• 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

sex-is-bad-mkay.jpg
 
WakeandBake said:
Wrangor is appalled by the murder of little babies, but doesn’t want to spend too much money on saving their lives.
Click to expand...

That could pretty much be the GOP motto for a lot of things - "such-and-such is a terrible problem, but we don't want to spend our money fixing it."
 
Seems someone so passionate about these babies would be willing to sacrifice pretty much anything to save them. Can’t even stop stigmatizing women who have the babies, sends the wrong message to the other women, ya know.
 
Wrangor said:
The immediate responses to my post are so perfectly Tunnels. I have fulfilled my defense requirement for snarkiness towards helpless children whose lives are ended against their will.

Perhaps I will return again one day to be misquoted, misinterpreted, misjudged, and mocked some more. Its one of my favorite nostolgias. Good day to all of you, Merry Christmas (or Happy Holidays as not to offend) and hope to see all of you at the Pinstripe Bowl (actually was already going to be in NYC after XMas, so really hoping that the Deacs get the nod). I will have my wife and kids with me, so if any of you can promise to abstain from profanity, I would be more than happy to share a beer at the game and get to know any of you in person.

My best regards,
Wrangor
Click to expand...

I was entirely respectful towards you, but because you can't have any realistic responses, you are running away.

What about the millions of people who don't share your religious beliefs about sex? Should we be forced to live by your religious beliefs? If so, why?
 
Poor triggered wrangor. No defense for his hypocrisy so he takes his ball and goes home.

bet wrangor was thrilled when pence joined the ticket.
 
RJKarl said:
I was entirely respectful towards you, but because you can't have any realistic responses, you are running away.

What about the millions of people who don't share your religious beliefs about sex? Should we be forced to live by your religious beliefs? If so, why?
Click to expand...

Yes we should because separation of (the Christian) church and state is some serious bull shit.
 
Wrangor said:
The immediate responses to my post are so perfectly Tunnels. I have fulfilled my defense requirement for snarkiness towards helpless children whose lives are ended against their will.

Perhaps I will return again one day to be misquoted, misinterpreted, misjudged, and mocked some more. Its one of my favorite nostolgias. Good day to all of you, Merry Christmas (or Happy Holidays as not to offend) and hope to see all of you at the Pinstripe Bowl (actually was already going to be in NYC after XMas, so really hoping that the Deacs get the nod). I will have my wife and kids with me, so if any of you can promise to abstain from profanity, I would be more than happy to share a beer at the game and get to know any of you in person.

My best regards,
Wrangor
Click to expand...

Ok I hope you heal from the victimization you just endured on the thread you started and chose with your own free will to contribute to again. Our hearts bleed for your suffering
 
Seriously though, please at least explain what elevate responsibility of parents means. I’ve never heard that phrase.
 
I’m pretty sure we are all arguing with some that thinks the earth is 6000 years old, so yeah.
 
OldGoldBeard said:
On what basis? What is it that differentiates humans from non-humans?

I'm not sure of your predilections, but it is interesting to me that so many atheists/materialists/physicalists take a similar position to this one. It seems to me that Hitchens had it right when he said, "as a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity" and, more verbosely, "I have always been convinced that the term 'unborn child' is a genuine description of material reality. Obviously, the fetus is alive, so that disputation about whether or not it counts as 'a life' is casuistry. The same applies, from a materialist point of view, to the question of whether or not this 'life' is 'human.' What other kind could it be? As for 'dependent,' this has never struck me as a very radical criticism of any agglomeration of human cells in whatever state. Children are 'dependent' too. […] Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that the emotions are not a deciding factor. In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain, and, whatever the method, break some bones and rupture some organs."

If one's position is that human beings are nothing more than an agglomeration of cells, then there seems to be no rational and internally consistent way to classify fetuses/unborn children as non-human.
Click to expand...

Physiologically, a fertilized cell will eventually become a human, but legally and morally, I think there is a huge difference between a fertilized egg and a human. Since morning after is classified as an abortion, there is no heartbeat that is stopped or switching off a developing brain.

The dependence here is much more personal and physiological then most men care to admit. Any pregnancy carries some mortal risk to the woman carrying the baby to at least some extent not to mention other long term health risks/consequences. It can significantly impact their ability to function in society during the pregnancy and many women don't have the support system to allow them to do nothing for several months. If you are to consider any abortion murder, then shouldn't there be authoritarian control over the woman's actions during the pregnancy under the guise of child abuse? If the unborn child/fetus who is tethered to the life support host has the same rights as the host, then the actions of the host should be restricted. Its a slippery slope of moralizing that ultimately stems from a supernatural belief system.
 
Last edited:
Wrangor said:
The immediate responses to my post are so perfectly Tunnels. I have fulfilled my defense requirement for snarkiness towards helpless children whose lives are ended against their will.

Perhaps I will return again one day to be misquoted, misinterpreted, misjudged, and mocked some more. Its one of my favorite nostolgias. Good day to all of you, Merry Christmas (or Happy Holidays as not to offend) and hope to see all of you at the Pinstripe Bowl (actually was already going to be in NYC after XMas, so really hoping that the Deacs get the nod). I will have my wife and kids with me, so if any of you can promise to abstain from profanity, I would be more than happy to share a beer at the game and get to know any of you in person.

My best regards,
Wrangor
Click to expand...
Well my suggestion is to grow a little thicker skin if you're going to come to an argument with a loaded invective that you bring to this one.
 
Last edited:
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Connor, that’s a really good post. I disagree with your characterization of how “clear” your top line points are, specifically points 1 & 2, but I appreciate your perspective and good faith arguments.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the positive comment.

It’s funny (to me) that I felt the third point would be more objectionable. Those first two are really not controversial from a medical or biological point of view.
 
I must have misunderstood your #3 if you believe it would be objectionable. I thought it was a pretty basic observation that humanity claims to value life but there’s no consistent standard for the value of life.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Well my suggestion is to grow a little thicker skin if you're going to come to an argument with a loaded invective that you bring to this one.
Click to expand...

It's just easier to blame the "Tunnels Left" for being mean and intolerant and not taking conservative views seriously (even though many of the posts here were thoughtful and non-personal), and then walking away as the victim.
 
Wrangor said:
The immediate responses to my post are so perfectly Tunnels. I have fulfilled my defense requirement for snarkiness towards helpless children whose lives are ended against their will.

Perhaps I will return again one day to be misquoted, misinterpreted, misjudged, and mocked some more.
Click to expand...

This is a discredit to you and your position.

ChrisL68 said:
Physiologically, a fertilized cell will eventually become a human, but legally and morally, I think there is a huge difference between a fertilized egg and a human. Since morning after is classified as an abortion, there is no heartbeat that is stopped or switching off a developing brain.

The dependence here is much more personal and physiological then most men care to admit. Any pregnancy carries some mortal risk to the woman carrying the baby to at least some extent not to mention other long term health risks/consequences. It can significantly impact their ability to function in society during the pregnancy and many women don't have the support system to allow them to do nothing for several months. If you are to consider any abortion murder, then shouldn't there be authoritarian control over the woman's actions during the pregnancy under the guise of child abuse? If the unborn child/fetus who is tethered to the life support host has the same rights as the host, then the actions of the host should be restricted. Its a slippery slope of moralizing that ultimately stems from a supernatural belief system.
Click to expand...

Chris, I generally appreciate your posts on this forum, and think that you take unwarranted abuse from the left (which may be a dubious compliment given my own political leanings), but this response does little to nothing to answer my question. The vast majority of your second paragraph constitutes perfectly valid reasons in favor of abortion; I'm not Wrangor, and am not arguing that there aren't legitimate reasons to be pro-choice. I don't agree, but recognize that it's a difficult issue with rational viewpoints on both sides. However, those reasons have no relevance whatsoever in determining whether the unborn child is human or not.

Again, Christopher Hitchens is hardly known for his religious predilections, and he spells out the case clearly.

***

But it’s only an evasion if we have some firm grounds for suspecting that the fetus is a human being.

True. But I think that by now we know where babies come from. And dialectics will tell you that you can’t be meaningfully inhuman unless you are actually or potentially human as well. Pointless to describe a rat or a snake, say, as behaving in an inhuman fashion. I put the question like this. You see a woman kicked in the stomach. Your instinct is properly one of revulsion. You learn that the woman is pregnant. Who will reply that this discovery does not multiply their revulsion? And who will say that this is only because it makes it worse for the woman? I don’t think this is just an instinctive or an emotional reaction (not that we should always distrust our instincts and emotions either). We are stuck with a basic reverence for life.

But aren’t all these notions of the sanctity of human life and so on alien to your otherwise Marxist view of the world?

On the contrary. As a materialist I hold that we don’t have bodies, we are bodies. And as an atheist I believe that we do not have the consolation of the afterlife. We have only one life to live, so it had better be good. All the nonsense we hear about mediate and immediate animation, the point where a soul enters the unborn and so on, is at best beside the point. It has in common with the sectarian feminist view a complete contempt for science and the theory of evolution—which establishes beyond reasonable doubt that life is a continuum that begins at conception because it can’t begin anywhere else.

***

So even if the belief may have ultimately stemmed from a supernatural belief system, which assertion seems questionable at best, the same conclusion seems inescapable under physicalism.

The only thing you posted that, as far as I can see, even attempt to answer the question of what differentiates humans is "there is no heartbeat that is stopped or switching off a developing brain." As best as I can tell online, fetal heartbeats start at approximately 22 days. Fetal brain development begins around 16 days. Does that make a fetus human at that point?
 
I'm hoping you aren't suggesting that I indicated that. I can have what I think are my moral considerations to this viewpoint that I think are correct just like you have yours and ultimately if more people agree with your viewpoint that's going to be what the law is. Because you think that religious considerations should be part and parcel to this determination doesn't mean that other legislators can't exclude religious considerations from their decision making

I have a response to OGB later but I don't have time to properly formulate my thoughts at this point
 
Last edited:
abortion prohibition + rubbers at CVS + depleted social services for mothers wed and unwed + stigmatization of unwed mothers + growing wealth gap + saying "families are better than single moms" a lot = less sexual intercourse and fewer dead babies

is that right Wrangor?
 
WakeandBake said:
abortion prohibition + rubbers at CVS + depleted social services for mothers wed and unwed + stigmatization of unwed mothers + growing wealth gap + saying "families are better than single moms" a lot = less sexual intercourse and fewer dead babies

is that right Wrangor?
Click to expand...

If this is the case, we better do something about the infant mortality rate because we will still have lots of dead babies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top