Yeah? Well, my point remains, and remains simple: it's unreasonable to interpret Draug's words as a threat. That's all.

No, Putin, I could see taking offense at that. I just couldn't see calling it a threat.

You called me thin skinned, liar.

okay it's past 10, homework then bed, time to part with words of wisdom

stay chill based fam basedgod loves you all - Lil B

"You think its thin skinned when somebody thinks the world is better off with me dead. Go fuck yourself. "

There Putin goes advocating self rape, a new and little known phenomena on the rape scene but nonetheless worthy of Putin's advocacy.

Of all the nonsense you could have been a pedantic little ass about, you chose that. Thats Semck in a nutshell.

I did call you thin skinned. Yes. I consider it thin skinned to allow an offensive remark (and an obviously rhetorical one, for that matter) to allow one's judgement to be clouded to the extent of calling it a threat when it was not.

That doesn't mean the remark wasn't offensive.

I'll chalk up the "liar" retort to your trying to turn on me the fact that I have caught you in a couple of different lies in the last few months, and let it go at that.

Your hissy fit over being called out on your bloodthirsty love of gratuitously nuking civilians got old already.

What the fuck are you guys getting on about? Can't you discuss your twelve year old bitchy girl insults in private or something?

Huh?

No, not really. Good to know you tally your supposed victories in your head, pedant.

No, santa and semck decided to shit on thus thread for no apparent reason.

lol, I'll probably have to cop to pedant.

Anyway, I'm out. Have a good one.

Itll be good now.

Yeah, thats what I thought bloodthirsty semck and putin the rape advocate

Glad Santa could run interference for weasal prolifers. Good one, Santa.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/scarjo_popcorn.gif

No idea what a "weasel profiler" is let alone a "weasal profiler"

But that was one attractive Jewish lady in ghug's picture.

I didnt write profiler, clown.

@Celticfox,

I would like to get your opinion about the subject, as a woman. I said in an earlier post that I understand both sides of the issue, as well as being well versed in the legal debate. What I am curious about, however, is the concept of a woman's freedom over her body being directly tied to the destructive act of terminating a life. Why does freedom for one group have to come at the expense of another? I understand that it is a woman's body at issue, but also as is the body of another. This concept that everything has to be equal, all the time, no matter the differences is ludicrous, IMO. Women carry babies, there is nothing that anyone can do about that. It's like women claim that the fetus inside them is their property to do with what they wish. But, that fetus didn't get there by itself spontaneously, it needed a sperm from a man. Does that man have any right to the fetus? Does the fact that fetus is inside the woman give her complete dominion over it's fate?

I am not "anti-abortion" I just think that its very sad that woman equate reproductive freedom with right to destroy life. I don't have the answers, obviously. I just think that there are certain aspects of nature that cannot be overcome by laws.

Couple of questions for the pro-lifers: are there any circumstances under which allowing a woman to unilaterally choose to have an abortion is morally justifiable?

Emphasis on "unilaterally choose," by the way, because no matter where you draw the line as to where life begins or whatever other benchmark, everyone agrees that if an abortion is to happen, it's better that it be done early and worse that it be done late. The ability to choose to have an abortion and then get it done with no state interference is the way to have it happen most quickly.

That means no requirement to notify anyone, no need to seek official approval from anyone, and no necessity to communicate with anyone other than the abortion provider prior to having the procedure done. The reason is because the very act of subjecting abortion to legal requirements and procedure, and therefore delaying when it happens, makes it worse when it eventually does happen.

I submit that if there is any circumstance under which allowing a woman to unilaterally choose to have an abortion is morally justifiable, then placing any legal obstacle in her way to having an abortion is not morally justifiable.

I believe that this makes me "pro-choice."

But if there are NO circumstances under which allowing a woman to unilaterally choose to have an abortion is morally justifiable, and the moral onus of the abortion is so great in magnitude from the very moment of conception that any greater onus added by the clock ticking away towards birth is trivial in comparison to the onerous bulk of the onus (a position that I would describe as "pro-life"), under what circumstances would granting a woman's request to have an abortion be morally justifiable?

Regardless of the answer to that... if abortion has a death toll in the millions, then surely preventing it from being necessary justifies at least as much public expenditure as, say, the War on Terror. The good news is that government-provided birth control could be done for a fraction of the cost, so I don't buy any "fiscal conservative" reasons not to do it.

Really, if you consider yourself to be "pro-life," the best way to demonstrate would be to hand out vouchers for non-abortive birth control. After all, we conservatives believe that human nature is not malleable,

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/classical-liberal/human-nature-conservative-classical-liberal-libertarian-view

and that to attempt to change it through the coercive power of the state is folly. We've got to work with what we've got, and asking women to avoid pregnancy solely by way of moral restraint and gun ownership is just unrealistic.

You know what costs more than The Pill? Welfare, public schools, food stamps, foster homes, police, prisons, social workers.

It simply does not make sense to be pro-life and not see the clear moral advantage in state-subsidized pre-conception birth control. A little bit of expenditure would prevent a host of life loss. Nor does it make sense to be a fiscal conservative and not see the tax-dollar savings involved in giving women access to birth control. One dollar on a shot today will save millions down the line.

tldr: if not pro-choice, why not free contraception?

"if not pro-choice, why not free contraception?"

+1

@MM I'll try to answer you point by point

There's no proof that life (and by life I mean a thinking, feeling human) begins at conception. It's not really one group versus another, it's more women versus the parasite on her body.

I personally don't see any problem with abortion until third trimester when the fetus could, in theory, survive. It's not for me to decide what another women does though. It's her body and the choice should be made with her partner and/or doctor.

As for Father's rights I just don't have a good answer. No women should be forced to give birth. I'm sorry but that's a form of torture right there. But, on the other hand the father should have some rights. I'm really conflicted about this. Really before two people start having intercourse they should talk about with they want if an unexpected pregnancy occurs.

As for the women having control over it's fate. As of now yes. There's to many ways for a person to control another by forcing her to have a child. Maybe if they were going to have a late trimester abortion and he agreed to take all rights and responsibilities I would feel differently. This is why father's rights is such a hard topic for me.

I don't see it as a right to destroy life btw. You need to prove when life begins before calling it that. Especially in the first trimester. You're right there are no good answers. I certainly don't have them. Main thing is I don't believe anyone should be able to tell anyone else (male or female) what to do with their body. I wouldn't want to see what kind of things that could lead to.

@CF,

When life begins is the issue, in a nut shell. Pro-choice advocates have their criterion, while pro-lifers have their own. Neither is right, while neither is wrong. But, I think the concept that life begins at conception is at least the easiest, although not politically convenient, date to go by -- any other time is arbitrary and agenda driven, IMO. Again, I am not pro-life, I just happen to think that an abortion is more of a legal issue than a medical issue.

@ Draug - At any rate, your solution is no kind of a solution at all. At any point in a pregnancy, any point at all, an abortion always entails less medical risk than birth. So even your solution forces women to take on more medical risk than they strictly need to.
And it's not as though a premature birth is risk free for a baby either.
"A long-term study demonstrated that the risks of medical and social disabilities extend into adulthood and are higher with decreasing gestational age at birth and include cerebral palsy, mental retardation, disorders of psychological development, behavior, and emotion, disabilities of vision and hearing, and epilepsy.[83] Standard intelligence tests showed that 41 percent of children born between 22 and 25 weeks had moderate or severe learning disabilities when compared to the test scores of a group of similar classmates who were born at full-term.[12] It is also shown that higher levels of education were less likely to be obtained with decreasing gestational age at birth.[83] People born prematurely may be more susceptible to developing depression as teenagers." - And that's assuming the baby survives, which also isn't guaranteed.

Also you seem to be going on the assumption that survival is always preferable in every case. This woman disagrees: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/15/i-wish-my-mother-aborted-me

"But, I think the concept that life begins at conception is at least the easiest, although not politically convenient, date to go by -- any other time is arbitrary and agenda driven, IMO." - That's pretty arbitrary too. Umm and also a pretty narrow definition of human life. I mean, we're talking a single cell at that point. If you're worried about the death of a single cell, there's no hope for you.

Actually, it's the antithesis of arbitrary, it's definitive. That is the moment that a new life begins to form, there is no debating that. There are only really two points that aren't arbitrary, conception and birth. All other times, IMO, are left open for interpretation. The definition of life might be narrow, but it is life nonetheless. Is it "human" of course. It might not be functionally human, but that is only a time issue. Again, I don't adhere to the pro- life concept that under no circumstances can a fetus be aborted. I just think that people who make the claim that life doesn't begin at conception would change their tune if the government, like in china, forced them to abort. They would feel violated, that their baby's life was snuffed out. It would give them no sollace to be told, "what are you so upset about? It wasn't really a human life yet anyway." As such, these other dates are arbitrary and used to suit a political need.

"I just think that people who make the claim that life doesn't begin at conception would change their tune if the government, like in china, forced them to abort."

They'd probably be upset about the "forced abortion" thing, but I don't see how this would cause anyone to reconsider their position on a woman's right to choose abortion. That's like saying that drug legalization advocates wouldn't be in favor of legalizing drugs if the government forced them to take drugs. It's a completely nonsensical position.

OK MM I see what you're getting at there, but also, uhhh what? I mean, you keep saying that you're not pro-life, while at the same time defending the very cornerstone of pro-life arguments, that life begins at conception. I mean, it's all well and good for you to say "now I'm not anti-abortion" but if you then turn around and say "but every time a fetus is aborted someone has killed a human" you're arguing for the pro-life side. Sorry. So my question to you is, if human life can be defined as any kind of biological function which contains human DNA, why is that so worth preserving? Why is a lump of undifferentiated cells more important than a woman's right to decide what happens to her body.

And for the record then, my definition of when life begins is by your own admission also definitive then. I take the view that life begins at birth.

And now for a more philosophical question. What is it that gives life value? Your Chinese government example is very illuminating. Why would the women forced to have abortions feel that life had begun? Certainly they'd be very upset, but is "life ended" the only reason to get upset at something? I've been upset at plenty of things that were not matters of life and death.

Secondly, we seem to be working on the assumption that life is always preferable to non-life or to death. Why is that? Why is death universally, unequivocally a bad thing?