Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[JoeB131]

I don't think you're capable of staying on the subject. You're accusing of racism, talking about the Pope, sprinting towards massive exceptions, and your presuppositions are on the flat-earth level. You're full of ad homs, red herrings, moving goalposts. I simply can't keep up. I'd love to continue the discussion, but if you're going to sprint away every time and bring up 8 unrelated topics and narratives... it's just not compelling to discord.

Hey, guy, your concession is duly noted.

But I'll toss you a softball.

What punishment do you think women should get for having an abortion?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Hey, guy, your concession is duly noted.

But I'll toss you a softball.

What punishment do you think women should get for having an abortion?

1. No concession, you're too unstable and spiratic to have an online debate with
2. LOL a "softball" eyeroll. More emotional posturing.
3. If you just ask the question without the unnecessary emotional keyboard warrior routine, I'm happy to address it. But I'll only reply to dry content-only posts from you. You're free to not care and do your usual, but it's not worth my time.

 

[Chuz Life]

1. No concession, you're too unstable and spiratic to have an online debate with
2. LOL a "softball" eyeroll. More emotional posturing.
3. If you just ask the question without the unnecessary emotional keyboard warrior routine, I'm happy to address it. But I'll only reply to dry content-only posts from you. You're free to not care and do your usual, but it's not worth my time.

I had to peek to see what the so-called "softball" question was.

It's not the ******* gotcha they think it is.

CDZ Post in thread 'Abortion'

Apr 11, 2016

Let me try to answer your questions a better way and with a question of my own.

We already have laws which make it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act.

If abortion is criminalized under the reasoning that "personhood begins at conception."

Would you expect for our laws to be consistent or inconsistent when and where it comes to the criminal killing of "children in the womb?"

Looking ahead, I clearly think our laws should be consistent in that regard.

You don't?

• Chuz Life

 

[JoeB131]

1. No concession, you're too unstable and spiratic to have an online debate with
2. LOL a "softball" eyeroll. More emotional posturing.
3. If you just ask the question without the unnecessary emotional keyboard warrior routine, I'm happy to address it. But I'll only reply to dry content-only posts from you. You're free to not care and do your usual, but it's not worth my time.

1> Too cowardly to admit you been beat.
2. Very straightfoward question, but I've had FOUR misogynists refuse to answer it on this thread. Like showing a cross to a vampire.
3. We know you guys can't honestly answer the question.


You see, if you were honest and admit you'd happily through them bitches in jail, you know how much that would turn off everyone.

But without real consequences, an abortion ban becomes kind of meaningless.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

But without real consequences, an abortion ban becomes kind of

I'll only answer content

That's your standard. My demand for executive enforcement would be on the doctor, not the woman. Now, if she were complicit in a conspiracy with a doctor to avoid law, that's different. However, your framing of the question is easily breakable, as I've done. The Doctors would have to put their careers on the line to perform abortions that are illegal. And, we know there would be plenty of pro-life advocates who would pretend to want an abortion and be able to expose those who are guilty... so doctors wouldn't want to throw away their decade-long schooling on an ideology. At least most wouldnt.. and those that would? Good riddance

 

[JoeB131]

I'll only answer content

That's your standard. My demand for executive enforcement would be on the doctor, not the woman. Now, if she were complicit in a conspiracy with a doctor to avoid law, that's different. However, your framing of the question is easily breakable, as I've done. The Doctors would have to put their careers on the line to perform abortions that are illegal.

Wait, wait, wait, now.

The doctor isn't the one who instigated the abortion. The woman does. She is just as guilty as he is, maybe more so.

Works on the assumption that people performing abortions would have to be doctors.

I give you Ruth Barnett.

Ruth Barnett - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Despite the fact that abortions had been illegal in Oregon since 1854, Ruth Barnett was able to begin her long career as an abortion provider. She opened the Stewart Clinic in Portland, Oregon during the 1930s. It remained open for 30 years.<a The police paid little to no attention to her practice, as anti-abortion laws were rarely enforced at that time unless maternal death occurred. When she opened her practice, America was starting to feel the effects of the Great Depression. Because very few people could afford to have more children to feed, Barnett's practice was incredibly sought after.< Many of her clients were wealthy women. Barnett made about $182,000 per year at this practice, which is the modern equivalent of about $3,250,000 per year.< Despite her lack of legal certification, she maintained the highest safety record of practicing abortion providers in the area, including licensed practitioners. In fact, the majority of her patients were referred to her by properly licensed practitioners.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Wait, wait, wait, now.

The doctor isn't the one who instigated the abortion. The woman does. She is just as guilty as he is, maybe more so.

Works on the assumption that people performing abortions would have to be doctors.

I give you Ruth Barnett.

Ruth Barnett - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

She was first arrested in 1940 after a complication arose with a client at a clinic in Reno, Nevada.<a After this incident, Barnett was in prison intermittently, continuing to perform abortions. She performed an estimated 40,000 abortions and claimed no maternal deaths.

1. Look at you, making a mostly content-based post. Congrats. There's no need for snarkiness or ego. Let's just discuss the topic.

2. I don't care about your anecdote of "Ruth Barrett", I didn't even look. Anecdotes are immaterial to morality.

3. It doesn't matter who instigated it, it's who performed it. Who is the gate-keeper to performing abortions? Doctors. There is a professional and ethical standard that needs to be upheld to suppress those who make immoral demands.

4. It's entirely appropriate to take into consideration the modern moral acceptance of abortion by women who have been indoctrinated via feminist social engineering to have the procedure to be seen as normal and common. Morality is always a process, yet people like you seek "gotchas" want to make it sudden or nothing at all.

 

[JoeB131]

2. I don't care about your anecdote of "Ruth Barrett", I didn't even look. Anecdotes are immaterial to morality.

Except it's not an anecdote. It shows why abortion laws didn't work before Roe. Barnett was actually one of the more ethical providers, which is why licensed doctors referred women to her.

3. It doesn't matter who instigated it, it's who performed it. Who is the gate-keeper to performing abortions? Doctors. There is a professional and ethical standard that needs to be upheld to suppress those who make immoral demands.

Well, besides the fact women can self-induce abortions now with Morning After Pills, you are dodging. The woman is just as guilty as the provider in the death of that given fetus. Should they not be punished? Or do you just realize that most of the population wouldn't stand for it?

4. It's entirely appropriate to take into consideration the modern moral acceptance of abortion by women who have been indoctrinated via feminist social engineering to have the procedure to be seen as normal and common. Morality is always a process, yet people like you seek "gotchas" want to make it sudden or nothing at all.

Again, you have it in reverse. Abortions were common before Roe; they just weren't legal. The Philippines has the kinds of laws you want, and it has more abortions per capita than the US does. (500K to 800K for the ROP, vs. 800K to 1MM in the US. What makes it so much worse is the ROP only has 1/3rd of our population.)

Now, here's the thing. Abortions were commonly performed by midwives under the euphemism, 'Restoring the Menses". When male medical practitioners took over the administration of medicine, they tried to abolish abortion, but miserably failed.

Or (and I'm trying to stay on topic here) when the "moralists" tried to instill Prohibition. They finally got their wish with the 18th Amendment. Did "morality" change? Heck no, a bunch of guys like Chicago's very own Al Capone just made a killing smuggling in alcohol. It took less than 15 years to figure out what a mistake had been made.

you can't instill a "morality" until you have consensus, and frankly, we are nowhere near that on abortion.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Except it's not an anecdote. It shows why abortion laws didn't work before Roe. Barnett was actually one of the more ethical providers, which is why licensed doctors referred women to her.

1. "Didn't work"... are you arguing zero-sum logic?
2. "Ethical".. that's your subjective opinion, cringy. Stay with dry facts.

Well, besides the fact women can self-induce abortions now with Morning After Pills, you are dodging. The woman is just as guilty as the provider in the death of that given fetus. Should they not be punished? Or do you just realize that most of the population wouldn't stand for it?

1. This is straight up open-market cause and effect logic. Women can try to get abortions, but if no licensed, professional doctors will perform them, they may have to turn to nefarious means. That's where the woman would get into trouble, based on her actions. She can go to a licensed doctor and try, but if they so no, she's committed no crime yet.

Again, you have it in reverse. Abortions were common before Roe; they just weren't legal.

Murder is "common" is Chicago, it doesn't mean we should just allow it.

The Philippines has the kinds of laws you want, and it has more abortions per capita than the US does. (500K to 800K for the ROP, vs. 800K to 1MM in the US. What makes it so much worse is the ROP only has 1/3rd of our population.)

Just pointing out, this is your common red herring approach. Don't reply to his, I'm just pointing out how you sprint to weird things emotionally.

Now, here's the thing. Abortions were commonly performed by midwives under the euphemism, 'Restoring the Menses". When male medical practitioners took over the administration of medicine, they tried to abolish abortion, but miserably failed.

It doesn't make it right. I don't buy your desire for it to be "common" (you'd say that just try to bolster your point without knowing anything about it).. but thankfully our society has corrected horrible wrongs throughout.

Or (and I'm trying to stay on topic here) when the "moralists" tried to instill Prohibition. They finally got their wish with the 18th Amendment. Did "morality" change? Heck no, a bunch of guys like Chicago's very own Al Capone just made a killing smuggling in alcohol. It took less than 15 years to figure out what a mistake had been made.

Drop the Prohibition BS. It has nothing to do with this. All it means is that you think that if you can't fully enforce a law, we should just allow it. Apply that to murder, rape, etc. and you'll see how foolish that becomes. I'll never address a Prohibition reference again LOL.

you can't instill a "morality" until you have consensus, and frankly, we are nowhere near that on abortion.

Ah, HERE is the meat and bones, and I'd love for you to ignore the rest of my post and focus on this:

You think if 75% of people think X is moral, then X is moral
I disagree. If 75% if people think murder is moral, it doesn't make murder moral, based on my Christian ethics. And the fact that you don't know how to read the bible isn't my concern.

 

[Robert W]

Of course, this board is ripe with people who spew fallacies as a debate go-to, but I challenge anyone to stay on topic and discuss the issue without becoming hyperbolic, emotional, or political.

My stance is clear, on many fronts (and you can take on any of them:

1. Scientific: We know that once a sperm and egg unite, they create a unique human life with it's own DNA that is separate from the mother. So it has nothing directly to do with the body of the mother. The mother is a nourisher and supporter of the life inside her, and is performing a woman's superpower, something men cannot do.

2. Philosophic: We are trying to determine the value of a human life, when it begins, what a "person" is. The bottom line is that nobody can say for certain. We've seen horrible atrocities occur when human life is devalued by dictators. The creation of a human life is the ultimate value, and the beginning of the process of a unique being's journey towards it's full complete journey through birth, growing as a child, through teens, and into generally a complete adult by age 23-25.

3. Religious: God loves us, and the teachings are clear He does not approve of us deciding to kill his creations in this way.


I've yet to hear a convincing argument from pro-abortionists, as they
1. ignore the proponents I listed
2. attempt to turn it into some sort of battle of the sexes (despite the gigantic bloc of women who oppose abortion), only focusing on the "inconvenience" placed on the mother, and how it's unfair. If a pro-abortionist would like to add more
3. Dehumanize the fetus despite its' scientific realities and it's philosophical capital.

I invite anyone who can handle a low intensity and high content debate to reply. If we get angry pro-abortionists invading with fallacies, I'll simply point them out and move on.

This sort of debate is welcome and I, really appreciate it.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

This sort of debate is welcome and I, really appreciate it.

Here's the thing, I can have a dry, logical debate with a pro-abortionist, and it's nothing adversarial. However, you have emotional males like JoeB131 who get triggered and it disrupts a mere normal discussion

 

[Robert W]

1. "Didn't work"... are you arguing zero-sum logic?
2. "Ethical".. that's your subjective opinion, cringy. Stay with dry facts.

1. This is straight up open-market cause and effect logic. Women can try to get abortions, but if no licensed, professional doctors will perform them, they may have to turn to nefarious means. That's where the woman would get into trouble, based on her actions. She can go to a licensed doctor and try, but if they so no, she's committed no crime yet.

Murder is "common" is Chicago, it doesn't mean we should just allow it.


Just pointing out, this is your common red herring approach. Don't reply to his, I'm just pointing out how you sprint to weird things emotionally.

It doesn't make it right. I don't buy your desire for it to be "common" (you'd say that just try to bolster your point without knowing anything about it).. but thankfully our society has corrected horrible wrongs throughout.

Drop the Prohibition BS. It has nothing to do with this. All it means is that you think that if you can't fully enforce a law, we should just allow it. Apply that to murder, rape, etc. and you'll see how foolish that becomes. I'll never address a Prohibition reference again LOL.

Ah, HERE is the meat and bones, and I'd love for you to ignore the rest of my post and focus on this:

You think if 75% of people think X is moral, then X is moral
I disagree. If 75% if people think murder is moral, it doesn't make murder moral, based on my Christian ethics. And the fact that you don't know how to read the bible isn't my concern.

Joe is a devout Atheist.

He never takes into account that the unborn child is a human too. Wiping out humans is fine with him.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Joe is a devout Atheist.

He never takes into account that the unborn child is a human too. Wiping out humans is fine with him.

I know. I can debate Atheists, but when someone is so emotional and unstable, and flares into insane outcomes from his preconceived notions and expects me to address them? Ha.. what audacity. I'm good. I'll make claims, and support my claims. Any things JoeB131 makes up i'm not obligated to address.

 

[Chuz Life]

Joe is a devout Atheist.

He never takes into account that the unborn child is a human too. Wiping out humans is fine with him.

I'm atheist / (really agnostic) myself. . . and I have no want to debate abortion or any other issue on the basis of "morality."

Yet, here I am on the side opposed to abortion on demand. Elective abortion.

Your post gave me a chance to point that out.

Happy to answer any questions if you have any for me.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Guy, I was brought up with the Fetus Porn Catholic Bullshit back in the 1970's, where they showed us graphic pictures of aborted fetuses in the fifth grade.

I don't like abortion, but I realize the reality that women will get them no matter what the law is.

.

Never happened.






.

 

[Hafar1014]

Dishonest argument. Sea Turtles are an endangered species. It's not just their eggs you get into trouble for, it's their nesting areas as well that are protected.

When you get canned drinks and they come in those plastic holders cut the circles. They end up oin the ocean and turtles get their heads stuck in them.
Another problem are street lights. Baby turtles when they hatch move to the moon light. Street lights are the wrong way and they will move away form the ocean

 

[JoeB131]

1. "Didn't work"... are you arguing zero-sum logic?
2. "Ethical".. that's your subjective opinion, cringy. Stay with dry facts.

Um, no, it's a dry fact that Barnett went out of her way to provide safe, sanitary abortions, which is why she had no fatalities after performing 40,000 of them over a 40-year period. Compared to your average back-alley abortionist of the period, who frankly had the ethics of Kermit Gosnell.

1. This is straight up open-market cause and effect logic. Women can try to get abortions, but if no licensed, professional doctors will perform them, they may have to turn to nefarious means. That's where the woman would get into trouble, based on her actions. She can go to a licensed doctor and try, but if they so no, she's committed no crime yet.

Well, no, that would comprise conspiracy to commit a crime, under the law. Just like if I hire a hit man, and he turns out to be an undercover cop, I'm still in legal trouble. So your legal argument just failed. The woman is guilty of a crime the minute she makes an appointment.

Now, let's get to the enforcement part of this. The aforementioned Ms. Barnett operated for over 40 years and really didn't have trouble until the 1960s, when she refused to pay bribes to local corrupt police officers. By the time Roe was passed, most OB/GYNs were performing abortions and writing down something else on the chart. Nobody arrested them or even investigated them unless they truly messed up and injured the patient.

Murder is "common" is Chicago, it doesn't mean we should just allow it.

No, we have 3 million people and only 416 homicides a year. So only 0.00013% of Chicagoans get murdered.

On the other hand, we have a million abortions every year out of 44 million women of child bearing age. So about 2% of women will get an abortion in any given year. 40% of women will get one abortion in their lifetime. That's the scale of the problem.

Just pointing out, this is your common red herring approach. Don't reply to his, I'm just pointing out how you sprint to weird things emotionally.

The first thing you should always do when looking at a course of action is look at "someone who is already doing that, and how well it's working". The Philippines has exactly the kind of laws you want, and they are a LOT more religious than we are. Yet despite that, despite people possibly going to prison for performing them.

Philippines' Abortion Provisions - Center for Reproductive Rights

Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (1987), Article II, Section 12 The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, Act. No. 3815 of December 8, 1930, Articles 256 – 259 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (1987), Article II, Section 12 Section 12 The State recognizes the...

reproductiverights.org

It doesn't make it right. I don't buy your desire for it to be "common" (you'd say that just try to bolster your point without knowing anything about it).. but thankfully our society has corrected horrible wrongs throughout.

It didn't correct a horrible wrong. It created a bad set of misogynistic laws that no one really followed, until the courts finally had the good sense to abolish them.

Drop the Prohibition BS. It has nothing to do with this. All it means is that you think that if you can't fully enforce a law, we should just allow it. Apply that to murder, rape, etc. and you'll see how foolish that becomes. I'll never address a Prohibition reference again LOL.

Well, no, foolish is comparing a law where there is consensus (murder) to a law that gets passed despite a sizeable portion of people who think it should be legal or allowable. This is why Prohibition failed. (That and a lot of people really didn't realize what it would look like in practice). People found ways around the laws, criminal activity to provide it abounded, and law enforcement plain old didn't want to be bothered.

Ah, HERE is the meat and bones, and I'd love for you to ignore the rest of my post and focus on this:

You think if 75% of people think X is moral, then X is moral
I disagree. If 75% if people think murder is moral, it doesn't make murder moral, based on my Christian ethics. And the fact that you don't know how to read the bible isn't my concern.

Ahhh, now we are getting to the meat and potatoes. Your imaginary friend in the sky says it's bad (even though abortion is mentioned nowhere in the bible) so it must be "immoral".

Of course, a lot of Christian Churches think that abortion is just fine. Just like a lot of churches have gay pastors, even though the bible is pretty clear on the butt sex.

The bible also says you should be stoned to death for working on a Sunday. You "Christians" have a pretty Buffet View on how you follow the bible rules.

Which brings me back to my question. If you guys really think abortion is "immoral", then why aren't you for putting women in prison for having them?

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the thing, I can have a dry, logical debate with a pro-abortionist, and it's nothing adversarial. However, you have emotional males like @JoeB131 who get triggered and it disrupts a mere normal discussion

Right, I'm emotional when I shatter your wank fantasies about sending the women back to the kitchen.

In fact, I avoid bad-faith arguments like 'What about rape and incest? ' because they represent a small fraction of abortions performed. Equally bad faith is an argument about an 8-month fetus being killed before it hits the birth canal.

Brass tacks, most abortions are performed on healthy fetuses, conceived in consensual sex, in the first trimester.

And there's nothing "immoral" about that because they aren't viable, they aren't capable of pain, and it's nobody's business except the woman it is inside.

So here we are, a bunch of men arguing whether a woman is too emotional to decide what she wants to do with her own body.

And I'm wondering if the TARDIS has dumped me back into 1910.

I know. I can debate Atheists, but when someone is so emotional and unstable, and flares into insane outcomes from his preconceived notions and expects me to address them? Ha.. what audacity. I'm good. I'll make claims, and support my claims. Any things @JoeB131 makes up i'm not obligated to address.

In short, facts you don't like, like women will tell you go to **** yourself if you try to tell them what to do with their bodies, you don't like.

I take joy in that a bunch of abortions will happen in the next week, and there isn't a thing you religious types can do about it.

 

[ding]

I just took you off ignore, don't make me regret it.

Not a matter of feeling better about myself. I don't have a dog in the abortion fight. My wife and I are too old to have kids.

I just realize the impracticality of your position.

If you think abortion is murder, but you aren't willing to seriously punish the women who get them, you've created a law people will have contempt for.

It's like you people learned nothing from Prohibition.

As much as you want to ignore the science, it's just science. Human life begins at conception. You are making up your own definition of what life is to justify your beliefs that you aren't ending a human life.

 

[ding]

I doubt it helps.

If anyone with that level of denial and dehumanization thinks they feel any better about themself by doing so. . .

They are ******* dead inside and (most likely) aware of it.

I disagree. The human mind cannot live in conflict. I see it all the time. Look at it this way, it's because they are not dead inside that they have to rationalize they are not ending a human life. If they were dead inside they wouldn't care if they were ending a human life, but JoeB does care about not ending a human life. That's why he has constructed a rationalization to avoid facing that conflict.