• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

It just gets better. Baby hatin' and irrational. Beware ye who wade into the safe spaces.

Says the only one on this thread complaining about being called names.

Plus if you don't believe in safe spaces then you really shouldn't be that worried when a woman sucks an 8-week old baby out of her vagina with a Dirt Devil (did I do it right?)
 
ufefQoG.jpg
 
I've only skimmed the last several pages of this thread, but it seems like Bake and Childress are saying it's inconsistent to be pro-life and, at the same time, be anything other than a pacifist? Is that the argument y'all are advancing?

More Bake than me. I would agree that there is an apparent inconsistency between using consequentialist justifications for killing in the context of war, but denying them outright in the context of abortion. This inconsistency deserves an explanation. That is even more the case if one's default position is that U.S. military action is presumed to be justified.

At a minimum, being pro-life in the abortion context would point towards a rather narrow conception of Just War theory.
 
More Bake than me. I would agree that there is an apparent inconsistency between using consequentialist justifications for killing in the context of war, but denying them outright in the context of abortion. This inconsistency deserves an explanation. That is even more the case if one's default position is that U.S. military action is presumed to be justified.

At a minimum, being pro-life in the abortion context would point towards a rather narrow conception of Just War theory.

Basic LOAC principles. Next question. Maybe something difficult next time.
 
Basic LOAC principles. Next question. Maybe something difficult next time.

LOAC simply demonstrates the inconsistency (by recognizing consequentialist justifications for killing civilians i.e. sometimes the "ends justify the means"), it does nothing to explain it. LOAC is far broader than the narrow conception of Just War theory which might be consistent with being pro-life in the abortion context.
 
LOAC simply demonstrates the inconsistency (by recognizing consequentialist justifications for killing civilians i.e. sometimes the "ends justify the means"), it does nothing to explain it. LOAC is far broader than the narrow conception of Just War theory which might be consistent with being pro-life in the abortion context.

The undefeated crowd spares no credibility expense, apparently. Comparing the lawful application of military power, which contains an inherent balancing test of proportionality and specifically recognizing the high costs of collateral damage, with a "Why try? Open season" approach to infanticide is not something a serious person would consider and apples to apples comparison (that latter blowing right past recognizing the costs of the lives extinguished by euphemisms like "termination", "choice" and "fetus").
 
The undefeated crowd spares no credibility expense, apparently. Comparing the lawful application of military power, which contains an inherent balancing test of proportionality and specifically recognizing the high costs of collateral damage, with a "Why try? Open season" approach to infanticide is not something a serious person would consider and apples to apples comparison (that latter blowing right past recognizing the costs of the lives extinguished by euphemisms like "termination", "choice" and "fetus").

as opposed to the lawful application of a woman's health care choices?

The only way to consistently be pro-life and a fervent supporter of U.S. military action is to:

1. recognize exceptions for rape and the health of the mother.
2. Have a pretty low bar for human rights.
3. Have an incredibly early view of when life begins.
4. Believe in nearly unlimited power for the federal government.
 
as opposed to the lawful application of a woman's health care choices?

The only way to consistently be pro-life and a fervent supporter of U.S. military action is to:

1. recognize exceptions for rape and the health of the mother.
2. Have a pretty low bar for human rights.
3. Have an incredibly early view of when life begins.
4. Believe in nearly unlimited power for the federal government.

This comparison reeks of desperation. Abortion fails the proportionality and collateral damage tests in an entry-level LOAC analysis. LOAC does not endorse the taking of human life for convenience when lesser measures are readily at hand.
 
This comparison reeks of desperation. Abortion fails the proportionality and collateral damage tests in an entry-level LOAC analysis. LOAC does not endorse the taking of human life for convenience when lesser measures are readily at hand.

1. I would imagine that exceptions for rape and the health of the mother pass that test.
2. The LOAC, in my opinion, is still a pretty low bar when it comes to respecting human life. Even if the U.S. has perfectly abided by LOAC (doubtful) its decisions on when to engage in armed conflict demonstrates a pretty low bar for human rights.

4. The LOAC only governs conduct during armed conflict, not when a nation can enter armed conflict. Your views on the justification of the recent military actions of the United States demonstrates a broad theoretical view of the reach of government power (which is consistent with your views on abortion).
 
1. I would imagine that exceptions for rape and the health of the mother pass that test.
2. The LOAC, in my opinion, is still a pretty low bar when it comes to respecting human life. Even if the U.S. has perfectly abided by LOAC (doubtful) its decisions on when to engage in armed conflict demonstrates a pretty low bar for human rights.

4. The LOAC only governs conduct during armed conflict, not when a nation can enter armed conflict. Your views on the justification of the recent military actions of the United States demonstrates a broad theoretical view of the reach of government power (which is consistent with your views on abortion).

Oh, this is so absurd let's just have fun with it.

"recent military actions of the United States" deviate from "previous military actions of the United States" only in the adoption of the "Preemptive War" theory.

Abortion is the ultimate action of preemption. If anything, George W. Bush found Baathist Iraq inconvenient, and thus...
 
Oh, this is so absurd let's just have fun with it.

"recent military actions of the United States" deviate from "previous military actions of the United States" only in the adoption of the "Preemptive War" theory.

Abortion is the ultimate action of preemption. If anything, George W. Bush found Baathist Iraq inconvenient, and thus...

I would say all military actions outside of WWII haven't been anywhere close to satisfying a Just War theory that is purportedly "pro-life". And we didn't even get into WWII for Just War reasons.
 
Can we pause for a minute and consider that jhmd referred to abortion as "infanticide" for fucks sake. Now not only are freshly conceived pregnancies full persons, they are also developmentally infants. How far are you going to take this, jhmd? You want to fucking enroll the fingernail size fetuses in school? Teach them how to ride a bike? What horseshit Texas Mormon schoolbook did you learn about pregnancy and child development from?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Welcome to Oklahoma! Come for the guns, rednecks and stupid hats, stay for the ignorance and fraking quakes!

http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/oklahoma-anti-abortion-lawmaker-says-women-are-hosts.html

13-justin-humphrey.w245.h368.jpg


15036759_357518971253440_7931903132589476085_n.jpg


Oklahoma Anti-Abortion Lawmaker Says Women Are Merely ‘Hosts’

On Tuesday, the Oklahoma state legislature will hold a hearing on a bill that would require a woman seeking an abortion to first get written permission from her male sexual partner. In an interview, the Republican lawmaker who authored the bill explained that a woman’s body, well, simply isn’t her own. Instead, a woman’s body is merely a “host.”

The Intercept has a detailed report about the bill, known as HB 1441, as well as another bill that would block women from aborting fetuses with genetic anomalies, called HB 1559. In a surprising move (as Oklahoma has passed 20 strict abortion regulations since 2011), the latter failed to pass last Wednesday while the former was tabled without comment. However, by Thursday, both measures were put back on House Public Health Committee’s agenda, with a vote slated for February 14.

In an interview with the Intercept, Representative Justin Humphrey explained why he decided to author HB1441. His first intention with the bill, he said, was to ensure men would have to pay child support from the beginning. He also wanted to give men a say in the decision of whether a woman gets an abortion or not, because women tend to make these decisions with the mistaken with belief that their bodies are their own, he said.

Per the Intercept:

“I understand that they feel like that is their body,” he said of women. “I feel like it is a separate — what I call them is, is you’re a ‘host.’ And you know when you enter into a relationship you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant,” he explained. “So that’s where I’m at. I’m like, hey, your body is your body and be responsible with it. But after you’re irresponsible then don’t claim, well, I can just go and do this with another body, when you’re the host and you invited that in.”
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna see if I can swing an invitation to this guy's house and then when he tries to get me to leave respond "you're the host and you invited [me] in" so I'm going to stay. Thanks
 
Back
Top