Liberals are sick!

[Blackflagx]

I am pro-choice up until the point where the fetus is viable. If the fetus has grown enough to be able to survive if it came out, then abortion should be illegal. However, up until this point, the fetus is not a human life. Therefore, it is part of the womans body and she should have the right to control her own body.

 

[Shye]

I am not really for abortion and yet I am more libral the conservative. WHOA! never knew a liberal is against abortion? I am against partial birth abortion totally. Make that illegal, but not all abortion, since there will always be people getting abortion. So better be safe and not have woman beating themselfs up and killing themselfs over a fetus. Better to kill one life the two.

 

[geekgrrl]

I'm actually on MOZO's side. I'm for abortion when it comes to rape or if the mother's life is at stake. If you use abortion for birth control then you got to admit that is pretty sick. From now on I'll call the act of abortion sick, not the people who support it. My apologies.

Believe it or not, I agree with you in part. Those who use abortion as a form of birth control need some sort of traffic school-type class to teach them about responsible sex and birth control. However, since such women would most likely also be quite poor and illiterate and largely unemployable, I would prefer to use a "responsible sex and responsible parenting" approach as part of a broader program to help them bootstrap themselves out of poverty and (most likely) codependency and into economic and personal self-sufficiency.

These programs have been shown to work, over and over and over again. When the conservative-led government sees fit to fund them, that is.

 

[RightinNYC]

However, since such women would most likely also be quite poor and illiterate and largely unemployable"

Really? Any statistics to back that up? Or is that your "liberal elitist" attitude that you claim you don't have showing through. I'd really like to see the study that claimed that the majority of women who use abortion as birth control are illiterate and unemployable. Also, what women use abortion as birth control? Any numbers for what portion of the population that is?

These programs have been shown to work, over and over and over again. When the conservative-led government sees fit to fund them, that is.

Really? Such as what programs? Care to elaborate on how their success rates were higher than others? Or care to explain how exactly "conservative-led government" took away their funding?

You should be a little bit more careful from now on about making broad, unsubstantiated arguments, otherwise people might begin to think you just pull all of your "information" out of the air...

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I am pro-choice up until the point where the fetus is viable. If the fetus has grown enough to be able to survive if it came out, then abortion should be illegal. However, up until this point, the fetus is not a human life. Therefore, it is part of the womans body and she should have the right to control her own body.

The fetus is viable out side the womb at about 7 out of 9 months. You're telling me that for 7 months it's not a human life and the ::snap:: it's a human life and is illegal?

Left untouched, it is a human life. If you can convice me otherwise, I might reconsider my pro life stance.

 

[RightinNYC]

The fetus is viable out side the womb at about 7 out of 9 months. You're telling me that for 7 months it's not a human life and the ::snap:: it's a human life and is illegal?

Left untouched, it is a human life. If you can convice me otherwise, I might reconsider my pro life stance.

Agreed. I love when people make that argument, because then you can cite a few facts at them.

The most premature baby ever born was born 128 days early. That's over FOUR MONTHS early. So because it's impossible to judge each baby's viability, the threshold for abortions would have to be placed at 5 months.

When you ask abortion advocates if they would support limiting abortion to 5 months, they look at you as if you're the devil. But anything after that, and you're killing what could conceiveably live outside the mother.

 

[geekgrrl]

Really? Any statistics to back that up? Or is that your "liberal elitist" attitude that you claim you don't have showing through. I'd really like to see the study that claimed that the majority of women who use abortion as birth control are illiterate and unemployable. Also, what women use abortion as birth control? Any numbers for what portion of the population that is?



Really? Such as what programs? Care to elaborate on how their success rates were higher than others? Or care to explain how exactly "conservative-led government" took away their funding?

You should be a little bit more careful from now on about making broad, unsubstantiated arguments, otherwise people might begin to think you just pull all of your "information" out of the air...

Where are your statistics and citations to refute any of my arguments? If you can read as well as you can blubber, you'll observe I couched my phrases carefully so as not to be taken as making absolutist claims. I'm making a post based on both my personal experience and my general knowledge. When I'm making a post that requires references, I cite them.

So, hot-shot, it's your onus to cite your refutation sources. Only after you can prove using sources we both agree are credible that I'm in error will it be worth my while to refute your refutation with my own.

Don't let the door hit your tail between your legs on your way out.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Where are your statistics and citations to refute any of my arguments? If you can read as well as you can blubber, you'll observe I couched my phrases carefully so as not to be taken as making absolutist claims. I'm making a post based on both my personal experience and my general knowledge. When I'm making a post that requires references, I cite them.

So, hot-shot, it's your onus to cite your refutation sources. Only after you can prove using sources we both agree are credible that I'm in error will it be worth my while to refute your refutation with my own.

Don't let the door hit your tail between your legs on your way out.

I believe you were the one to make the comment that needs backing up. So I guess technically it's your "onus" and not NYU's.

 

[Pacridge]

Where are your statistics and citations to refute any of my arguments? If you can read as well as you can blubber, you'll observe I couched my phrases carefully so as not to be taken as making absolutist claims. I'm making a post based on both my personal experience and my general knowledge. When I'm making a post that requires references, I cite them.

So, hot-shot, it's your onus to cite your refutation sources. Only after you can prove using sources we both agree are credible that I'm in error will it be worth my while to refute your refutation with my own.

Don't let the door hit your tail between your legs on your way out.

How can you ask for "statistics and citations to refute any of my arguments?" When you didn't provide any to begin with?

 

[RightinNYC]

Where are your statistics and citations to refute any of my arguments? If you can read as well as you can blubber, you'll observe I couched my phrases carefully so as not to be taken as making absolutist claims. I'm making a post based on both my personal experience and my general knowledge. When I'm making a post that requires references, I cite them.

So, hot-shot, it's your onus to cite your refutation sources. Only after you can prove using sources we both agree are credible that I'm in error will it be worth my while to refute your refutation with my own.

Don't let the door hit your tail between your legs on your way out.

I don't need statistics or citations to refute them. You can't claim anecdotal evidence as truth, then throw a hissy fit when someone asks you to support your claims.

There ARE no sources to disprove your claims because there are no sources to back them up. It's pointless to ask for a rebuttal if you don't provide anything worth rebutting.

Example: 86% of liberals hate America.

If I asked you to refute that, you couldn't, because it's such an outrageous claim that there are no statistics to argue either for or against it. Just because you would be unable to refute it wouldn't mean it were true.

And thank you for your concern, but my tail's fine.

 

[geekgrrl]

I believe you were the one to make the comment that needs backing up. So I guess technically it's your "onus" and not NYU's.

I'll reiterate: "I couched my phrases carefully so as not to be taken as making absolutist claims. I'm making a post based on both my personal experience and my general knowledge. When I'm making a post that requires references, I cite them."

If I am writing an article which is to be taken as scholarship, it will be replete with references. Since I'm expressing my opinion, I am under no obligation to buttress it with concurring opinion.

So, let's both of us just wait for NYU to justify his critique of my opinion with his references. I think it'll be a long wait.

 

[RightinNYC]

I'll reiterate: "I couched my phrases carefully so as not to be taken as making absolutist claims. I'm making a post based on both my personal experience and my general knowledge. When I'm making a post that requires references, I cite them."

If I am writing an article which is to be taken as scholarship, it will be replete with references. Since I'm expressing my opinion, I am under no obligation to buttress it with concurring opinion.

So, let's both of us just wait for NYU to justify his critique of my opinion with his references. I think it'll be a long wait.

My opinion is that your claims are based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, and are thus irrelevant. I would opine that your statements imply that you have no real knowledge of the situation, and are contributing nothing to the debate.

I'll cite as evidence all of your other recent posts, in which you carry on your proud tradition of claiming opinion as fact.

Of course, if you'd like to rebut my opinions with more of your own, you're more than welcome. Any statistics to prove that MY opinions are wrong? The onus is on you now.

:lol:

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I believe your "opinion" was aimed at being a statistic. I believe that is what started it the source request.

However, since such women would most likely also be quite poor and illiterate and largely unemployable...

You own a computer, so your probably not in poverty and you're reading and typing back so I can assume you're not illiterate. What kind of personal experiences are you exactly drawing from?

All he asked for was a source and then you made a remark about hitting his tail with a door... So, maybe you should pretend like you're writing to an article and just post a source? I don't know. I have been called an idealist before...

 

[Fantasea]

the issue of abortion is simple yet people make it out to be bigger than it is.When you take away all the yelling and political name calling it comes down to a female who becomes pregnant and does not wish to give birth to the child and therefore wants it to be aborted.

That's why it's referred to as "abortion on demand". Currently, there are no restrictions. Abortion is legal for any reason or no reason any time up to the emergence of the head from the birth canal.

But let us take a step back and examine other aspects of abortion. What if a medical situation came about where a pregnant mother would die if her child wasnt aborted thus killing her and the child, what would the conservatives and the religious right do then. Two people will die , the mother and her unborn child, or would you choose to let the child die so that the mother can live another day , and possibly give birth to another child.

In the event the mother was in danger of death during childbirth, doctors would make every effort to save both lives. In the event that the child could not be saved, but the mother could, the resulting death of the child would not be an abortion because the intent was to save it, if at all possible.

In my personal opinion i do not support abortion, but i do support the choice.

This was the argument of folks in the pre-Civil War days who said, "Personally, I would never own slaves. However, I would not deny others the right to own slaves."

Even if a woman doesn't want to have an abortion , she should at least have the choice. Banning abortion would be like banning guns, or banning cigarette's , or alcohol . I know that they are not on the same level as abortion but think if you were to walk into a bar and ask for a drink. Now i know some people will say "well i'm not a drinker , I don't drink" and for all of those people I say ok you don't drink. It isn't that you do or don't drink , the point is that you have the choice. You have the choice to drink , or the choice to vote , not saying you do or you don't but you have the choice. Choices are what a free nation free and woman should have the choice to have an abortion no matter how wrong people may feel it is , it is a choice and it isn't our choice.

The choices you mention do not result in the immediate death of a child in its mother' womb.

 

[shh!]

Liberals just say feotus just to cover up how sick they really are. What if you were an aborted baby? Would you say to your mom-" Mom it's ok that you didn't want to take care of me. You were right. Killing me was the best thing that you have ever done." KILL KILL KILL!

Well, I admit I have not read all the way through the 12 pages of posts (I am aware of all the regular arguments), but I wanted to say that the name of this thread is really stupid.

 

[ENS]

I think based on the title of this thread and the many Republican response's that it proves we should have many more abortions and in the case of Republicans they should be retroactive. :2razz: :2razz: :2razz:

 

[geekgrrl]

My opinion is that your claims are based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, and are thus irrelevant. I would opine that your statements imply that you have no real knowledge of the situation, and are contributing nothing to the debate.

I'll cite as evidence all of your other recent posts, in which you carry on your proud tradition of claiming opinion as fact.

Of course, if you'd like to rebut my opinions with more of your own, you're more than welcome. Any statistics to prove that MY opinions are wrong? The onus is on you now.

I know you think very highly of yourself as a Master(de)bator, but if that's what you are, then you should know that one of the ground rules is that an opinion is just that -- an opinion. One is under no obligation to substantiate an opinion. This is an opinion forum, and I'm not earning any academic credits for posting here (neither are you, in case you didn't notice, so maybe you'd be better off concentrating on your homework instead).

If you're in a more formal exercise (which I do not consider this forum to be), you need to do the research. I'm gainfully employed (which you apparently are not), so my time here is mostly limited to opinions, not research.

You've undoubtedly noticed by now that this is more or less a no-holds-barred forum. There are no formalisms, no real rules beyond common courtesy (the courtesy here is pretty common, all right), and probably 60% of the posters I've seen here are functionally illiterate. People here frequently cite their religious beliefs as though everyone has an obligation to grant them the same credibility as peer-reviewed scientific research. Fantasea is an excellent example of this kind of delusional thinking. She can cite reams of medical textbooks in support of the idea that the biological output of human fertilization is a human, but misses entirely the point that it is the personhood (legal status) of the conceptus which is at issue. I will give you credit for more intelligence than that. When it's important enough to me to buttress my arguments, I will do so -- hopefully without restating the obvious as so many others do here.

I look forward to debating you because if you want to debate as if it were a closed-book test (by that I mean a contest of ideas with minimal references, and only when they are really necessary, so as not to get bogged down in the many side disputes they can generate), then maybe I'll finally get some worthwhile exercise here. Most reasonably intelligent people can spar with ideas without having to cite reams of references. If you're game, I'm game.

 

[geekgrrl]

I believe your "opinion" was aimed at being a statistic. I believe that is what started it the source request.



You own a computer, so your probably not in poverty and you're reading and typing back so I can assume you're not illiterate. What kind of personal experiences are you exactly drawing from?

All he asked for was a source and then you made a remark about hitting his tail with a door... So, maybe you should pretend like you're writing to an article and just post a source? I don't know. I have been called an idealist before...

I'm not writing an article. I'm expressing my opinion. And, yes, I am drawing in part from the personal experience of being very poor in my youth and becoming acquainted with the tales of woe of people I met in places I stayed in, such as a Salvation Army shelter or while hopping a train hobo-style while running from the police who were chasing me for breaking and entering. That's probably what made a bleeding-heart liberal out of me and I've never been sorry for that. When you realize just how vulnerable people can be, you begin to understand how fragile and tenuous is our existence here, and you see the world with different eyes. So I'm expressing my opinion based on what I've lived.

I hope this is satisfactory for you, because it's the best I can give you in this particular instance.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Well you see, just as you mentioned to NYU, you see this as your opinion, but saying someting like you said isn't an opinion at all. For instance:

In my opinion, most people on Earth are from Mexico.

I said my opinion, but that statement that followed was asserting that the majority of people in the world are Mexican. That's not true.

Isn't debating all about challenging each others opinions in the first place?

I apologize. Let's try to swing this back to topic. I believe that abortion is the destruction of human life. I believe that destruction of human life, in any form, is wrong.

 

[codyvo]

Liberals just say feotus just to cover up how sick they really are. What if you were an aborted baby? Would you say to your mom-" Mom it's ok that you didn't want to take care of me. You were right. Killing me was the best thing that you have ever done." KILL KILL KILL!

Do you support the war? Do you support the death penalty?
If so then why do you think its fair to kill LIVING people but not fetus' that haven't even developed into a human yet. Also, you say that fetus' are humans they just haven't developed yet, well then if that's the case, then you shouldn't ever have sex or masterbate because that would be killing sperms which are humans, just not developed yet.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Do you support the war? Do you support the death penalty? If so then why do you think its fair to kill LIVING people but not fetus' that haven't even developed into a human yet.

I don't support war or the death penalty or abortion. A fetus is a stage in human development, left alone away from scrapers, tongs, or a vaccum, it would become a human. If you can prove that wrong, congradulations.

Also, you say that fetus' are humans they just haven't developed yet, well then if that's the case, then you shouldn't ever have sex or masterbate because that would be killing sperms which are humans, just not developed yet.

Sperm, if not ejaculated "manually" from the body, will be ejaculated naturally in the form of nocturnal emissions because the male body never stops producing it and the testicles can only get so big. Eggs, when not fertilized, are also passed naturally in the menstrual cycle. And yes sometime's zygotes are naturally destroyed as well. The key there is natural. Not many abortions are done at the zygote stage. It's not natural for a doctor to scrape out a fetus.

 

[Fantasea]

Fantasea is an excellent example of this kind of delusional thinking. She can cite reams of medical textbooks in support of the idea that the biological output of human fertilization is a human, but misses entirely the point that it is the personhood (legal status) of the conceptus which is at issue.

Personhood and legal status. OK. That's fair. In fact there is precedent for exactly that concept.

Initially, according to the law, negroes, as they were called at the time, had personhood equivilent of 3/5 of a man and no legal status. Eventually, the legislators wised up, didn't they?

Up until 1973, there was no question as to the personhood and legal status of unborn babies. Yet, with the stroke of a pen, as it were, it was eliminated.

Yet, state by state, things are changing. You saw what happened to Scott Peterson in California; convicted of second degree murder in the death of the child in the womb of Laci Peterson. Some twenty-four states have enacted similar legislation.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which amends Title 18 of the United States Code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice by defining a violent attack on a pregnant women as two distinct crimes: one against the woman herself, and the other against her unborn child.

All of this legislation recognizes a single, secular fact.

 

[Fantasea]

Do you support the war? Do you support the death penalty?
If so then why do you think its fair to kill LIVING people but not fetus' that haven't even developed into a human yet. Also, you say that fetus' are humans they just haven't developed yet, well then if that's the case, then you shouldn't ever have sex or masterbate because that would be killing sperms which are humans, just not developed yet.

As a matter of principle, I am against war. As a matter of principle, I am against the death penalty.

Now, on what basis do you claim that a fetus is not a human being?

All that being said, think about this.

A person who receives the death penalty is a mature individual who has been convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death in a court of law. The sentence is not carried out immediately and is subject to appeals that usually take more than ten years to exhaust. In a number of instances, the death penalty is never carried out. In 2002, in the US there were 71 executions. In 2003, 65, and in 2004, 59.

That's 195 in a three year period.

A child who is aborted receives the death penalty. It is immediate, there is no appeal. The crime? Simply making an appearance at an inopportune time. Planned Parenthood estimates that in the US in the year 2000, there were 1,313,000 abortions. In 2001, 1,303,000, and in 2002, 1,293,000.

That's nearly four million in a three year period.

How is there an equivalency between the two situations?

 

[RightinNYC]

I know you think very highly of yourself as a Master(de)bator, but if that's what you are, then you should know that one of the ground rules is that an opinion is just that -- an opinion. One is under no obligation to substantiate an opinion. This is an opinion forum, and I'm not earning any academic credits for posting here (neither are you, in case you didn't notice, so maybe you'd be better off concentrating on your homework instead).

The semester's over, but thank you for your concern.

You're completely and unequivocally entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to say that it's bullshit for you to make claims like "such women would most likely also be quite poor and illiterate and largely unemployable" when there's no evidence to back them up.

You said: "These programs have been shown to work, over and over and over again. When the conservative-led government sees fit to fund them, that is."

I asked you for an example of programs that worked, but were cut by conservative governments. I don't think that's unreasonable, but you threw a tantrum, taking me to task for questioning your knowledge, as if everything you say should be implicitly accepted as fact.

If you're in a more formal exercise (which I do not consider this forum to be), you need to do the research. I'm gainfully employed (which you apparently are not), so my time here is mostly limited to opinions, not research.

I'm actually quite gainfully employed, especially for someone at my stage of my career, again, thanks for your concern.

And I'd think that knowing ONE IOTA of information to back up either of your claims wouldn't be too heavy of a burden to place on someone, even someone who's gainfully employed such as yourself.

You've undoubtedly noticed by now that this is more or less a no-holds-barred forum. There are no formalisms, no real rules beyond common courtesy (the courtesy here is pretty common, all right), and probably 60% of the posters I've seen here are functionally illiterate.

Hahahaha, I've got to give you credit for that comment. =)

I look forward to debating you because if you want to debate as if it were a closed-book test (by that I mean a contest of ideas with minimal references, and only when they are really necessary, so as not to get bogged down in the many side disputes they can generate), then maybe I'll finally get some worthwhile exercise here. Most reasonably intelligent people can spar with ideas without having to cite reams of references. If you're game, I'm game.

I'm not asking for reams of references. Surely you can understand that making incredibly broad, stereotypical statements when there is absolutely no evidence to support them is different from stating a commonly held fact without citation.

I wouldn't make statements like "90% of poor illiterate minorities are liberal because dumb people are liberal" and expect not to be called on it.

 

[justiceisboughtnotblind]

Liberals just say feotus just to cover up how sick they really are. What if you were an aborted baby? Would you say to your mom-" Mom it's ok that you didn't want to take care of me. You were right. Killing me was the best thing that you have ever done." KILL KILL KILL!

next time anyone gets a chance look at the first post from satanloveslibs because yes if i was an ABORTED baby i would be able to go and spread my message across the land. Please, he's making it seem like all abortions are done out of hatred and people who even consider abortion are evil. Well satanloveslibs
just for your future information please read up on all medical complications that could lead to an abortion so yea do your homework kid.