• 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!

Republicans for POTUS, 2016 Edition

jhmd you are confusing my feeble liberal mind.

tell us about the moral equivalency wrt all the innocent children who were bombed to smithereens in Vietnam and Iraq. Justify that for me because I can't understand.
 
Morality is a fascinating thing

iraq-warVistims-children.jpg



Corbis-U1538294.jpg
 
Last edited:
WakeandBake said:
jhmd you are confusing my feeble liberal mind.

tell us about the moral equivalency wrt all the innocent children who were bombed to smithereens in Vietnam and Iraq. Justify that for me because I can't understand.
Click to expand...

I see this word, but I fear you lack an understanding of its meaning and usage.
 
Junebug said:
Your last sentence is a non-sequitur. Who cares if a sperm can fertilize an egg and division can begin outside of a uterus? What does that have to do with whether a life is created?
Click to expand...

I think it's illustrative of the fact that we can't agree on when life actually begins. It's a tricky definition.
 
Junebug said:
I don't see what's so difficult about this position. It's not a human life yet, but it is something living, the termination of which has moral consequences.
Click to expand...

To me that doesn't make any sense. If it isn't human, what is it? From a scientific standpoint it is a human, it isn't another species.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I get what you're saying, but your post was a little too close to the moral equivalency-ends justify the means fire for me. If we're against abortion, then let's find a better way (and there are plenty).
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this, there should be a both/and solution, but with the current construct of American politics, that's not happening unfortunately. Neither option is ideal, but given the current options, I think one attacks the root of the issue better. I don't see this as a choice v. life issue. I view it as a "which solution better protects life" issue. Once the cat is out of the bag on legal abortion, legislating it back in is a) a futile attempt and b) doesn't address the real issues underlying the causes of abortion.

I'd am genuinely interested in the "plenty of better ways" that you allude to. What are some examples? Are you talking about adoption? Sure, but there are scores of children awaiting adoption as it is. And adoption is always secondary option to family preservation (and I say that as an adoptive parent). Saying that that is an option is true, but still doesn't address the problem that people would choose abortion.

What other better ways are you talking about?
 
IamThunderbolt said:
I'd agree with this, there should be a both/and solution, but with the current construct of American politics, that's not happening unfortunately. Neither option is ideal, but given the current options, I think one attacks the root of the issue better. I don't see this as a choice v. life issue. I view it as a "which solution better protects life" issue. Once the cat is out of the bag on legal abortion, legislating it back in is a) a futile attempt and b) doesn't address the real issues underlying the causes of abortion.

I'd am genuinely interested in the "plenty of better ways" that you allude to. What are some examples? Are you talking about adoption? Sure, but there are scores of children awaiting adoption as it is. And adoption is always secondary option to family preservation (and I say that as an adoptive parent). Saying that that is an option is true, but still doesn't address the problem that people would choose abortion.

What other better ways are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I promise to get back to this post later, because it is a good one. But it's time to pay the rent. Hold that thought until tomorrow...
 
How many people who are anti-abortion here had no problem with that cop slamming the pregnant woman on her belly?
 
Wrangor said:
Why would you be against it if you don't consider it a life lost?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because it has the potential to become life.

Wrangor said:
So why are they against abortion? Why does that person care about a surgical procedure to remove a parasite? You keep saying they are pro choice but anti abortion. Why don't they approve of that surgical procedure in other women's bodies to remove something that isn't human?
Click to expand...

Jesus, not all pro-choice people believe that an unborn fetus is a parasite. Or just brazenly stroll over to the clinic to get abortions when they feel like it. I see now why people avoid the politics board.

In this hypothetical situation, the fetus is still human! It is just proto-human -- not yet fully formed.


Can you seriously not grasp the concept that someone might be anti-abortion for reasons other than a belief that a fetus is human life? This seems to be the point at which your comprehension of what should be a very simple point falters.
 
For me, being pro choice is not about what I think of the viability of a fetus. It's a belief that an individual should have the right to make that decision for themselves.
 
And this is a post to which I'd really like you to respond. You think that the rights of an unborn child are more important than the rights of your wife? Or your daughters? To decide for themselves what is best for their health? How can you possibly justify such a belief? Seems as if it is you doing the mental gymnastics (to use your phrase). Or, more likely, your unwavering belief in what you hear at church has done those mental gymnastics for you.

wakephan09 said:
And this, Wrangor, is where the Christian right is really, really, wrong. You would call a person is "scum" for putting the rights of a living, breathing human being over the life of an unborn fetus?
Click to expand...
 
Liquid Karma said:
For me, being pro choice is not about what I think of the viability of a fetus. It's a belief that an individual should have the right to make that decision for themselves.
Click to expand...

For the sake of my hypothetical situation (which is, as I'm sure everyone suspected, is how I feel), agreed; I've also been saying this exact same thing over and over, except Wrangor is caught up on the wrong bit:



wakephan09 said:
Or, perhaps, an anti-abortion but pro-choice voter believes that the (primarily male) government shouldn't legislate women's bodies.
Click to expand...

wakephan09 said:
NB: I'm not quite sure why you are addressing your posts to me in the second person. I haven't suggested that any of these responses are my own personal beliefs.

A voter might be pro-choice because they believe that women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, yet still believe that abortion is distasteful or inappropriate or morally wrong (for any number of reasons other than MURDER, for God's sake) or for whatever reason a choice that he/she would not make themselves.

Or, hell, someone might be anti-abortion simply because a fetus is in their understanding a proto-human -- viz. NOT a human, but will someday become one.

You don't see how someone might share both of those stances without being a hypocrite? Your absolute categories are unhelpful for the conversation, and it is that sort of thinking that makes productive debate impossible.
Click to expand...

wakephan09 said:
How is this possibly unclear?

For the voter in this hypothetical situation, women's right to choose is paramount. He/she is still disgusted by abortion and wouldn't themselves have an abortion.

Hence, he/she is pro-choice, anti-abortion.
Click to expand...
 
The Christian right, however, has made it very clear that they are not in favor of women's rights, in general, and focus their efforts on what they (in good faith) perceive to be the human cost of abortion so that they don't have to talk about the hypocritical nature of their historical and universal suppression of women.

Not a single person on this entire planet likes abortion. Not a single medical practitioner, not a single abortion-patron, not a single person.
 
wakephan09 said:
Perhaps because it has the potential to become life.



Jesus, not all pro-choice people believe that an unborn fetus is a parasite. Or just brazenly stroll over to the clinic to get abortions when they feel like it. I see now why people avoid the politics board.

In this hypothetical situation, the fetus is still human! It is just proto-human -- not yet fully formed.


Can you seriously not grasp the concept that someone might be anti-abortion for reasons other than a belief that a fetus is human life? This seems to be the point at which your comprehension of what should be a very simple point falters.
Click to expand...

By this logic, should contraception not be considered immoral/illegal too? It's preventing the "potential to become life." Or Plan B?

I'd be interested in answers from both the ideologically pure (Wrangor) and the philosophically curious (wakephan09 and others).
 
NonSequiturDeac said:
By this logic, should contraception not be considered immoral/illegal too? It's preventing the "potential to become life." Or Plan B?

I'd be interested in answers from both the ideologically pure (Wrangor) and the philosophically curious (wakephan09 and others).
Click to expand...

Well, according to the Catholic Church, the answer to your question is "yes".

However, the Catholics also have church sponsored classes on natural birth control using the cycle method, so that Catholics can have plenty of sex without fear of (a) babies or (b) hellfire. No one has ever satisfactorily explained to me the critical moral difference between using a spreadsheet to track the wife's cycle vs. using a condom so you don't have to do all that work.
 
Liquid Karma said:
For me, being pro choice is not about what I think of the viability of a fetus. It's a belief that an individual should have the right to make that decision for themselves.
Click to expand...

Which individual? If you're talking about the mother, in the vast majority of cases, she made the relevant decision several months prior.

wakephan09 said:
And this is a post to which I'd really like you to respond. You think that the rights of an unborn child are more important than the rights of your wife? Or your daughters? To decide for themselves what is best for their health? How can you possibly justify such a belief? Seems as if it is you doing the mental gymnastics (to use your phrase). Or, more likely, your unwavering belief in what you hear at church has done those mental gymnastics for you.
Click to expand...

Jesus, for like the 100th time, nobody (even Wrangor) is arguing against it in the case of health concerns for the mother. But 95% of abortions don't involve health concerns for the mother (or rape, or incest, or the other insignificant excuses). Stop arguing against it.

I've said it before, but I agree with Wrangor that to call it anything other than murder is just conscious blinders by whoever is trying to justify it to themselves; however I also don't think it wrong to give that murderous decision to the mother, but just call it what it is. And if we are to treat that as legal, then other types of murder-for-convenience should be legal as well (physician-assisted suicide; third-party euthanasia; life-without-parole death squads, etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top