jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (85 posts)

Ridiculous

  1. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    http://i969.photobucket.com/albums/ae179/ajk07734/linuschoice_zps50e6f30c.jpg

    http://i969.photobucket.com/albums/ae17 … e6f30c.jpg

    To be clear, both sides are hypocritical like this. Rightists tend to say that you can't choose who to marry, can't choose to do drugs, can't choose to buy alcohol before noon on Sundays, etc...

    Liberal: "Mr. Government, please force that conservative not to do what I think is bad!"
    Conservative: "Mr. Government, please force that liberal not to do what I think is bad!"

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Kinda sad, this thread was an interesting question and now it's just another abortion thread.

      I think the original point is very good, authoritarianism is owned by neither party but by factions within both, I guess where the issue becomes complex for me is when these actions directly affect the lives of others without their consent and without extraordinary circumstances, conservatives see that as the abortion debate and I would see that as the global warming issues that you mention in the comic, right-wingers don't believe you should be allowed to kill a fetus, left wingers don't believe you should be allowed to damage the environment that affects us all, according to Kofi Annan and UN studies global warming kills about 300 000 people a year.

      I think there is trade and compromise to be found on these issues.

      1. wilderness profile image99
        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        A part of the problem, and perhaps a major part, it seems to me is the underlying belief.  Not incontrovertible fact, belief.

        Abortion is murder - if the fetus is a person.

        Global warming is a problem we should address - if it's actually happening and human activity is a significant cause.

        Environmental damage is a real concern that needs addressed - if it's "significant" and the gain to humanity isn't of greater importance than the damage.

        It's hard to trade and compromise when beliefs are concerned and opposing.

  2. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    That's a pretty clear straw man argument, and dodgy re: copyright too.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Straw man argument? Really?

      So you never see someone who says 'The government shouldn't tell a woman what she can do with her body' also be on the side of the likes of Bloomberg?

      Besides, did you completely miss the point about this being a problem among all political ideologies?

      ETA: also fair-use and satire smile

  3. peeples profile image92
    peeplesposted 4 years ago

    I'm pro choice for all of it! It's none of my business what others choose to do. Not the government's business either if you ask me!

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yup, we should focus more on libertarian vs. authoritarian than we focus on right vs. left.

    2. tsadjatko profile image79
      tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      For all of it? So you think we should have the right to choose to murder someone if we want to without consequences?

      1. peeples profile image92
        peeplesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I was referring to everything that was mentioned in the photo and in the text below the photo. I thought that'd be pretty obvious since murder wasn't in the discussion.

      2. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        well that escalated quickly...

        Why do you equate freedom to do what you want with your own body with freedom to do what you want with someone else?

        1. tsadjatko profile image79
          tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Depends on how you define someone else. A fetus, in my book is someone else. So I am not equating "freedom to do with your own body with freedom to do what you want with someone else?"  You are, if you are for killing an innocent baby which last time I checked noone equates a fetus with being the mother's body, especially science.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I agree, a fetus is someone else. That's not the point.

            The point is, pro-choice people argue that women should have the freedom to do what they want with their body. Some of them also argue that other people shouldn't have that same freedom.

            1. profile image74
              Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I find it interesting that endangered animal fetuses, say bald eagle eggs, are protected by law.  If you willingly destroy a bald eagle egg, you'll go to prison.  Abortions, however, are fine.  It seems that the law protects eagles more than people.

          2. peeples profile image92
            peeplesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I do not define a fetus incapable of actual life as "someone else". Even if I did I wouldn't equate the life of a fetus equal to the life of a person alive in this world. Just as I don't equate fetal cells in test tubes as people. And even if I did equate it all equally, so long as that someone else is being contained inside another person it would be that person's (and in most situations the other parent of that fetus) business. Until life outside the body is possible it is the mother's business not mine or yours or the governments! It's beyond me how so many are against pro choice when we already have so many living unwanted, abused, and neglected children out there. Why add to that?
            On another note my cigarettes could kill me and my second hand smoke could kill others. I suppose you are for making anything that could kill someone else illegal right?

            1. tsadjatko profile image79
              tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              When you say "I suppose you are for making anything that could kill someone else illegal right?" I have no idea where you are coming from because I never said anything about making anything illegal. My only point was that when you say "I'm pro choice for all of it!" you are saying  you think we should have the right to choose to murder someone if we want to without consequences. I wasn't talking about anything that wasn't mentioned in the cartoon either. So far those are two points you replied about that are irrelevant to anything I said so I really wonder if this conversation is worth pursuing with you. Anyway pro choice in relation to abortion is as much a choice as choosing to murder anyone you want, the only difference is it is legal. A fetus is a human being as much as anyone else and should be entitled to human rights from conception. You can not say a fetus isn't human because it cannot live out side the woomb - that is no different than saying you are not human because you cannot live on the moon. And a fetus doesn't have to go to term to survive outside the woomb. Do you want to play God and determine where to draw the line? I wouldn't.

              1. peeples profile image92
                peeplesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                "I suppose you are for making anything that could kill someone else illegal right?" I have no idea where you are coming from because I never said anything about making anything illegal." I was showing you the same exact point the OP made. One side says don't do that I think it's bad and so does the other. You think abortion is bad therefore you don't think others should do it.
                As for a fetus not having to go to term, I am well aware, I'm a mom to a preemie. However a fetus at 9 weeks can NOT survive outside the womb. Therefore yes I do draw a line.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  But if a fetus could survive at 9 weeks, you wouldn't draw the line?

                  Sorry, being 'human' is innate. Not subjective depending on your level of technology.

                  1. peeples profile image92
                    peeplesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    If a fetus was capable of surviving outside the womb at the moment of conception I would reconsider my thought. Though I'll admit my thought process on it is much deeper than just life. I think more about quality of life afterwards. We have over 500,000 children in foster care, half waiting on adoption. I don't see the point in adding unwanted babies to an already bad situation, then claiming oh well just put it up for adoption if you don't want it.

                  2. wilderness profile image99
                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    If "humanness" is innate, what you suggest as a test to determine if a fetus is human or not?  What is the difference between a human organism and a non-human organism?

              2. wilderness profile image99
                wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                "A fetus is a human being as much as anyone else"

                Do you have anything to support this statement outside of personal opinion/definition?

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Your DNA that you have... you had that DNA as a fetus. Unique from either parent, it clearly wasn't a part of the mother. Genetically, you were you from right after conception.

                2. gmwilliams profile image87
                  gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Life does not begin at conception, an embryo and a fetus in its early stages are not viable outside the womb.   A woman has the right to an abortion up until the fetus develops enough to be viable outside the womb.  That is pure logic.

                  1. wilderness profile image99
                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    What is "viable"?  Survive on it's own (given food, temperature control and all the rest every infant needs) or survive with a little help?

                  2. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    No, it's not.

                    Whether or not a 9-week fetus is 'human' has to be objective, separate from technology. Two 9-week fetuses are either both human, or both not human. You can't say it's ok to abort one and not the other, from a logical standpoint.

                  3. tsadjatko profile image79
                    tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Viability outside the woomb does not define a human being (unless you are looking for an excuse to murder what is a human being)- if a crime is committed and DNA evidence can prove who the human was who did it, right. So what of DNA from a fetus. Does it say I'm not human or does it have the same weight as DNA from a crime scene?

  4. donotfear profile image91
    donotfearposted 4 years ago

    Don't you just LOVE these argumentative threads!!!!!!



    http://www.remotepatrolled.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Saturday-Night-Live-The-Return-Of-The-Church-Lady.png

    1. tsadjatko profile image79
      tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7819290_f248.jpg

  5. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    I'm going to make this as simple as possible.

    DNA is basically the stuff that makes you 'you'. DNA is the stuff that caused your body to divide cells, grow different types of cells, and become who you are today. Your DNA has been your DNA since right after conception, which means that you have been you(just in different stages of development) since right after conception.

    If you follow your own timeline back, the only moment when you can say that you no longer exist would be right before fertilization. Going backward, when you hit fertilization, that's when all the stuff that makes you 'you' didn't exist. So after that moment, you were the most-undeveloped stage of 'you'.

  6. innersmiff profile image74
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    Don't you love these selectively Libertarian people? tongue

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I just love those who will never find themselves in that situation to begin with.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I love those who make assumptions smile

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, I'm sure at some point you might find yourself pregnant for nine months and wondering how you might raise that child on your own smile Of course, there are fathers who raise children alone (although they've missed the pregnancy and initial fear about the future altogether) But, in reality, only 1 in 10 children are raised by a lone father.

          Still, I'm sure the future was *just* as frightening for those 90% of fathers that didn't have to cope with pregnancy, childbirth and raising a child alone. Of course, they should have *exactly* the same rights as a woman that does experience this. After all, they know *exactly* how it feels.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Like I said... assumptions.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I apologise. I had no idea that you had been pregnant and raised a child on your own. smile

          2. Mighty Mom profile image87
            Mighty Momposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            +1
            The term "pro choice" was only coined in response to the "pro life" movement.

            But "pro life" is a misnomer..
            What they really mean is "pro fetus."
            And it's perfectly acceptable to these pro-lifer zealots to MURDER doctors or clinic workers who are trying to do their job -- which is legal.
            sad

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              A fetus isn't life? What is it then? Dead or inorganic?

              And only a tiny percentage of pro-lifers murder doctors, what's the point of bringing that up? I doubt anyone here is guilty of that.

              1. wilderness profile image99
                wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, it's life.  So is a tree or a frog.

                An early fetus is a non-human collection of organic cells that may, one day, become a person.

                At least that seems the current legal definition.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Take you at your peak. Your DNA is 'X'.

                  Take you as a child. Your DNA was 'X'. You just weren't fully developed.

                  Take you as an infant. Your DNA was 'X'. You just weren't fully developed.

                  Take you as a fetus. Your DNA was 'X'. You just weren't fully developed.

                  Non-human? You were, genetically, the same as you were when you were a child. Definitely human.

                  1. wilderness profile image99
                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    All true, but only if you accept DNA as the primary, if not sole, determinate of being human. 

                    I don't think I do.  "Think" because admittedly I'm still foggy on just how to determine what is human or what is not.  I don't, for instance, feel that a fertilized egg is human.  Nor an embryo.  Nor the indeterminate point where that embryo becomes a fetus.

                    And yet a full term fetus is human - somewhere between a fertilized egg and birth it becomes a human being.  I don't know when, I don't know the difference between fetus and human, and don't know how to determine that point.

                    Thus the silly questions I've been asking.  Abortion is a huge question in the US and I'd like to have an opinion, but can't until the definition of human is settled in my own mind.

                2. gmwilliams profile image87
                  gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  + 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

              2. Mighty Mom profile image87
                Mighty Momposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I'm sure you're right. But those that do engage in violence should call themselves something else besides pro LIFE.

                But I do wonder how many here have adopted crack babies or taken in foster kids who are considered "unplaceable."

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Why not pro-life?

                  A fetus isn't dead or inorganic, so it's life.

                  It's not genetically a part of the father or mother, so it's a unique human entity.

                  Abortion actively kills the fetus... there's no other word for it.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image87
                    Mighty Momposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    If someone commits murder -- taking a LIFE -- to make a point about protecting unborn life,
                    that is the ultimate hypocrisy. They are not pro LIFE.
                    They are pro FETUS.
                    As are those who advocate for the "innocent babies" only up until the point they are born.
                    After that, they are society's cast-offs and their LIVES have no value.
                    If life is sacred, it is sacred for babies, toddlers, teens, young adults, adults, and elderly.
                    Not selectively.

                    Not saying ideologically pro-lifers aren't noble.
                    Just pointing out what appears to be, at time, an inability (or unwillingness) to see the inherent inconsistency of their humanitarian policy views.
                    smile

            2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              And then leave a child in the hands of the state, bounced from one home to another, sometimes unable to form attachments, or develop healthy relationships. Then, that * fetus* is no longer their problem. Just some delinquent.

              Nice to see you, MM. smile

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                What's with all these general, broad-brush statements attacking pro-lifers? Broad brush = assumptions = wrong.

      2. innersmiff profile image74
        innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I don't really see what that has to do with anything. I wasn't making a comment on abortion, per se, I was making a point about hypocrisy.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          But don't you feel that hypocricy also stems from those who make judgements about a course of action which they oppose, when they also know that they will never find themselves in a situation when they have to make that decision or live the consequences?

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Men have to live with the decision and consequences too.

          2. innersmiff profile image74
            innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            No, I'm failing to see 'hypocrisy' there. There are many actions I oppose that I will never have the opportunity to do. I will never know what it's like to be in Pol Pot's position when he committed genocide, but I know for certain that it was wrong. Are you suggesting that we can only make a judgment on anything in the world if we have had direct experience of it? If that is the case, we would struggle to judge anything important at all.

            And why is it that it is only 'hypocritical' if we oppose a particular action? What if we support it? Will you complain about those people too?

    2. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I ran into the biggest group of selective libertarians. They basically said it's ok to fire someone for voting for Obama, but should be illegal to fire someone for voting for Romney.

      1. innersmiff profile image74
        innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Someone here on the forum said that liberty is only infringed when the majority says it is.

 
working