DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Honest question on abortion

Regarding your generation....if you were born between 1965-79/1980 you are a Gen X
1946-64 = Boomer Generation
1945-25 = Silent Generation

But his definition of slippery slope is correct according to a dictionary. you fail to distinguish between a slippery slope and a slippery slope fallacy.

And what I said does not fall into the category of what you just described

On a serious note...this is your privilege begin able to say this as you are a white, straight man. You don't have to worry about police profiling you let alone racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamaphobia etc.

deleted

deleted

Your hate for Bernie broke the board. Good going!

I don't hate Bernie. Disagreeing with policies is not hate.

Why do liberals think disagreeing is hate all the time?

fixed

Sorry, "hate" said in jest. Sarcasm doesn't come across well. Some people use purple.

Cool. Sorry I temporarily messed up the board. Glad it’s fixed

Actually, I would benefit greatly if Sanders won, being poor and not able to afford medical bills and struggling to pay off student debt.but It’s not fair that others have to pay my bills

Helping people, government assistance, I’m for it for needy people. But there has to be reasonable limitations. Cancelling all student debt, universal healthcare, etc costs would be astronomical, cause taxes to go up and hurt the economy

Besides the other things I said...

LOL You think that's simply a Liberal Problem....LOL Thats funny

Because it’s not a baby. It’s a zygote/cell cluster/fetus.

Because they’re children. In the womb they’re a cell cluster/zygote/fetus. To clarify my stance. I’m not for late term abortion except in the most dire situations. Actually I’m not FOR abortion at all. I’m for choice.

See, this is where I have trouble following the lefts logic. There are bird eggs in this country that, if I disturb it or destroy it, I can go to jail... because the environmentalist don't recognize that egg embryo as a zygote/cell cluster/fetus... they recognize it for what it is, the early stage of the bird it will become..

The same people who make that argument will typically make the exact opposite argument when it comes to human beings.

Endangered species need protections. We’re not endangered.

I’d even go as far as saying if we, the human species, would knock off our over breeding, ie from two comes one, within just a few generations we’d create a world where we may even be allowed to enjoy the occasional bald eagle on the grill. Or a whale burger. As it is we’re wiping these things out with our over burdening of the system.

First, that fails the logic test of your own argument.

Second, it's ok to kill human embryos but not owl embryos because there are already enough people?

That's a pretty vile line of thinking.

How about this?
We not kill owl embryos, but if the owl wants to destroy its own egg we let it make that choice.
For the record I’m totally against allowing owls to make the choice to end the viability of a human zygote.

You're no different when you use labels to describe an entire generation of people who are often totally different than those you oppose doing it.

Democrats Do Best Among Generation Y and Baby Boomers
Republicans do better among Generation X

https://news.gallup.com/poll/118285/democrats-best-among-generation-baby-boomers.aspx

And as this shows, often wrong in your generalizations.

What is and is not considered a fallacy is often determined by an individuals point of view.

That's wrong.

It's only a fallacy if you believe it's false.

j/c

I was going to weigh in the other night, but thought better of it as I've enjoyed staying off the political threads. But let me throw a curve ball as I don't argue being pro-life from a religious perspective.

TO start with GM's original post... according to the pro-abortion/pro-choice rationale, these people should be found not guilty, or even have been charged to begin with. Just view this from her perspective:

She has the right to terminate the pregnancy at anytime, even when it is partially born. Even though some of you are against 3rd trimester and maybe even partial birth abortion personally, those limitations are not part of the "right to choose" rationale. That rationale gives zero consideration to the fetus, only to the woman's desire.

She gets pregnant, goes to the doctor, gets a a due date... the estimated day when the fetus will be born. She decides she does not want to carry the fetus to that date and chooses to abort.

Now, if you can have a baby without going to the hospital, doesn't it also stand to reason you can have an abortion without going to a medical facility? Don't forget, if you can't judge her for her decision to have the abortion, you also don't get to judge how sophisticated her thinking is either. Maybe she can't afford to go to a clinic and has to do at home. When she looks up ways to do it herself she gets the horror stories of back alley abortions. Smartly she at least realizes the coat hangar isn't a smart option.

See, I don't believe she was inducing labor to "give birth"... she was inducing labor to get the fetus in a position so it could be terminated. Don't forget, just last year Gov. Northam said, and his statements were supported because it's a woman's right to choose.. he said a fetus could be brought to term, made comfortable, and then a discussion can be had on whether or not to terminate. Again, i'm sure most of you wouldn't support that kind of thing, but it ispart of the "right to choose" rationale.

So the only thing this young woman did was exercise what she's been told is her Right to do.

--------------------------------------------------------------

One thing I'm genuinely curious to know from Dawgs like PDX and others, what is the rationale that the moment in time the fetus' position in the universe changes from one place to an inch away (from the womb to outside the womb) that it doesn't count as anything until it makes that physical move? Why is that the line? And before anyone tries to make the "viability" argument (something I'd also be curious as to how everyone here defines that)... the baby is just as dependent, if not more so, on the mother for survival if for no other reason than there are a multitude more environmental factors it now needs protected from.

Ok boomer

I don’t agree with this at all.

I only see Libs crying hate when someone disagrees with issues

if youre pro life, your a misogynist

if you hold to a traditional view of marriage, your a homophobe

if Jesus is the only way to God, you are a Islamaphobe

see what I mean?

Comparing humans to owls?

Animals sometimes eat their young after birth, Lets legalize that too Female black widows eat their mate Legalize it,

using slippery slope in a sentence is not a fallacy. using bthe term incorrectly is a fallacy. in order for one to accuse me of slippery slope fallacy, they would have to show how I used the word incorrectly, ie how I used the term in the sense of a slippery slope fallacy. Not just say, aha you said slippery slope. Slippery slope is a legitimate figure of speech you can find in a dictionary

The wolf pack puts its most vulnerable just behind the alpha and the rest bring up the rear moving only as fast as the weakest when traveling. They only abandon the doomed(facing imminent death due to illness, injury, or situation) and feeble minded. The also kill their cowards and eat them. I could roll like that.

If Humans were like that, Trump would have you over for dinner.

Here's the thing, you are demonizing libs with your generalizations. I have friends right here who are pro life and I don't think they are misogynist at all. I disagree with their beliefs, yes, but I don't look down on them for those beliefs even when I know they are wrong.

I also think that all three things you mention are tied to your religious beliefs and that's fine, but you have no right to impose those beliefs on others. Sure you can back legislators that you think will change the laws to more reflect your religious beliefs, but thinking just because you feel that way means others have to or should is just plain wrong. This is my issue with the so called laws to protect religious freedoms, if somebody was really threatening you saying you could not believe in your religion, then I would fight right alongside you to protect that right. But making these laws to stop others who don't believe the same as you from doing as they see fit is wrong. In the case of abortion, I'm pro choice but I don't really believe in it and don't think it should be done in the third trimester. But if it's done late to prevent the death of the mother, to prevent a child being born in horrendous condition, or as a mercy to a child that would only suffer and die then those are legitimate reasons. Prior to the third trimester, at least before the fetus is viable outside the womb, I don't consider it a life at all, it's cells forming into a life. I honestly believe that life begins at birth, but I accept the third trimester arguments from the opposition.

While we are on it, I also think suicide and regulated assisted suicide should be legal and a thing. Many do not want to live for numerous reasons. Why should we play god and force them to live? The stigma around suicide is awful, and it's considered taboo... why? Again, mostly religion. The Japanese practiced ritual suicide for simply dishonoring yourself or your family. I've known good men who felt they had become a burden to their families and wished they could die. I've known people who would rather be dead then live with the things they've seen and or done. I don't think society has the right to prevent those people from having a shameless way to end their suffering. A friend of mine drove his truck off a curve on a hillside into a tree at 90 mph because he was months away from being in a wheelchair and bedridden with ALS. He didn't want to live like that and put his family through it. I don't blame him, but there should have been a better way that he could have done it closer to the time he was fully done living on his own terms. He could have had another good year with his family, maybe more.

With what in particular?

The "woman's right to choose" argument only takes in to consideration what the woman does. It holds zero regard for the fetus because it's just a clump of cells until it is 100% removed from the woman's body.

This is why Democrats support partial birth abortion. They have to so long as they are framing the entire discussion as a "woman's right to choose". To be against partial birth abortion would mean you are against the right she has up until the very last moment. It's an absolutist's position.

The only way one can be against partial birth abortion is by placing a value on that clump of cells, a significant value. That value being it is a human life.

Now for balance, the "life begins at conception" argument is just as absolutist as the other side. The problem they run in to is that at least in this country, laws shouldn't be based on religious dogma. Second, they don't want to give ground over the phase where it is a mass of dividing cells before they finally take the shape and begin the functions of a human life.

OCD,

you've mentioned 'viability' a couple times. Are you interested in a conversation about that, specifically what that exactly means? I've got some thoughts but I don't think I'm gonna spend the time on posting about it if no one is interested.

To me it means being able to live on it's own outside the womb. And it's been discussed in detail before but if you have something to add I'd be happy to hear it.

My apologies if I've missed that discussion. Viability is something that is often mentioned, but rarely if ever actually defined.

Whether for or against, I think the viability issue is probably one of the weakest arguments. I don't believe it's weak because I'm dismissing it out of hand, but I think to say "live on its own outside the womb" is a massively oversimplification of the concept.

For example: we have to sufficiently define what it means to "live" or "survive" (which is another common term in the debate).

When we typically use the term survive, we mean the need to be able to feed ourselves and protect ourselves from the elements and other dangers. At a minimum it's demonstrated ability to withstand certain environmental conditions. Infants can't do any of those things for themselves. I'd suggest that it isn't probably until a child is years older before they start to understand those needs and exhibit a rudimentary ability to address those needs. So I believe "survive" is a bad term to use because then logic would dictate a woman could terminate up until a few years of age.

(Yes, I know about them being considered a person.. I'll get to that..)

What does it mean to be "able to live"? We'll ignore the existential philosophical part of the question lol. But on a practical level? Quality of life be it in terms of medical condition or even economic circumstances it would be born in to are supposed to be legitimate factors in deciding whether or not to terminate. What is the baseline we should go off of?

Or by "able to live" do we mean the biological functions of breathing and a heart beat? We do that long before coming out of the womb. I know you're against 3rd Trimester abortion, so what I'm posting isn't necessarily meant as a challenge to your position, but I'm just taking the dog for walk step by step. It's a question I've still been waiting for someone to answer though: if I pop out of the womb today and can breath and have heart beat, I had the same ability to do that yesterday... what is it about my tiny change of location in the universe that suddenly gives me a value?

But back to biology... how do we then account for babies who need to spend a little time hooked up to a machine in an incubator? Medicine has improved to the point that babies are born severely prematurely... as early as 21-24 weeks, and often with serious assistance, are able to fully develop. Now, if during that time the mother decides she doesn't want to continue with any treatment, pull the plug basically... is that simply chalked up to her "right to choose"? Because at that point that baby isn't surviving or able to live on its own. By those terms, it hasn't yet earned the value of being a person.

No, we discuss the idea of pulling the plug on a premature baby the same as we would a full grown adult... quality of life, likelihood of survival, etc. That discussion doesn't take place in those terms unless they are valued as a person.

So here is what I'm trying to reconcile about the whole deal: On one end the belief is that until you are physically outside the womb and able to "live/survive", they are not a person. This is in the face of the fact that you can do the same things 5 minutes prior to leaving the womb.

This then brings us to people like you, who recognize that fact, and draw the line at the beginning of the 3rd trimester.

BUT we then have the fact that medicine has brought us to a point that it is possible to be born in the middle of the second trimester and with help, fully develop.

----------------------------------


I just think that this is one of those rare problems that there's a lot of room to to address and satisfy the concerns of both sides.

it only takes into consideration what the woman does because its her body.

and if you dont agree with that, then im sure you would support women telling men what to do with their own penises.

ya know, since it does take two to tango.

but if you dont support women telling you what you can or cant do with your own dick, then theres a really simple solution:

mind your own freaking business. if you dont support a womens right to choose, then date a woman who lets you control her. then you can be pro life in your own household all you want.

but you have ZERO say so in what my wife, or anyone elses wife/girlfriend/daughter/sister/aunt etc. does with her own body. so stop trying.

Dude, just quit with the "oppressing women" BS.. it's tired and lame. No one is trying to tell a woman what she can't do with her own body. They want to put a limit on what she can do to another person i.e. the baby.

For someone who is allegedly concerned with equal rights, I'm curious as to why you're spending more energy trying to put me on blast instead of directing it towards advocating for men to have the equal right to choose. Not to force an abortion, but to be able to do like her and have the right to not raise a kid. Hell, I'd compromise on a limit: the alleged father has up until the baby is fully born to legally renounce any responsibility for it just as the woman has up until that final moment to renounce responsibility for it. Once it's out, he's on the hook though.

Because at the end of the day Swish, you have ZERO right to tell me or anyone other man that they have no choice in taking on a responsibility that you won't hold her to.

It's not BS. It's not another human until it's outside the woman's body. Until then it's part of her own body. A parasite.

Look man, my whole position has nothing to do with oppressing anyone. I'm not even coming at it from a position of making a moral judgement of other people. In none of my commentary will you see me use a religious belief.

I'm just using rational logic.

You say its only the woman's body.

That's fine, but science and societal attitudes toward pregnancy say that its not.

Wouldn't breast feeding still make it a parasite?