I'd just like the opportunity to defend them.


It seems to make ethics rather egoist though. Why care about the person attacking you at all, even though it isn't their fault?

From a utility standpoint, I'm not sure that argument escapes the typical criticism of abortion. Utilitarianism is supposed to apply morality to all things that can feel pain. If at point X a fetus feels pain, it seems difficult to give it no moral consideration.

Look at this comparison. If I had a medical condition that forced me to punch you daily, you wouldn't be justified in killing me, as I see it.

In the rest of that blog post (which I encourage you to read, I do not actually employ utilitarianism in order to make it. The title is "The Ethics of Revolution", which as of now is my latest blog post) I describe the further conditions on the limitations which one might use self-defense.

In short, violence in self-defense is justified only to the extent that the amount of force used exactly sufficient to end the further perpetration of violence. In the case of the fetus, this force is the force of an abortion. In the case of a person who is predisposed to punch, this amount of force is more likely than not "restraint" and perhaps forced medical treatment for the bizarre condition.

If I, fully knowing the risks to myself and desiring the further consequences, decide not to use violence against you because of your punching condition, I may very well do that. However, you cannot say that I am unjustified in having you restrained if understanding the risks I refuse to allow you to continue attacking me.


Then the issue seems to come down to this. Does the life of the child increase utility. Does a person maximize pleasure as an individual agent? Most people decide to continue living. Perhaps the answer is invariably that, yes, most people do want to continue living.

Maybe someone can help me with this dilemma. I don't think utilitarianism is incompatible with being pro-choice. I feel like I'm missing a peace of the puzzle.

I don't think this is really a question utilitarianism can sufficiently answer

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

SouthernBelle82:

I was suggesting that people who live in horrible conditions yet choice not to commit suicide are therefore communicating that they value their life. We have to assume this. Otherwise, we'd have to consider the possibility of killing of miserable people because "it's good for them." It's their decision to make.

Everyone will go through life experiencing some pleasure and some pain. I am simply assuming the fetus will develop into a human being, which we currently see as having value. However, its future deserves consideration once it can feel pain. Pain creates interests and desires. If you could decide whether you as a fetus would die, you would say no, in most cases, knowing you'd experience pain. Before then, there is nothing to determine value.

What makes it necessary for me to respect the future of someone, by not killing them. If I kill a hermit nobody knows exists painlessly, it's still wrong because I'm denying them their future. Why is it legitimate to deny the future of another organism that has the capacity to lead a good life? What separates the pain-feeling fetus from a human when it comes to attaching value to its future. Nothing strikes out at me to solve this problem. Perhaps we shouldn't conceptualize people as individuals at all? Simply as segments of pleasure and pain throughout time. Therefore, the future of any organism has no relevance?

I don't like people telling others what to do. That is one of many reasons I hold a pro-choice position. I am even sympathetic to a law against murder being just while a law against abortion is unjust. However, I can't understand how a particular abortion can never be unjust when particular murders can be. In both cases, an organism that feels pain seems to be losing the opportunity to acquire a future.

I've said repeatedly I don't think anyone should have control over your body. I simply think trying to reconcile a utilitarian position with the pro-choice viewpoint presents conflicts but, given my admiration of utilitarianism, I am trying to reconcile the two viewpoints. If someone told you having friends and believing murder is wrong were two logically inconsistent views, and gave you compelling reasons to believe that, wouldn't you try to find a way out of the situation. A counterargument? That's all I'm trying to do. Perhaps I'm destined to fail. Utilitarianism isn't my God. I'm certainly not going to cry if I can't succeed here. I'm more sympathetic to Prioritarianism, anyway.

I don't always read the first post in a topic. It's probably the Internet equivalent of being pretty rude. My bad. I'm also pro-choice, as I've pointed out multiple times.

Considerations of you and your future interests are completely relevant. I thought we were taken them for granted. If it's pain to you versus pain to fetus, it's an easy answer. If you don't want a kid, abort. If the future value of a fetus matters once it feels pain, it may be morally justified to encourage early abortions over later ones alongside maintaining a pro-choice position for the sake of long-term equality and social justice toward women and the idea of bodily autonomy and freedom.

Melbicimni:

I read your blog. I'm sympathetic to many of your ethical ideas. I'm not quite sure all our ethical intuitions are socially imposed, but that may be the case.

Regardless, I wonder what you would say to an example I provided earlier. If someone hits you daily, as they are compelled to by their nature, are you morally justified in killing them if there are no other means to eliminate the issue.

TC, if I understand her correctly, implied that "yes" is the answer. I'm sympathetic. However, she also expressed a strong opposition to utilitarianism.

Is a "yes" answer the right one, here? If so, is that answer compatible with a utilitarian outlook? I'm curious what you, or anyone, thinks?

[mel]

I read your blog. I'm sympathetic to many of your ethical ideas. I'm not quite sure all our ethical intuitions are socially imposed, but that may be the case.

Either socially imposed or evolutionary, I don't think any are rationally imposed, but they may be rationally justified or expressed.


Regardless, I wonder what you would say to an example I provided earlier. If someone hits you daily, as they are compelled to by their nature, are you morally justified in killing them if there are no other means to eliminate the issue.

I think that example is too far removed from reality to be relevant. If there was really NO other way to keep them from punching me daily, then yes, I would be justified in killing them, but realistically you can restrain them, contain them in a cell, more likely than not treat them (as this could really only be the result of a psychological condition, albeit one which could potentially be caused by a physical one, such as a brain tumor). If in your hypothetical scenario the person would die if they did not succeed in punching me daily, then it would be up to me if I would allow them to do so. Keep in mind that I cannot imagine any situation in which somebody's options are "punch you every day" or "die on the spot", which really is an important component in the scenario. Realistically, you could never have a person with such a condition, which makes its use as an analogy flawed. Unfortunately, the amount of force necessary to stop the fetus's expression of violence against its host is different than the amount of force necessary to stop the perpetration of a psychologically compelled person. If science makes it possible to preserve a fetus for as long as necessary and transplant it into a willing host, then I would be calling for all fetuses to be preserved in such a fashion as that would be less an act of violence than an abortion which results in the destruction of the fetus (assuming a similar level of invasiveness for either procedure) as that would be the new standard for the necessary level of violence in that particular scenario. Does this make sense?

Also, keep in mind that I too oppose utilitarianism insofar as it proposes to be an objective framework which aids a person in making ethical decisions, mainly on the counts that it does neither (its execution is based entirely on subjective interpretations of the most "good", and due to the inability to actually predict the long-term consequences of actions it is incapable of aiding in any significant degree the making of ethical decisions, but this is not a thread about its relative merits, so I'll leave it at that.) As such, I don't attempt to present a utilitarian defense for this particular set of moral propositions, but most moral propositions can be phrased in utilitarian terms and then justified, so I'll leave that as an exercise for you if you wish.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

If science makes it possible to preserve a fetus for as long as necessary and transplant it into a willing host, then I would be calling for all fetuses to be preserved in such a fashion as that would be less an act of violence than an abortion which results in the destruction of the fetus (assuming a similar level of invasiveness for either procedure) as that would be the new standard for the necessary level of violence in that particular scenario. Does this make sense?


I think that's reasonable. I'd just wonder that even if it is "your choice to whether to kill the person hitting you, force instance, why you could be justified in doing it, in most cases.

Intuitively, it seems quite correct upon rethinking the matter. However, I think there has to be a greater good being served somehow. Maybe not. I'll have to do some more investigation.

I definitely appreciate all the people who've taken the time to discuss these issues with me. I'm still not 100% satisfied with my own perspectives I've formed, but I feel like I'm making some progress on the matter. Perhaps I'll have to list out the pros and cons and come up with a more coherent argument later to express this matter.

[SouthernBelle82]

SouthernBelle82:

I was suggesting that people who live in horrible conditions yet choice not to commit suicide are therefore communicating that they value their life. We have to assume this. Otherwise, we'd have to consider the possibility of killing of miserable people because "it's good for them." It's their decision to make.

Not necessarily. There could be any other number of reason's why a person doesn't commit suicide. Fear of death is pretty strong too. Uh isn't it my decision to make when it considers my life? I guess I shouldn't have a choice in the matter and you know what's best for everyone. :rolleyes:


Everyone will go through life experiencing some pleasure and some pain. I am simply assuming the fetus will develop into a human being, which we currently see as having value. However, its future deserves consideration once it can feel pain. Pain creates interests and desires. If you could decide whether you as a fetus would die, you would say no, in most cases, knowing you'd experience pain. Before then, there is nothing to determine value.And when majority of abortions happen in this country it's before they know what "feelings" are. And how do you know what I would say in a circumstance? What if the choice you make to stay brings more pain than if you were to not? Take the situation of abuse again.


What makes it necessary for me to respect the future of someone, by not killing them. If I kill a hermit nobody knows exists painlessly, it's still wrong because I'm denying them their future. Why is it legitimate to deny the future of another organism that has the capacity to lead a good life? What separates the pain-feeling fetus from a human when it comes to attaching value to its future. Nothing strikes out at me to solve this problem. Perhaps we shouldn't conceptualize people as individuals at all? Simply as segments of pleasure and pain throughout time. Therefore, the future of any organism has no relevance?We're not talking about a hermit. We're talking about pro-life people getting it through their head that I have every opportunity and right as any man does with having privacy to my medical records. And what if by giving that organism the right to live you're making things worse? It doesn't really matter what you or anyone else thinks unless you're directly involved by the woman asking you for advice because you're either the sperm donater or a friend.


I don't like people telling others what to do. That is one of many reasons I hold a pro-choice position. I am even sympathetic to a law against murder being just while a law against abortion is unjust. However, I can't understand how a particular abortion can never be unjust when particular murders can be. In both cases, an organism that feels pain seems to be losing the opportunity to acquire a future.Uh the law isn't about murder hon. Go read Roe v Wade. Have you ever read it? It's not about being against abortion. It's just been framed as that. If people would actually read the dang law and what it's about. An organism is not a person. It doesn't have thoughts, feelings, etc.


I've said repeatedly I don't think anyone should have control over your body. I simply think trying to reconcile a utilitarian position with the pro-choice viewpoint presents conflicts but, given my admiration of utilitarianism, I am trying to reconcile the two viewpoints. If someone told you having friends and believing murder is wrong were two logically inconsistent views, and gave you compelling reasons to believe that, wouldn't you try to find a way out of the situation. A counterargument? That's all I'm trying to do. Perhaps I'm destined to fail. Utilitarianism isn't my God. I'm certainly not going to cry if I can't succeed here. I'm more sympathetic to Prioritarianism, anyway.You don't get the pro-choice movement. It's about giving every woman the same opportunity as the next with the choice what to do. Why should only rich girls like a past girlfriend of George W Bush have the right to an abortion when the rest of us couldn't at the time? It doesn't matter what the other view point is. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts. It's my opinion that leeches are disgusting and not useful to our planet but it wouldn't be a fact because leeches can be useful to our planet.


I don't always read the first post in a topic. It's probably the Internet equivalent of being pretty rude. My bad. I'm also pro-choice, as I've pointed out multiple times. Once again it doesn't matter what you or I are. It has nothing to do with facts. And yes it is pretty damn rude.


Considerations of you and your future interests are completely relevant. I thought we were taken them for granted. If it's pain to you versus pain to fetus, it's an easy answer. If you don't want a kid, abort. If the future value of a fetus matters once it feels pain, it may be morally justified to encourage early abortions over later ones alongside maintaining a pro-choice position for the sake of long-term equality and social justice toward women and the idea of bodily autonomy and freedom.

It still doesn't matter when. Your morals are not my morals. I believe in reincarnation so I don't believe you can technically "kill" someone. Sure their body is gone but they are not. It's not your choice in the matter just like it's not mine.


Melbicimni:

I read your blog. I'm sympathetic to many of your ethical ideas. I'm not quite sure all our ethical intuitions are socially imposed, but that may be the case.

Regardless, I wonder what you would say to an example I provided earlier. If someone hits you daily, as they are compelled to by their nature, are you morally justified in killing them if there are no other means to eliminate the issue.

TC, if I understand her correctly, implied that "yes" is the answer. I'm sympathetic. However, she also expressed a strong opposition to utilitarianism.

Is a "yes" answer the right one, here? If so, is that answer compatible with a utilitarian outlook? I'm curious what you, or anyone, thinks?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think you have to let the decision of whether a life is worth living be up the person. Otherwise, we could consider anyone we think has a unworthy life as expendable. I don't think a fear of death actually exists if your life isn't worth living.

I'm not talking legality. I'm simply saying it's difficult to claim a moral distinction between people and a fetus when it comes to valuing "their future."

After thinking some more, the self-defense argument has more legitimacy than I thought. However, I have to start rethinking why that is in the context of utility.

If someone poked me in the ribs once a week and the only way I could stop them is to kill them, it might be morally legitimate. I just need to determine whether this view of self-defense is consistent with a utilitarian position and why that is.

[Richard Nixon]

How can you go about supporting the US Government and at the same time denounce violence against those that kill?

In what your saying, your now being hypocritical for supporting the the killing of terrorists. Because what you just said is, "I will not commit violence as it would be hypocritcal to kill in order to stop killing"

I must also ask you this very good question, as I ask it to all Conservatives.

Would you sacrifice your own son to capture Osama Bin Laden?

Killing terrorists is self-defense. As for sacrificing my son it is a hard question but as an altruist my answer leans toward "yes" because my belief is that one person can be sacrificed for the many.


Thats just a lie by racist southerners. Nat Turner's rebellion was an appropriate response to the singular evil of slavery; they spared poor whites deliberately and the failure of the white male slave masters to give up their "property" in response has no bearing on the appropriateness of a violent response in self-defense to a systematically violent society. Had I been there, it would only have been to shoot white slave owners.



Then why did they kill children of planters for instance? Most freed slaves including members of the United States Coloured Troops did not take such violent venegence on their former owners.


I wasn't refering to sperm cells (which are destroyed by the billions naturally) but blastocysts which are multi-cellular embryos before implamentation; something like half of them are destroyed naturally for failure to implant...and afterwards a very large percentage of pregnancies are naturally aborted. The human body is built to destroy more of what you consider 'humans' than it is to allow them to survive.

Those are unfortunate accidents like how people die of liver disease-is murder acceptable since people die anyways?


Fucking moron. Only a fucking lunatic would criticize slaves for rebelling against their oppressors. Suggesting that white legislation would end the "peculiar" slave industry is not only historically wrong but also makes any attempt for you to defend "humanity" however you define it as supremely hypocritical.

You are the one to be wrong. Have any proof? There were many who wanted gradual abolition of slavery until Nat Turner's revolt and even without a Civil War slavery would have been abolished in the US by the 1880s or so.

[Conquer or Die]

You are the one to be wrong. Have any proof? There were many who wanted gradual abolition of slavery until Nat Turner's revolt and even without a Civil War slavery would have been abolished in the US by the 1880s or so.

You are stupid. You are claiming deterministically that slavery would end in the 1880s. You claim that this proposition means it is incorrect for oppressed people to rebel fifty years prior even though there is no correct historical or practical relationship.

Your assumptions are such:

1. Abolition would've occurred with or without the Civil War. There is no such economic or historical proof that this is valid.
2. You claim gradual abolition is more beneficial than slaying piglet reactionaries. This claim rests on the proposition that slavery wasn't such an oppressive institution and that racism or other forms of economic repression wouldn't exist post gradual abolition. These are also racist pig claims without merit.

So, in the context of Nat Turner, who was compelled to react against oppressors: Nat Turner acted immorally because of the potential of unpopular legislation that he would have no clue about was in existence and some theoretical outcomes can possibly be drawn that have no basis in popular thought at the time or actual history. Nat Turner and former slave revolutions are then universally charged with ending theoretical abolition (which justifies slavery in the process) and these theoretical abolition pleas are then the correct solution to slavery (which indicates that slavery and tyranny are preferable to death and liberation by pig slaughtering).

Once again, you are a stupid piece of shit if you actually believe this. People are entitled to opinions and I don't support banning people on this forum or otherwise; but the ideas you stand for, if actually meant to enforce upon a population would make you a tyrant and would therefore justify your death at the hands of a revolutionary.

If you held these opinions in antebellum south then your death at the hands of slaves would've been justice in every sense of the word.

[SouthernBelle82]

I think you have to let the decision of whether a life is worth living be up the person. Otherwise, we could consider anyone we think has a unworthy life as expendable. I don't think a fear of death actually exists if your life isn't worth living.

I'm not talking legality. I'm simply saying it's difficult to claim a moral distinction between people and a fetus when it comes to valuing "their future."

After thinking some more, the self-defense argument has more legitimacy than I thought. However, I have to start rethinking why that is in the context of utility.

If someone poked me in the ribs once a week and the only way I could stop them is to kill them, it might be morally legitimate. I just need to determine whether this view of self-defense is consistent with a utilitarian position and why that is.

Sorry I don't think so. I have a life I enjoy for the most part and am thankful for and am involved in the spirit world and even I still have a little fear of death. Mostly because it's unknown and nobody really knows what happens when you die.

[Radical]

Killing terrorists is self-defense. As for sacrificing my son it is a hard question but as an altruist my answer leans toward "yes" because my belief is that one person can be sacrificed for the many.


Most of the Taliban fighters arent terrorists. They are simply people resisting American Imperialism from invading their home land.

How would you like it if China deemed America a threat to the saftey of humanity and started dropping bombs on your country? Would you sit back and watch it happen? No you wouldent, you would resist.

Long live the Afgan resistance, death to the invaders

[SouthernBelle82]

I still don't like the Taliban and how they treat my fellow women. It's disgusting. They made a law that states if the wife doesn't put out to the husband he can beat her. :cursing:

[Richard Nixon]

Most of the Taliban fighters arent terrorists. They are simply people resisting American Imperialism from invading their home land.

How would you like it if China deemed America a threat to the saftey of humanity and started dropping bombs on your country? Would you sit back and watch it happen? No you wouldent, you would resist.

Long live the Afgan resistance, death to the invaders

You will also notice that most Afghans do not support the Taliban as they are a bunch of mediaeval shitheads and was the most tyrannical state in the world (albeit competing with North Korea) at the time of it's fall. Besides resistance fighters to the Taliban, ie the Northern Alliance supported our invasion.

[Richard Nixon]

You are stupid. You are claiming deterministically that slavery would end in the 1880s. You claim that this proposition means it is incorrect for oppressed people to rebel fifty years prior even though there is no correct historical or practical relationship.

Your assumptions are such:

1. Abolition would've occurred with or without the Civil War. There is no such economic or historical proof that this is valid.
2. You claim gradual abolition is more beneficial than slaying piglet reactionaries. This claim rests on the proposition that slavery wasn't such an oppressive institution and that racism or other forms of economic repression wouldn't exist post gradual abolition. These are also racist pig claims without merit.

Brazil where the plantation economy was far more dominant then in the USA still abolished slavery in 1889 without any bloodshed-the US would have done so earlier even if simply to economic and social factors. For instance all other civilized countries had abolished slavery so there would have been tremendous international pressure to abolish slavery. As for point 2 what I am saying is that peaceful solutions are better then violence. For instance the Nat Turner rebellion did not achieve anything other then even more oppressive conditions for slaves nor would it have simply due to the overwhelming power of the slaveowners and others whites.



So, in the context of Nat Turner, who was compelled to react against oppressors: Nat Turner acted immorally because of the potential of unpopular legislation that he would have no clue about was in existence and some theoretical outcomes can possibly be drawn that have no basis in popular thought at the time or actual history. Nat Turner and former slave revolutions are then universally charged with ending theoretical abolition (which justifies slavery in the process) and these theoretical abolition pleas are then the correct solution to slavery (which indicates that slavery and tyranny are preferable to death and liberation by pig slaughtering).

However Nat Turner killed not just slave owners but any white person they saw. I've said that many, many times and you haven't answered it.


Once again, you are a stupid piece of shit if you actually believe this. People are entitled to opinions and I don't support banning people on this forum or otherwise; but the ideas you stand for, if actually meant to enforce upon a population would make you a tyrant and would therefore justify your death at the hands of a revolutionary.

If you held these opinions in antebellum south then your death at the hands of slaves would've been justice in every sense of the word.

That would merit the death of William Lloyd Garrison, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Horace Greeley, and most other abolitionists since none of them supported a violent revolt to end slavery.

[Radical]

"Health must not be privatized because it is a fundamental human right"

[RGacky3]

You will also notice that most Afghans do not support the Taliban as they are a bunch of mediaeval shitheads and was the most tyrannical state in the world

So what, many governments, including Americas hav'nt had the support of their people, thats NOT why the united States invaded and you know it.


For instance the Nat Turner rebellion did not achieve anything other then even more oppressive conditions for slaves nor would it have simply due to the overwhelming power of the slaveowners and others whites.

Excuse me, but killing so called terrorists (and thousands of non terrorists in the process) is self defence, but rebelling against people that have taken away your freedom is not?

I'm sorry but your double standards are appauling.

The war in both Afganistan and Iraq achieved nothing as well, other than feed teh fire that makes terrorism. Yet somehow that is justified, while slaves rebelling is not.

Your a sick man.


However Nat Turner killed not just slave owners but any white person they saw. I've said that many, many times and you haven't answered it.

Do you know how many innocent civilians were killed by the American invasion?

Its not the being against the Nat Turner rebellion that bothers me, its that coupled with ardant support for the terroristic so called war on terror.

[Conquer or Die]

Brazil where the plantation economy was far more dominant then in the USA still abolished slavery in 1889 without any bloodshed-the US would have done so earlier even if simply to economic and social factors. For instance all other civilized countries had abolished slavery so there would have been tremendous international pressure to abolish slavery. As for point 2 what I am saying is that peaceful solutions are better then violence. For instance the Nat Turner rebellion did not achieve anything other then even more oppressive conditions for slaves nor would it have simply due to the overwhelming power of the slaveowners and others whites.

Nat Turner's rebellion, in addition to all slave rebellions, achieved integrity for the hosts; a superior consciousness. Politically they also incited reactionary measures; but these reactionary measures in turn created a larger movement against the measures. Slave revolts helped radicalize and humanize slaves and it pushed the federal government deep into the dividing line. Nat Turner's rebellion, far from being an immoral act suggested by a moron like yourself, was a heroic act that further induced the righteous act of abolishing slavery. You are a racist piglet pussy; so you don't understand heroism or justice but rather understand inequality with the races according to what your grandmother tells you.

It's absolutely fucking marvelous that you stupidly believe slavery would end peacefully had there been no slave revolts. But you are a fucking wretchedly unintelligent worm child who belongs in a special needs class. Slavery is not a game where "play nice and we'll let you go" makes sense. It's a fucking power structure that incorporates more than your silly head allows inside to process.

"But but brazil had an agragian slave based economy." Brazil also had slave revolts and political upheavals, dumbshit. In fact, it still has a slavery problem. The reason why there was no Civil War is because the country achieved independence and a class structure markedly different than what happened in America. In America, the lopsided economic development of the slave institution meant that there would be a split line between slave states and non slave states. In Brazil, there is a major concentration of power in the cities and a huge agriculture basin which sustains itself. There was no geo-political conflict to speak of; no dividing line. I've already established that politics are too advanced for your little head to process.

"bu bu the rest of the world wouldn't allow it and they freed their slaves." Because they were colonizer nations who imported slavery and found more sustainable development in low scale capitalist labor. Unlike America, where slavery was synonomous with the state. Colonizer nations did not have an internal history of reliance on slavery that America and the south did. The South's slave institution is intertwined with culture, religion, and economic sustainability. This is not something that colonizer nations really had at any point in time. In fact, a significant argument of white supremacy can be made FOR the American Revolution and subsequent expansionism.

Also, France voted to militarily support the South during the Civil War but this decision was overturned at the last moment.




However Nat Turner killed not just slave owners but any white person they saw. I've said that many, many times and you haven't answered it.

False. Nat Turner killed oppressor children because black children were enslaved. Nat Turner did not randomly kill white people. Racist pig liar.




That would merit the death of William Lloyd Garrison, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Horace Greeley, and most other abolitionists since none of them supported a violent revolt to end slavery.

Further lies from reactionary piglet. Frederick Douglas, an ESCAPED slave, supported John Brown's Harpers Ferry revolt. The mainstream abolitionist movement consisted of multiple feathers; the majority of which supported the Federal Government in its limiting and suppression of the slave institution because it was the most achievable. They ALL supported the war; and the war was kick started because of a slave revolt. The ONLY noted exception is Lysander Spooner, who supported slave revolts as a counter measure to federal war.

I'm absolutely flabbergasted by your lies, deception, and dumb**** idiocy you've displayed thus far. You're such a stupid piece of shit that you confused your racism and right wing ideology with an abortion analogy. What a fucking mistake your mother made not pushing the abort button with you :lol:

[Richard Nixon]

[QUOTE=Sega Communist;1505505]Nat Turner's rebellion, in addition to all slave rebellions, achieved integrity for the hosts; a superior consciousness. Politically they also incited reactionary measures; but these reactionary measures in turn created a larger movement against the measures. Slave revolts helped radicalize and humanize slaves and it pushed the federal government deep into the dividing line. Nat Turner's rebellion, far from being an immoral act suggested by a moron like yourself, was a heroic act that further induced the righteous act of abolishing slavery. You are a racist piglet pussy; so you don't understand heroism or justice but rather understand inequality with the races according to what your grandmother tells you.

It's absolutely fucking marvelous that you stupidly believe slavery would end peacefully had there been no slave revolts. But you are a fucking wretchedly unintelligent worm child who belongs in a special needs class. Slavery is not a game where "play nice and we'll let you go" makes sense. It's a fucking power structure that incorporates more than your silly head allows inside to process.


Dammit, I don't personally insult so why the fuck are you doing it?

Anyways, the Upper South was considering gradual abolishment laws-hell even Thomas Jefferson suggested it.



"But but brazil had an agragian slave based economy." Brazil also had slave revolts and political upheavals, dumbshit. In fact, it still has a slavery problem. The reason why there was no Civil War is because the country achieved independence and a class structure markedly different than what happened in America. In America, the lopsided economic development of the slave institution meant that there would be a split line between slave states and non slave states. In Brazil, there is a major concentration of power in the cities and a huge agriculture basin which sustains itself. There was no geo-political conflict to speak of; no dividing line. I've already established that politics are too advanced for your little head to process.

"bu bu the rest of the world wouldn't allow it and they freed their slaves." Because they were colonizer nations who imported slavery and found more sustainable development in low scale capitalist labor. Unlike America, where slavery was synonomous with the state. Colonizer nations did not have an internal history of reliance on slavery that America and the south did. The South's slave institution is intertwined with culture, religion, and economic sustainability. This is not something that colonizer nations really had at any point in time. In fact, a significant argument of white supremacy can be made FOR the American Revolution and subsequent expansionism.


The South too after the abolition of slavery used what you'd call "low scale capitalist labour". Also once more and more mechanical processes had been invented slavery would not be economically sustainable. Besides utter moral pressure would make the South gradually abolish slavery anyways.


Also, France voted to militarily support the South during the Civil War but this decision was overturned at the last moment.


The main reason why France and Britain did not fight for the South in the Civil War was 1) Fear of antagonizing the Union especially after major victories at Antietam and Gettysburg and 2) The belief that the Union had the moral high ground due to the Emancipation Proclamation. The British and French public were mostly for the Union due to factor #2.


False. Nat Turner killed oppressor children because black children were enslaved. Nat Turner did not randomly kill white people. Racist pig liar.

No he didn't kill randomly white people, he killed every white people he saw. Also killing is worse then enslavement and two wrongs doesn't make a right.


Further lies from reactionary piglet. Frederick Douglas, an ESCAPED slave, supported John Brown's Harpers Ferry revolt. The mainstream abolitionist movement consisted of multiple feathers; the majority of which supported the Federal Government in its limiting and suppression of the slave institution because it was the most achievable. They ALL supported the war; and the war was kick started because of a slave revolt. The ONLY noted exception is Lysander Spooner, who supported slave revolts as a counter measure to federal war.

The secession of the South caused the Civil War. The secession was caused by Abraham Lincoln's election who would have been elected whether or not John Brown's revolt had happened. Some abolitionists did offer "moral" support to Brown's revolt but none if not for Brown would have supported the revolt directly or led the revolt.

[Richard Nixon]

So what, many governments, including Americas hav'nt had the support of their people, thats NOT why the united States invaded and you know it.


No it was to grab the terrorists. I'm not denying it, but that was a good side effect.


Excuse me, but killing so called terrorists (and thousands of non terrorists in the process) is self defence, but rebelling against people that have taken away your freedom is not?


Nat Turner's revolt happened with the express intent of killing all white people not just as side effects or accidents but intending to kill every white.


I'm sorry but your double standards are appauling.

The war in both Afganistan and Iraq achieved nothing as well, other than feed teh fire that makes terrorism. Yet somehow that is justified, while slaves rebelling is not.

Your a sick man.



Do you know how many innocent civilians were killed by the American invasion?

Its not the being against the Nat Turner rebellion that bothers me, its that coupled with ardant support for the terroristic so called war on terror.

1. Nat Turner's revolt failed and would in all probability certain to fail and it's effects were all negative for slaves.

2. The War On Terror has succeeded somewhat well and has improved the average lot of Iraqis and Afghans.

From a utilitarian perspective you'll understand why I support not the first but the second. Also from the same logic I would support the Union in the American Civil War because the Union did have a good chance of winning (and it did win).

[Conquer or Die]

[QUOTE]

Dammit, I don't personally insult so why the fuck are you doing it?

Anyways, the Upper South was considering gradual abolishment laws-hell even Thomas Jefferson suggested it.




The South too after the abolition of slavery used what you'd call "low scale capitalist labour". Also once more and more mechanical processes had been invented slavery would not be economically sustainable. Besides utter moral pressure would make the South gradually abolish slavery anyways.



The main reason why France and Britain did not fight for the South in the Civil War was 1) Fear of antagonizing the Union especially after major victories at Antietam and Gettysburg and 2) The belief that the Union had the moral high ground due to the Emancipation Proclamation. The British and French public were mostly for the Union due to factor #2.



No he didn't kill randomly white people, he killed every white people he saw. Also killing is worse then enslavement and two wrongs doesn't make a right.



The secession of the South caused the Civil War. The secession was caused by Abraham Lincoln's election who would have been elected whether or not John Brown's revolt had happened. Some abolitionists did offer "moral" support to Brown's revolt but none if not for Brown would have supported the revolt directly or led the revolt.

I'm done wasting my time with a reactionary liar. You won't be in any considerably important position anywhere in the world so you're racist views are irrelevant.