Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
It seems to me that even though you said you hadn't forgotten that sperm is necessary for the conception of a child, you did just that. You argue, "Sorry men. Even though you contribute half of the genetic material towards the creation of a child, it's not your body, so you get no say-so regarding its well-being nor do you get a say-so regarding your parental contribution towards the welfare of that future child", instead of "Sorry women. Even though it's your body, you only contribute half of the genetic material towards the creation of a child, therefore you only get half of the say-so regarding its well-being and only your half in the say-so regarding parental contributions towards towards the welfare of that future child".
Please tell me, which of these two situations is more "equatable":
1.) You contribute half of what's required to create to new individual, yet based on your gender you either get unilateral decision making power of which the other gender is legally bound by or you get absolutely no decision making power at all and are forced to go along with whatever the other gender decides. Or
2.) Either you give each gender the ability to make the other forcibly operate against his or her will-- The same way a woman can force a man into fatherhood and taking care of a child he might not want, a man should be able to force a woman into motherhood or taking care of a child she might not want-- Or you make it so that neither gender can forcibly make the other operate against his or her will-- The same way a man can't force a woman into motherhood nor parental responsibilites, a woman can't force a man into fatherhood or parental responsibilities. THAT would be equatable, and far more equatable then the situation you advocate.
And, no, that's not an oversimplification. That's what it is.
|
Right. Reality is choice number one. Choice number two will always be fantasy. Life isn't fair. Ejaculator beware.
Quote:
|
Because, as I said the first time, a therapeutic abortion is an abortion performed for a medical reason, which include risks to the mother's health and fetal defects, whereas an elective abortion are those abortions performed simply because the mother wants them, to put it mildly.
|
I know what you said. I just don't think you really know what you're talking about with respect to the way medical professionals define different procedures.
Quote:
|
Therapeutic. And "abortions to save the mental health" of the mother are rather dubious distinctions within themselves. Very dubious.
|
They're only dubious if one is completely ignorant of the effects of PPD.
Quote:
|
It means exactly what I said it means: Abortions performed for medical risks, either to the mother or the fetus, are deemd therapeutic abortions. Abortions for any other reason are deemed elective abortions. It's rather simple, really. There's no need for you to try to overcomplicate things for whatever reason.
|
If you think that repeating what you previously said somehow serves as a reasonable response to me explaining why what you previously said is overly simplistic then you are mistaken.
Quote:
|
The notion of responsibility, no matter how much you try to argue otherwise, isn't all that "nebulous".
|
It is completely nebulous, though the fact that you think it isn't is extremely telling. Do you see colors at all in your world?
Quote:
If I buy a goldfish and later decide that I don't want to take care of it, I doubt there is anyone alive who would call me flushing it down the toilet to be the "responsible" choice. If I buy a cat or a dog, and later decide that I don't want to take care of it, I doubt there is anyone alive who would call me leaving them on the side of the road to be the "responsible" choice. Hell, if I have a kid, and after a month I decide I don't want to take care of it, I doubt there is anyone alive who would call me running out on it to be the "responsible" choice. See where I'm going with this? Abortion rids the person of the object of which-- Under normal circumstances-- They would have a duty to provide for by killing it. That action is fundamentally no different than any of the aforementioned actions and, unless you're going to label them all as "responsible" choices, then the basis upon which you claim abortion to be the "responsible" choice is deeply, deeply, deeply flawed.
But I'd love to see how you're going to construe that as being "responsible". I really would. Go ahead. Amuseth me.
|
Right. But the belief that an unborn child deserves the same consideration as a born child isn't universal. There are plenty of people who have no problem with the idea that abortions can be responsible. The fact that you don't feel this way is irrelevant.
Furthermore, it is useless to argue this point, since it results from a fundamental disagreement.
Quote:
|
There's no "emotional, subjective, technical or pedantic" lingo here.
|
Keep telling yourself that.
Quote:
|
No matter what way you try to dress it up, the fact of the matter is that you're calling the deliberate killing of another human-- Most often times because the woman doesn't want to take care of it-- To be a "responsible" choice, given the nature of sex. Stop and think about that one for a moment.
|
I've thought about it extensively. I don't agree that one can always equate abortion with the killing of a human being.
Quote:
|
...And now that you've stopped to think about that one, rationalize it for me, please.
|
Sure. We have a fundamental disagreement about the point at which an unborn child should be given human privileges. I await your self-righteous dismissal.
Quote:
|
But, moving on, you will notice that nowhere did I say that the irresponsibility of abortion was tied to how many abortions a woman has, but rather that having an abortion once because it's to her convenience to have one to be irresponsible, and having multiple abortions because it conveniences her to be grossly irresponsible. There's a big difference between that and what you're claiming I wrote out. A very big difference.
|
You're kidding, right? Do you know that paragraphs are generally structured so that they contain one sentence that expresses the general idea of the paragraph, and that the other sentences are typically used to support the topic sentence?
So for instance, when someone reads
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite Loser
47% of abortions done yearly are repeat abortions. Broken down, 29% of abortions performed per year are done on those women who had one prior abortion; 11.8% on women who had two abortions prior; and 7.3% on those women who had three or more prior abortions. Or, stated another way, given 1.2M abortions in 2008 (Approximately), 348,000 abortions were performed on women who had one prior; 141,600 on women who had two prior; and 87,600 on women who had three or more prior. If that doesn't scream "Irresponsibility", I don't know what does.
|
They assume that the red sentence, the one that ties every other sentence together, is the topic sentence, since without it the rest of the paragraph would be just a listing of statistical facts. Despite your claim, there is no reference at all here to "convenience" abortions. Sure, the paragraph
above the one I quoted mentions convenience abortions, but it is not referenced at all in the material I quoted. What the careful reader is left with, is the impression that you think that the number of abortions a person has is somehow tied in with the extent to which those abortions are irresponsible.
This is what you wrote. If you misspoke or left out a few clarifying sentences by all means say so. Otherwise, stop being so full of shit.
Quote:
|
There was no possible way to be confused and my posts since they were, quite honestly, cut and dry.
|
Maybe they were in your head as you wrote them. There was something lost in the translation, though.
Quote:
|
Even though you'd like to believe so, they were neither "self-serving" nor "trivial"-- Only the most hardened of PC'ers would believe so. It represents, as I said in an earlier post which you ignored, a complete breakdown of the whole "safe, legal and rare" rhetoric, as they are anything but rare (And abortions in the U.S. have been safe for decades pre-RvW, but that's off-topic), being the most common procedure in the United States. There is nothing responsible about killing the product of sex because it conveniences you, nor anything about doing it repeatedly because it conveniences you. Applied anywhere else to anything else, someone continuously doing something of which they're not willing to accept the consequences of would be deemed as irresponsible, and with good reason. It's amazing how many PC'ers try to treat abortion as an exception to the rule, rather than following the rules as everything else.
|
Sure. I just hope you're getting your kicks out of this conversation, because I am willing to bet large sums of fake internet money that you've never actually done anything tangible to "save" the life of an unborn child. I readily admit that I don't know shit about you.
Quote:
|
I believe I said this before, but there's nothing "disingenuous" about the way I "frame my ideas".
|
Clearly, you've come under the impression that repeating yourself is an effective way to respond to people who are critical of the things you've said.
Quote:
|
Because removing someone from life support = Having an abortion, right? RIGHT??? Now this is most definitely a straw man.
|
No, it's not a straw man at all. Here's what you wrote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite Loser
Obviously, abortion can't be that hard of a decision if there are 1.2M+ of them per year with hundreds of thousands of them being repeat abortions.
|
It is fairly obvious that the person who wrote this was under the impression that the level of difficulty associated with making a particular medical decision is inversely related to both the number of times that decision is made in a year and the number of times that decision is made by the same person.
It's not a straw man. My statement was an honest response to a statement that was clearly made with only the most minimal thought by someone who is completely out of touch with how reality functions.
In any case, I think it is absolutely fucking ridiculous that I have to actually explain basic grammar to you because you won't acknowledge the reality of the things you've said. Furthermore, regardless of how you dress up your perspective, our disagreement will always come down to the fundamental difference between the points where we choose to ascribe human rights to unborn children. So aside from the satisfaction I get out of picking apart flawed arguments, this discussion has been, as are all abortion discussions between strangers on the internet, completely useless with respect to the subject at hand.
Good luck though, I'm sure you'll have a lot of success winning women over to your perspective by trivializing their emotions and telling them that they shouldn't have the right to control what happens in their own bodies.