look, aren't we forgetting a group's rights? you know, the fucking babies rights? their right to be born, and not get their brain sucked out with a vacuum or mangled up with a weird instrument?
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision
- Thread starter Ericzander
- Start date
- Views 74,375
- Replies 1,931
- Likes 9
I never said that we should. I said that the rules need to cover every circumstance, so once you figure out the general rules surrounding abortion, you need to cover the edge cases, too.
In that case we’ve wasted a great number of posts arguing about nothing, because this clarification makes our positions the same. I started by saying that you should be primarily concerned about the 95%+ and make exceptions for the rest, and I haven’t moved an inch from that initial assessment because it’s the most reasonable way to approach a problem.
An embryo/fetus is not a baby, and even if it were, it doesn't have the right to another person's body.
The nonexistent don't have a right to exist.
If you look at my initial criticism that you defended, I was calling out users for saying the outliers didn't belong in the discussion, at all. I built a case for why they do belong in the discussion, regardless of the number, because it brings the view into challenge - to allow for nuance in the policy.
I never noticed a post suggesting one rule should cover all cases of abortion. I stated in my first post that I'm pro-choice up until the line is drawn for "personhood", and that I feel that's where the true debate lies.
It's a fetus, not a baby, and if it's early in the pregnancy, it doesn't have a brain. Most people who support abortion rights seem to agree that abortions should not be legal after brain development has begun, because this is when the fetus becomes, as closely as we can define it, a person.
I maintain my position that arguing about exceptions is a matter for when a general rule is formulated. You come up with a reasonable middle ground which applies to most people, you look at it and you ask two questions - “who doesn’t this rule cover” and “should those people be covered by an exception due to their unusual circumstances”. Maybe it’s a character flaw, but I’m very goal oriented. Get to point B, and maybe be prepared for a trek to point C before you make plans on reaching point Z. Worrying about the outliers is distracting you from worrying about the majority of cases, and the purpose of any law is to cater to the most people possible. The alternative to that is to start from a point of agreement - “these are the cases we all agree on”, then look at the rest of the cases and formulate something agreeable for them. We all agree that saving the mother is always the priority, the overwhelming majority agrees that abortion in the case of rape is acceptable, here’s the rest of it all, discuss. Boils down to the same result.
Last edited by Foxi4,
But our Lord Satan needs sacrifices. I mean, what else are we supposed to sacrifice? Goats? That's just savagery.
Well, there are at least two conversations happening in this thread. The first is the conversation you're talking about, and it seems like most of us have formulated the general rule: abortion is permissible until the point where the fetus has a brain, because at that point it becomes a person and has the same rights as any other person.
The second conversation we're having is with the anti-abortion advocates in the thread. In this sub-conversation, we have another general rule: abortion is never permissible. If we accept this as the rule for the sake of argument, then we must figure out what to do in the outlier situations. Is an exception to the abortion rule permissible in the case of rape? If not, what happens then? At least in the case of @JonhathonBaxster , his rule is that the woman must carry the fetus to term and then either a) put it up for adoption, b) raise it herself with no financial assistance from the government, or c) marry somebody else to help her raise the rape baby.
Since he is not the only anti-abortion advocate in the thread, it's worth discussing what exceptions, if any, other anti-abortion advocates can accept. Unfortunately, it's hard to have two coherent conversations in a single thread, but the first conversation appears to have been resolved.
You're right. Not like anyone's been sacrificed in the Christian Bible. Isn't there a passage where the lord God killed a bunch of kids because they were ridiculing some guy? And then there's Job, who had all his kids killed by God to prove to Satan that God was deserving of Job's love. And then all of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for profane practices, but it's not really mentioned what happened to the children...I mean, unless they were doing the sodomy thing too...
Your Christian God has had more children killed in his name than Satan ever had.
Get outta here with that religious crap. We've got enough separation of church and state problems as it is.
Please stop saying the quiet part out loud. Thank you.
I haven't finished this one yet, but found it pretty interesting to see two people debate where they feel the Libertarian stance on abortion should be. Definitely worth a listen:
No but it doesn't weigh on my conscience, even the slightest
Although I don't agree with all the points being made and the conclusions being drawn, the debate was an excellent exploration of the Libertarian point of view. Thanks for sharing it.
Normally when someone quotes me, I make the reasonable assumption they’re talking about what I said. No harm done either way.
That's not quite it. It was a misinterpretation/misunderstanding, not me quoting you in response to somebody else. I said the minority group still belongs in the conversation in response to the "abortion is murder" group on the thread. You responded to me saying you disagreed, and this is where the misunderstanding starts.
It reads like you thought I wanted to say "abortion should be legal because of this 5% group", which was not my position, but given all the users on here arguing, it's very understandable why you'd lump what I said into the opinions of other pro-choice people on the thread. Very easy to do with this many voices in one place.
If you go look at the posts, you can see me try and clear this up a couple times.
Agreed on no harm done, and I do enjoy arguing with you on here.
Also, to keep this post on topic, I have learned a lot about abortion arguments in general since making my first post on this thread, so this has been a pretty fun excursion. I wouldn't have gone sifting through so much info as quickly as I did had I not been bickering with people on here haha.
And while I don't agree with the pro-life group, I do feel like I better understand their position now.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
-
DTApple
please let me look cool as well
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
something about ea reverse engineering the genesis so they could make their games there+1 -
-
@
BakerMan:
if they get permission from 4j (the studio who helped put minecraft on consoles), they could put the console edition tutorial worlds in the game, as seeds+1
and i mean all of them (if not, maybe a few highlights, like TU1, TU31, and TU69) -
-
-
-
-
-
