Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Right. Reality is choice number one. Choice number two will always be fantasy. Life isn't fair. Ejaculator beware.
|
Well, that's an evasion/dismissal if I ever did read one.
1.) Thanks for pointing out the obvious fact that situation #1 is "reality". I'm sure none of us realized that.
2.) You've provided no reason why #2 shouldn't be the law, since it's far more equatable than #1 and it doesn't involve trampling over the "right to bodily autonomy" (Whatever that means). It, in essence, grants the same "rights" to men that women currently enjoy. So what's so bad about that? The answer? Nothing. Which I'm sure you realize, which is why you evaded it all together.
Quote:
|
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.
|
And I know for a fact you don't really know what it is you're disagreeing with, because if you did you wouldn't be disagreeing, as there's nothing to disagree with.
Quote:
|
They're only dubious if one is completely ignorant of the effects of PPD.
|
I never said PPD was dubious. I said allowing abortions for "mental health" reasons was dubious, as "mental health" has been interpreted as encompassing just about anything, and is indeed the reason why a woman can legally have an abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Except, and I'm getting rather tired of saying this, it's not "overly simplistic".
Quote:
|
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?
|
And, once again, there's nothing nebulous about the notion of "responsibility" nor "personal responsibility". Nothing at all.
Quote:
|
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.
|
So, if I believe that a child under, say, five years old
doesn't deserve the same consideration as one who is over the age of five, does that mean that running out on that child-- Or even killing it-- Because I don't feel like taking care of it any longer would be deemed as the "responsible" choice? Or, better yet, does it mean that just because I think I'm being "responsible" mean that I'm
actually being responsible? This is basically just a re-posting of the question(s) I asked you before (Questions which you just flat out ignored, mind you). If you're going to argue yes, then there sure are a lot of people who shouldn't be paying child support nor be in jail right now because, in their minds, they were making the "responsible" choice.
This is why your position is indefensible. It assumes that "responsibility" is solely in the proverbial "eye of the beholder". Unluckily for you, though, the logic by which you deem abortion "responsible" will not, and cannot in good faith, be applied anywhere else, as when it would be deemed to be grossly irresponsible. Assuming you have one, if you buy your child a goldfish, of which he flushes down the toilet because he doesn't feel like taking care of it, are you going to tell him how "responsible" a choice that was? Assuming you have one, if you buy your child a cat or a dog, and he leaves them on the side of the road without food or water because he doesn't feel like taking care of them, are you going to tell him how "responsible" a choice that was? When you read about women who have children and leave them in a trash can, do you think to yourself how "responsible" of a choice that was?
I'm going to assume the answer to all of these questions is an emphatic "Hell no". You're not going to take into account what value they assign to the things they throw away are, because it's irrelevant. Just because someone deems an action as "responsible", doesn't make it such. Unless you're going to call the preceding actions "responsible", then you have absolutely no basis under which to call abortion "responsible", either, as none of the above stated actions are fundamentally different then aborting a ZEF because you don't want to take care of it. None.
Quote:
|
Furthermore, it is useless to argue this point, since it results from a fundamental disagreement.
|
It's only "useless" to argue this point, because you have no point to argue, aside from sticking your finger in your ear.
Quote:
|
Keep telling yourself that.
|
I will.
Quote:
|
I've thought about it extensively. I don't agree that one can always equate abortion with the killing of a human being.
|
Except it
is the killing of a human being. There's no way around this fact and you disagree with it won't make it less so. A zygote is considered to be the simplest, for lack of a better word, form of a human being.
...Of course, this is based on purely science.
Quote:
|
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.
|
A ZEF is
always human. Why shouldn't a
human be given
human "privileges" (I think you mean rights). If I, as you say, self-righteously dismiss your arguments, it's because your arguments make little sense.
Quote:
|
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?
|
No, I'm not kidding and, yes, I know how the English language, or language in general, works.
Quote:
So for instance, when someone reads:
*snip quote*
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.
|
...I love it when people tell me what I meant by what I wrote out, even though what they claim I wrote out can't be found anywhere. If I was tying the "responsibility" to the number of abortions obtained, then I would inherently be deeming women who have one abortion more responsible than those who have two; those who have two more "responsible" than those who have three; those who have three more "responsible" than those who have four, etc., which would be a rather odd distinction to make given my argument, dontcha' think? Of course, this is completely ignoring the fact that #2 and #3 aren't stand alone responses, but I won't point that out. So, once again, I ask you to find where I made the claim you said I made. The fact is that you won't find it, because it's a claim I didn't make. It's a claim you think I made, yet won't find anywhere. So I'll be accepting your apology now. Thank you.
Quote:
|
Maybe they were in your head as you wrote them. There was something lost in the translation, though.
|
More than likely something on your end.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Oh, I am. And what do I do? I sit at home all day arguing with people on the internet about abortion. To your knowledge, anyway. And I think I'll keep it like that :P
...But, anyway, will you be responding to what I wrote out now, or are you going to pretend as if you didn't see it?
Quote:
|
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.
|
I only repeat things when you ignore them the first, second or even third time I write them out, as it gives the impression of having not seen what I wrote out the first time.
Quote:
|
No, it's not a straw man at all. Here's what you wrote:
|
Sorry, but it is and I know what I wrote.
Quote:
|
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 fairly obvious that the person who wrote the above can't understand the fact that I was talking about a specific medical decision (Having an abortion), done for specific reasons unrelated to either the well-being of the individual in question or another (Most often times socio-economic reasons).
Yes, it was.
Quote:
|
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.
|
No, it wasn't and, no, I'm not. But thanks for trying.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You don't have to explain anything. Maybe you need to spend a bit more time actually understanding what it is people write out and what they say and less time trying to explain to them what it is you think they said. It'll save us both the trouble in the future.
Quote:
|
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.
|
It's not dressing anything up. You, as per our conversations here:
1.) Believe that an inequtable situation is better than an inequtable one, whilst ignoring the fact that the equatable situation is easily remedied by conferring upon men the same "rights" conferred upon women (The ability to "opt out" of parenthood during pregnancy). In fact, you just responded with a "Life isn't fair", which is purely evasion.
2.) Believe that the "responsibility" of an action is tied to the worth someone views the object they are disposing of, even though this logic is not followed nor applied elsewhere.
3.) Refuse to grant, as you put it, "human rights" to unborn children, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE HUMAN (Does that make sense to you?).
4.) Ignored points #1 through #3.
Quote:
|
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.
|
If by picking apart you mean completely ignoring then, yes, you totally picked apart "flawed arguments".
Quote:
|
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.
|
A woman who has an abortion isn't dealing with "her body", nor is she impacting "herself". I find it funny how you talk about "trivializing" women, while simultaneously doing the
exact same thing to not only the man, but the ZEF as well. Can you say irony? I know I can.
*phew*