Society/Culture The Abortion Thread

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
43,356
70,943
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Most anti abortionist types are typically conservative who favour a small government model. But when it comes to women have control of their own body they want to enact hugely restrictive government control over them.
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Apr 24, 2013
49,065
93,378
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
Most anti abortionist types are typically conservative who favour a small government model. But when it comes to women have control of their own body they want to enact hugely restrictive government control over them.
The fault in your logic is that you utilise this drivel to judge the issue.

Generic political allegiances have nothing to do with it. This is a science and ethics matter.
 

cartwright

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 7, 2007
6,543
6,218
here
AFL Club
St Kilda
Why is 90% of the pro-choice argument made up of ad hominem attacks?

“Right wingers only care about unborn babies, once they’re born they’re on heir own”.

“Look at the bad thing this pro-lifer did”.

It’s irrelevant. Argue the point or get out of the way of those who are.
I think it is very relevant.

there was a conversation, just a few pages ago about the idea around control. A man who bashes his wife, because he's weak as piss - and also legislating on womens health issues - is relevant to the discussion
 

Chief

Admin
Dec 1, 1999
78,133
47,983
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
The fault in your logic is that you utilise this drivel to judge the issue.

Generic political allegiances have nothing to do with it. This is a science and ethics matter.
The over-regulation of abortion is almost always justified by religious people wanting a religious state. Other times its a political/economic ideology like Communism.

But it is about centralised control in the end. Of women, or of the economy with babies being an input.
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Apr 24, 2013
49,065
93,378
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
The over-regulation of abortion is almost always justified by religious people wanting a religious state. Other times its a political/economic ideology like Communism.
Of course! This is at the crux of the problem.

But it is about centralised control in the end. Of women, or of the economy with babies being an input.
You're leaving something out.
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Apr 24, 2013
49,065
93,378
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
I think it is very relevant.

there was a conversation, just a few pages ago about the idea around control. A man who bashes his wife, because he's weak as piss - and also legislating on womens health issues - is relevant to the discussion

It's relevant if you want to maintain a stupid level of discussion.
 

0utsider

All Australian
Jul 19, 2018
903
1,362
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I think it is very relevant.

there was a conversation, just a few pages ago about the idea around control. A man who bashes his wife, because he's weak as piss - and also legislating on womens health issues - is relevant to the discussion
It's relevant to the conversation about whether or not that bloke is a piece of shit (he is). If you want to start a thread about that go nuts. This thread is about abortion and it's best if we stick to that subject.
 

cartwright

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 7, 2007
6,543
6,218
here
AFL Club
St Kilda
It's relevant if you want to maintain a stupid level of discussion.
This from a poster, who in another thread just updated us all on what you bought at Coles on the weekend. Hint: no one gives a shit.

It's relevant to the conversation about whether or not that bloke is a piece of **** (he is). If you want to start a thread about that go nuts. This thread is about abortion and it's best if we stick to that subject.
This piece of shit, who bashes his wife is legislating on millions of women's medical options. And he punched her in the face because he didn't get sex quick enough. His wife states he loses his temper frequently.

That sounds like controlling behaviour to me and his controlling views of women are what drives him to legislate on womens health issues.
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Apr 24, 2013
49,065
93,378
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
It's relevant to the conversation about whether or not that bloke is a piece of **** (he is). If you want to start a thread about that go nuts. This thread is about abortion and it's best if we stick to that subject.

Some bloke who has a sliver of legislative power regarding abortion over a small population of people on the other side of the planet, smacked his wife, and therefore abortion should be legal/illegal.

It's an absurd argument, arising from a poster notorious for this level of garbage, and deserves to be ignored.
 

0utsider

All Australian
Jul 19, 2018
903
1,362
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
This from a poster, who in another thread just updated us all on what you bought at Coles on the weekend. Hint: no one gives a ****.



This piece of ****, who bashes his wife is legislating on millions of women's medical options. And he punched her in the face because he didn't get sex quick enough. His wife states he loses his temper frequently.

That sounds like controlling behaviour to me and his controlling views of women are what drives him to legislate on womens health issues.

The point of any debate is to get as close to an absolute truth as possible. Talking about this one guy can, at best, establish that his motivations are not pure. That is completely irrelevant to the overall discussion about whether or not it's possible to have have good intentions and a legitimate reason for being anti-abortion. So again, either discuss the actual issue or get out of the way of those who are.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Apr 24, 2013
49,065
93,378
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
The point of any debate is to get as close to an absolute truth as possible. Talking about this one guy can, at best, establish that his motivations are not pure. That is completely irrelevant to the overall discussion about whether or not it's possible to have have good intentions and a legitimate reason for being anti-abortion. So again, either discuss the actual issue or get out of the way of those who are.
Correct. It's a universal issue. Resorting to socio-political parochialism's only serves to derail the discussion.
 

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
18,263
34,345
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
The death penalty is also wrong, however it’s far more excusable than the mass-murder of completely innocent lives before they’ve had a chance to take their first breath of fresh air.

Again though, this is another ad hominem.
Sloganeering aside, Gough is right about this. If your anti-abortion (or pro-life; whatever politically motivated terminology you want) position is based on sanctity of life principles, then there's no 'excusing' capital punishment.
 

0utsider

All Australian
Jul 19, 2018
903
1,362
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Sloganeering aside, Gough is right about this. If your anti-abortion (or pro-life; whatever politically motivated terminology you want) position is based on sanctity of life principles, then there's no 'excusing' capital punishment.

While I am personally both anti-capital punishment and anti-abortion, the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. One can believe that it's wrong to end the life of an innocent being and acceptable to end the life of someone guilty of murder (as an example). Attempting to remove the nuance from your opponents argument does everyone a disservice.
 

Goosecat

Club Legend
Sep 9, 2006
1,020
893
Mandurah
AFL Club
West Coast
While I am personally both anti-capital punishment and anti-abortion, the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. One can believe that it's wrong to end the life of an innocent being and acceptable to end the life of someone guilty of murder (as an example). Attempting to remove the nuance from your opponents argument does everyone a disservice.
This has pretty much become the norm of debates/discussion today. I believe it stems from making available platforms to each and every individual, even those really only capable of very binary absolutes and then placing equal countenance to arguments made by each and every individual regardless of their intellect or educational standards etc. It may be part of an egalitarian "ideal" but undoubtedly has implications for dissemination of information.
There is nuance to every position, but whittling such down to absolutes better suits "identity" arguments. There is of course a difference between an individual taking their own life for example and an individual ceasing the life of another. There are also nuanced arguments to be made regarding so called "consciousness" and science does not have an agreed position as such. Is a recently injured unconscious adult now unable to utilise as someone mentioned above "full functions of electro-chemical processes" suddenly defined as unconscious and equated to this issue, less deserving of life rights?
Defining functioning electro-chemical processes and their extent of operation for example as a "line in the sand" for defining life is a self serving simplification and itself open to all sorts of interpretations. A child feels and responds to pain stimuli from around 14 weeks and responds to threatening stimuli like prodding and light shone into its eyes by evasion from 16 weeks. Is this not electro-chemical response and awareness? Is inflicting pain to a sentient being, knowing it feels pain, acceptable and beyond contemplation and question?
All so called religious and feminist view-points aside, is not the creation and subsequent infliction of pain and destruction of any sentient being worthy of consideration? I would argue such consideration is part of the very defining difference's that separate "humans" from other animals.
It's not black and white, nor should it ever be reduced to such simple, self serving definitions.
 
Last edited:

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
18,263
34,345
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
While I am personally both anti-capital punishment and anti-abortion, the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. One can believe that it's wrong to end the life of an innocent being and acceptable to end the life of someone guilty of murder (as an example). Attempting to remove the nuance from your opponents argument does everyone a disservice.
Yes, not necessarily mutually exclusive, but as I mentioned, if your founding principles is the sanctity of life, you'll have a hard time saying one form of killing is ok when another is not without being hypocritical. It all depends on your rationale.
 

0utsider

All Australian
Jul 19, 2018
903
1,362
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Yes, not necessarily mutually exclusive, but as I mentioned, if your founding principles is the sanctity of life, you'll have a hard time saying one form of killing is ok when another is not without being hypocritical. It all depends on your rationale.
Sounds like you're just looking for a reason to dismiss those who disagree with you rather than actually engaging in debate. The fact that some people who hold a particular belief are hypocrites or bad people does nothing to prove that the belief is inherently wrong.
 

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
18,263
34,345
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
Sounds like you're just looking for a reason to dismiss those who disagree with you rather than actually engaging in debate. The fact that some people who hold a particular belief are hypocrites or bad people does nothing to prove that the belief is inherently wrong.
No, I'm looking at a belief structure and pointing out where it is internally inconsistent in order to challenge it. If someone cites a principle as their authority for being for or against something, then that authority only holds any weight if it's consistent.
 

0utsider

All Australian
Jul 19, 2018
903
1,362
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
No, I'm looking at a belief structure and pointing out where it is internally inconsistent in order to challenge it. If someone cites a principle as their authority for being for or against something, then that authority only holds any weight if it's consistent.
I guess that’s fine as long as it’s done with the understanding that you’re actually doing nothing to establish the morality of abortion, just the morality of a certain group of people who happen to be against abortion.
 

Taylor

Moderator
Jul 16, 2009
39,489
41,002
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
And only apply it to one side. Jeepers the person that has been attacked the most is Cartwright.
Short memory..

The body nobody pro abortion wants to speak for is the most innocent one, the life that is ended. That violent and terrible men were the ones who legislated to protect them should be very relevant, but not how it's being made out.

If you can show me that life doesn't begin when the unique human DNA is formed, I will reassess my opinion.
 

Top Bottom