Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Karnewarrior]

Its terrible you got raped. But as compensation, now you get to look into a face almost the same as the man who did it to you every day for the rest of your life.

Also, you have to feed him and clothe him and be spit upon by fundies who think that sex out of wedlock means they should be able to stone you, even if you were fighting it the whole time.

I honestly don't have a problem with religion but some of the people who practise it make me want to take a chainsaw and shove it in their gut.

[kaijyuu]

Its terrible you got raped. But as compensation, now you get to look into a face almost the same as the man who did it to you every day for the rest of your life.

Well it's hardly the kid's fault, and it'd be pretty horrible to blame them for it.

If PTSD is an issue though, there's adoption.

And of course, abortion, as that's what they were originally talking about.

[Bohandas]

Its terrible you got raped. But as compensation, now you get to look into a face almost the same as the man who did it to you every day for the rest of your life.

Well it's hardly the kid's fault, and it'd be pretty horrible to blame them for it.

If PTSD is an issue though, there's adoption.

I wholeheartedly agree.

And of course, abortion, as that's what they were originally talking about.

Except about this. Abortion, except when medically necessary, is just legitimized eugenics.

[kaijyuu]

Eh. I wash my hands of the whole abortion thing. And I warn that we shouldn't derail this topic with a debate New thread or an existing one if people wanna talk about it.

[Nadaka]

And of course, abortion, as that's what they were originally talking about.

Except about this. Abortion, except when medically necessary, is just legitimized eugenics.

That is a lie. No it is not. Eugenics implies a specific purpose, one that abortion does not inherently carry.

Its terrible you got raped. But as compensation, now you get to look into a face almost the same as the man who did it to you every day for the rest of your life.

Well it's hardly the kid's fault, and it'd be pretty horrible to blame them for it.

If PTSD is an issue though, there's adoption.

And of course, abortion, as that's what they were originally talking about.

You can't really control emotions like that. It doesn't matter if the kid is "blamed" or not, it will always be there in the back of your mind.

And no, adoption is not always an option. It is not in the case of spousal rape.

[lemon10]

Except about this. Abortion, except when medically necessary, is just legitimized eugenics.

No, no its not.

Eugenics is either:

eugenics
  Use Eugenics in a sentence Origin
euˇgenˇics
   [yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics)  or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Or:

ugenics is the applied science of the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.[2][3] The origins of the concept began with certain interpretations of Mendelian inheritance, and the theories of August Weismann.[4]

Eugenics was a controversial concept shortly after its creation.[5] The first major challenge to conventional eugenics based upon genetic inheritance was made in 1915 by Thomas Hunt Morgan, who demonstrated the event of genetic mutation occurring outside of inheritance involving the discovery of the hatching of a fruit fly with white eyes from a family and ancestry of the red-eyed Drosophila melanogaster species of fruit fly.[6] Morgan claimed that this demonstrated that major genetic changes occurred outside of inheritance and that the concept of eugenics based upon genetic inheritance was severely flawed.[6]

Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century.[7] By the mid-20th century eugenics had fallen into disfavor, having become associated with Nazi-Germany. This country's approach to genetics and eugenics was focused on Eugen Fischer's concept of phenogenetics[8] and the Nazi twin study methods of Fischer and Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer. Both the public and some elements of the scientific community have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced "racial hygiene", human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups.[citation needed]

Personal abortion falls into neither of those definitions, abortion policy can fall into either ones, but unless you are aborting your baby to improve the genepool or because you are poor and think poor people should be sterilized and never have babies because they are genetic losers (which is one of the things some of the proponents of eugenics actually thought), then its not engenics at all.

[Leafsnail]

There comes a point where it doesn't matter if a statement was intentionally trolling or not.

[Bohandas]

Except about this. Abortion, except when medically necessary, is just legitimized eugenics.

No, no its not.

Eugenics is either:

eugenics
  Use Eugenics in a sentence Origin
euˇgenˇics
   [yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects¹ or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits2 (negative eugenics) ...

Ok, so it only meets half the definition. The specified end is not pursued, but the actions taken are equivalent to if it was.

¹ Such as down syndrome

²Such as a propensity for violence inherited from a rapist father

[Nadaka]

Except about this. Abortion, except when medically necessary, is just legitimized eugenics.

No, no its not.

Eugenics is either:

eugenics
  Use Eugenics in a sentence Origin
euˇgenˇics
   [yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects¹ or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits2 (negative eugenics) ...

Ok, so it only meets half the definition. The specified end is not pursued, but the actions taken are equivalent to if it was.

¹ Such as down syndrome

²Such as a propensity for violence inherited from a rapist father

No. It does not. You clearly stated that: "Abortion, except when medically necessary, is just legitimized eugenics."
Abortion based on the personal interests of the mother does not qualify as eugenics. Therefore you lied. Period.

[USEC_OFFICER]

I was going to post something about abortion, but I see that this is just going to devolve into a flamewar between Bohandas and everyone else so...

Can we all be mature and get back to talking about the election? Have any polls come out since the last Obama-Rommey debate?

[kaijyuu]

And I warn that we shouldn't derail this topic with a debate New thread or an existing one if people wanna talk about it.

The progressive thread exists for a reason. The new topic button exists for a reason. This is waaay too controversial an issue to discuss in the general election thread.

[PTTG??]

Abortion is probably the only philosophically reasonable difference between democrats and republicans.

The difference is, I think, entirely in the definition of "human". There is agreement that not everything which is alive and which has human genes, such as cell cultures and tumors, is a human being.

I believe that there is a non-discrete but important gradient between the not-yet-human and the fully-human. Some feel that there must be a sharp dividing line, which is reasonable insomuch as subjective definitions leave uncomfortable room for later injustices. The place they often choose for this line is conception, which certainly is a momentous event and the first moment at which a specific human genome will come into existence.

The severity of this philosophical divide should not be understated. Consider those who bomb abortion clinics. While if one considers full humanity an accumulated property, rather than an inherent one, the act of violence against provisors of abortion is abhorrent. In the opposite case, it is no less reasonable than violence against someone attempting to execute random adults.

Considering this, the best way to convince someone of your position about abortion is to convince them to share your definition of humanity. Compare this to the arguments generally made for or against abortion. For, the argument is that it is the pregnant woman's choice as to what they define life to be (which, while noble-sounding, is contrary to most law's objective definitions). Against, the arguments are usually biblical, which is insufficient for the majority of Americans and contrary to the constitution.

I would very much like to ask each candidate exactly how they define a human being.

[kaijyuu]

I'm one of the "strict dividing line" people but I cannot decide on where exactly to draw that line. So, I try to remain as neutral as possible, and let the cards fall where they will. No blood on my hands, that way.

My current expectation is they will eventually fall on the more liberal side.

[SealyStar]

I'm one of the "strict dividing line" people but I cannot decide on where exactly to draw that line. So, I try to remain as neutral as possible, and let the cards fall where they will. No blood on my hands, that way.

My current expectation is they will eventually fall on the more liberal side.

I feel the same. I think there's a certain point where it becomes immoral to kill the fetus, once it becomes more of a live human- but since I don't know where the cutoff is, I'm not going to argue it.

I suspect that it will eventually land on the liberal side- and that's probably closer to what I think than the conservatives' "only in cases rape or incest, or for the life of the mother".

[Glowcat]

Considering this, the best way to convince someone of your position about abortion is to convince them to share your definition of humanity. Compare this to the arguments generally made for or against abortion. For, the argument is that it is the pregnant woman's choice as to what they define life to be (which, while noble-sounding, is contrary to most law's objective definitions). Against, the arguments are usually biblical, which is insufficient for the majority of Americans and contrary to the constitution

This is very true and it's something that annoys me about discourse in pro-abortion camps. Not that they don't also talk about personhood on occasion, but the choice part dominates the conversation.  Back in Highschool when I was still against abortion my hang-up was that I considered the fetus a person and from that frame of reference all the pro-choice arguments sounded insane (because "they're killing babies!") even though I could understand why a woman wouldn't want to be forced to give birth and the inherent unfairness of it. I also know where people like Ryan and Mourduck are coming from, even though I vehemently disagree with them today. It's really a consistent position on their part and I grow tired of attempts in the media to simplify it as 'extreme' anti-abortion, as if positions are simply based on a dial and we should all seek a happy middle-ground.