The fact that the sole reason this law was made to go to the Supreme Court is disgusting.
As someone with a degree in political science, I can partially agree here. I can tell you though that this particular argument needs to go to the supreme court, not be voted on, but to be rewritten. The liberals seem to think that this is a black and white issue. You have to make it legal because if you don't then you are infringing on the civil liberities of the individual.
I haven't seen anyone on here make this argument, and for that I applaud, however, if any of you are thinking about it, I will crush you. You have no sense of logic and you, like most liberals, don't know what a civil liberity is. You have double standards and you don't think problems through.
Here is the thing. If you make it illegal, then there is another civil right that you are infringing on, and that is the right for the to be mother to live. What if the mother is young? I know that we all know someone, in one way or another, that is a girl, 12 or 13 and pregnant. That is dangerous. What if she is hemophilic? Why should the mother have to die? What if the mother is a drug abuser. The baby is going to come out mentally damaged? Is that fair to the child? What if there was a rape? What if there was incestual acts and the baby will be mentally and physically deformed? What if the mother is a prostitute? Should the child have to be raised in that enviroment.
However, you make it unconditionally legal. What does that mean. That means that you have a group of people that will use it as contriception, which is sick in my book. What about the people who get an abortion because they get cold feet. I can't have a month go by that I don't hear about a baby that was left in a dumpster, or a public bathroom. I don't know the exact number, so I won't make a comment, but frankly, one is too many.
This is clearly not a black and white issue. It is also an issue that needs to be decided on at the national level. You won't hear me say that often due to me being a libertarian, but this is one of them. If it is decided by the states, then you have a problem, then it just becomes gay marrage (Don't get me started on that ****). If it is illegal in colorado, that's fine, I'll take my girlfriend, hope in the civic, and drive to Nebraska and get one. That's aweful.
This is an a very detailed law that needs to be researched thoroughly. People who are compleatly for abortion are wrong. Logically wrong. People who are compleatly against abortion are wrong. Logically wrong.
Why not. Who says. A doctor tells me that my wife is suffering from internal bleeding because of some random condition and if she gives birth, then she will die.
You have missed my point by a mile. Looking at simple statistics, one can tell you that most of the births happening in this world are sucessful.
Now, if you are a medical doctor, then I yield to you facts, if you can give them. But you didn't, so you can't make this argument.
Facts? UYou are saying I am wrong? So you can tell me right now that the majority of the births left unhindered kill the mother....That is incredibly wrong.
Again, I think you missed my point. The point was, that the majority of the time, babies are born without killing the mother. Saying I don't have proof is incredibly un-well thought out. After all, we ALL know that most women die in giving birth :rolleyes:.
Bad thing here, you continued on by saying that the women will most likely live anyway. How do you know this.
Okay, sir, so, you can sit here and tell me that at least 51 percent of women die from childbirth...After all, that is what you mean, amirite?
If you need proof that most women live from having a child, then I implore you to simply look around. I can guarentee you right now that everyone on this forum knows no-one personaly, and, if they do, one, at max. Then, turn around, and I can guarentee that the majority of people here know people that have had babies.
Where are the medical stats. I can tell you now, you don't have them. There are no medical stats.
Medical stats? Do you seriously expect me to look up numbers for something so glaringly obvious?
When a doctor sees something inside the women that will cause her death, how can you say that they will go along living after that just fine. That argument itself is a fallacy. It is flawed with no factual support.
Ah, yes, THIS is where the understanding comes from. You think I meant that in cases where the women will die, she doesn't.
This is wrong. I was saying that both sides are really not *both* on the side of life, since, the MAJORITY of women who have babises do not die from them. It's one thing to calim you are protecting the womens life, but another thing when they life usually is not jeopardized anyway.
Yes you can. Doctors make those decisions all the time to women. Sometimes, pregnancy can hurt the mother.
Sometimes. Majority, of course not. Which was my point. In fact, I would go so far as to say less than 5 percent of women that give birth actually DIE from it. But, however, that is a ballpark, so don't burn me at the stake because of it.
Jace on the other hand gives you card advantage for no life cost. On the contrary, Jace can actually take some damage for you. I'd think that makes him better than Arena.
You have missed my point by a mile. Looking at simple statistics, one can tell you that most of the births happening in this world are sucessful.
Facts? UYou are saying I am wrong? So you can tell me right now that the majority of the births left unhindered kill the mother....That is incredibly wrong.
Again, I think you missed my point. The point was, that the majority of the time, babies are born without killing the mother. Saying I don't have proof is incredibly un-well thought out. After all, we ALL know that most women die in giving birth :rolleyes:.
Okay, sir, so, you can sit here and tell me that at least 51 percent of women die from childbirth...After all, that is what you mean, amirite?
If you need proof that most women live from having a child, then I implore you to simply look around. I can guarentee you right now that everyone on this forum knows no-one personaly, and, if they do, one, at max. Then, turn around, and I can guarentee that the majority of people here know people that have had babies.
Medical stats? Do you seriously expect me to look up numbers for something so glaringly obvious?
Ah, yes, THIS is where the understanding comes from. You think I meant that in cases where the women will die, she doesn't.
This is wrong. I was saying that both sides are really not *both* on the side of life, since, the MAJORITY of women who have babises do not die from them. It's one thing to calim you are protecting the womens life, but another thing when they life usually is not jeopardized anyway.
Sometimes. Majority, of course not. Which was my point. In fact, I would go so far as to say less than 5 percent of women that give birth actually DIE from it. But, however, that is a ballpark, so don't burn me at the stake because of it.
Yes. Thanks for clearifying. However, you were positioning it in response to having an abortion when the mothers life could be in danger of having the kid. We were talking about aborting a kid when the mothers life is threatened and your response was...
Quote from {G}PiLeDrIvEr »
But you can't prove that the Women will DIE from the birth
Now. You went on, in all the things you quoted from me, and stated things that were compleatly off the subject.
Quote from {G}PiLeDrIvEr »
You have missed my point by a mile. Looking at simple statistics, one can tell you that most of the births happening in this world are sucessful.
I think you have missed the point. No one is arguing that the majority of children are born without problem. That has never been stated in this thread, so there is no reason to bring it up.
Quote from {G}PiLeDrIvEr »
This is wrong. I was saying that both sides are really not *both* on the side of life, since, the MAJORITY of women who have babises do not die from them. It's one thing to calim you are protecting the womens life, but another thing when they life usually is not jeopardized anyway
Please make sure you read everything. We aren't talking about everyday births here. If you would have read my post, you would have seen that I pointed out that this legislation is not black and white and needs exceptions and clearifications. We are talking about having an abortion when the mothers life is in danger. I have said this many times now...sigh You have gone on saying things to me that don't mean anything. Work with me houston, work with me.
Abortion is a form of protecting women. It is also something that is abused. Moving on...
My take on the anti abortion side of the arguement is that it's being led by people who just want to control other's actions - wrapped in religion to gain support. The followers of these leaders just look to me like a lot of people who don't want to deal with reality. Maybe they think that laws will force people to act in a certain way.
Whether or not abortions are legal, people WILL have them. Making them illegal will only increase the number of unsafe abortions (back alley hacks, doctors who have to look over their shoulders to make sure no one is watching them...). The arguement about abstinence- only education is a great analogy. You can teach abstinence all you want - kids are still going to have sex. Wouldn't the kids that don't follow the abstinence teachings be better off using some sort of protection then not using any? Then again, if they haven't been taught about other methods how will they know that they even exist?
In both cases does the legislation really help anything? What is really gained in either instance? Both sets of legislation seem like they would alienate as many people as they would appease. Is that progress? Other than the religious side being able to say that they have "won."
Yes, let's snuff out entire generations because they might "potentially" fail to meet some arbitrary standard of worth! That's the surest solution to all of our problems.
I'm not really sure what is meant by this quote. What entire generations are being snuffed out? Abortion has been legal in the US for over 30 years. What generation has been "snuffed out" in that time period?
If a female 2000 miles away from has an abortion, how does that affect your life in any way? What business is it of yours that she made that decision?
Yes. Thanks for clearifying. However, you were positioning it in response to having an abortion when the mothers life could be in danger of having the kid. We were talking about aborting a kid when the mothers life is threatened and your response was...
Actually, lemme go grab the quote that started me off on my tangent:
Quote from joseyoutlaw »
I think the problem is that both sides pro-life and pro-choice sees the other side at trying to hurt and kill the innocent. Pro-life sees the unborn child as being killed not having a choice. Pro-choice sees the mother as having no choice, forced to suffer a harder life, and maybe death or serious injury.
I bolded what was needed. As you can see, while it wasn't explicitly stated, it was basically meant that the mtoher *may* be harmed in the birth. Not that if the Mother is in danger, abortion is ok.
My response was that in most cases, the mother comes out all right, so you really couln't use that as an argument.
Now. You went on, in all the things you quoted from me, and stated things that were compleatly off the subject.
Actually, if you simply follow my train of thought, yu will see that it was, indeed, on track. Sorry if you misunderstood at any point.
I think you have missed the point. No one is arguing that the majority of children are born without problem. That has never been stated in this thread, so there is no reason to bring it up.
Actually, Jose's pretty much was. From what I gathered onit, he was trying to make the point that people that are pro-choice are trying to protect womens lives, when in fact the chances of women dying from childbirth is very, very low.
Please make sure you read everything. We aren't talking about everyday births here. If you would have read my post, you would have seen that I pointed out that this legislation is not black and white and needs exceptions and clearifications. We are talking about having an abortion when the mothers life is in danger. I have said this many times now...sigh You have gone on saying things to me that don't mean anything. Work with me houston, work with me.
Actually, I think I have already specified what Jose was trying to come across with. I was not responding to anything you said until you decided to give me a 'C' while misinterpreting what I had to say.
Oh, and please, in the future, cut down on the snide remarks. Thanks.
Abortion is a form of protecting women. It is also something that is abused. Moving on...
Which begs the question, why can't they protect themselves? Yes, in cases of rap, it is different, but in cases of being consensual, they should take measures to prevent getting pregnant. The responsiblity is on them more than anyone. There is no excuse to justify a fifty percent abortion rate in places like LA.
Jace on the other hand gives you card advantage for no life cost. On the contrary, Jace can actually take some damage for you. I'd think that makes him better than Arena.
Which begs the question, why can't they protect themselves? Yes, in cases of rap, it is different, but in cases of being consensual, they should take measures to prevent getting pregnant. The responsiblity is on them more than anyone. There is no excuse to justify a fifty percent abortion rate in places like LA.
OMG. that's not what I am talking about. READ MY POSTS. please. Why can't they protect themselves. Gee. I don't know. Perhaps because there is no way to protect yourself from cancer. Come on man. It doesn't matter. The structure of debates on here is compleatly off base. I'm done.
They should show all of the Friday the 13th movies in those abstinance only sex ed classes cause the moral of those movies is "sex kills". (same with drugs and going to camp).
I don't think a legal ban on abortion would really work anyway. There will always be someone looking for one, and someone willing to do it. All it does is create a black market for the procedure. I would rather have it legal and regulated so it is safer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am looking for Date Stamped promos from Khans of Tarkir block so I can finish my set. Check my wants if you have any.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
OMG. that's not what I am talking about. READ MY POSTS. please. Why can't they protect themselves. Gee. I don't know. Perhaps because there is no way to protect yourself from cancer. Come on man. It doesn't matter. The structure of debates on here is compleatly off base. I'm done.
Well excuse me if I didn't understand what was going on in your head, and only went off the type :rolleyes:.
Give me a break. Your sarcastic remarks are what is really making these debates off base.
You said it was a form of protecting women. How in sam hel am I supposed to read anything farther into that than inherent the dangers of getting pregnant on the first place?
I tried to stay civil, but its a shame you didn't...
Jace on the other hand gives you card advantage for no life cost. On the contrary, Jace can actually take some damage for you. I'd think that makes him better than Arena.
The problem with abortion is that people think it is a form of birth control. It isn't. An abortion should be done as a last resort if safe sex (birth control pills, condoms, the like) fails. It is not a substitute for safe sex. This is something the Democrats should be preaching right now, because people are looking at them like they're some sort of abortion worshippers.
I don't think a legal ban on abortion would really work anyway. There will always be someone looking for one, and someone willing to do it. All it does is create a black market for the procedure. I would rather have it legal and regulated so it is safer.
I agree. Banning abortion won't in any way stop those who truly want one from getting one. What we need to work on getting rid of is the unfortunate attitude that abortions are useful as a form of contraceptive or a way of erasing an 'accident' and avoiding responsibility. I still think it's a personal choice, I just don't think it's one that should be made nearly as often as it is.
Personally, I think the option to have an abortion should be there, but we should have the sense to not ever have to use it save for rare and extreme cases. Not exactly plausible given the rise of irresponsibility and general stupidity, but a guy can dream.
The other problem with anti-abortion legislation is that it is trying to put the genie back in the lamp. You just can't do that. Once it is out, there is no going back. The only way to stop abortions would be to have a time machine and constantly monitor history and kill each person who 'discovers' abortion before they share their secrets with the world. That would not really work either for several reasons...
So the only option would be to keep abortion legal and teach about abortion in sex-ed classes and say that it is not a form of birth control, it has serious ethical and emotional issues to tackle that will remain with you forever, etc. Just teaching abstainance for sex-ed would not be enough. Education is the way to reduce the number of abortions, not banning them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am looking for Date Stamped promos from Khans of Tarkir block so I can finish my set. Check my wants if you have any.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
The other problem with anti-abortion legislation is that it is trying to put the genie back in the lamp. You just can't do that. Once it is out, there is no going back.
Personally, I like "trying to put the pin back in the grenade". More evocative. But in this case, the pin was never in. People have been getting abortions for centuries, albeit with much messier and more dangerous methods. And as mentioned, do we really want to be going back to that?
Personally, I like "trying to put the pin back in the grenade". More evocative. But in this case, the pin was never in. People have been getting abortions for centuries, albeit with much messier and more dangerous methods. And as mentioned, do we really want to be going back to that?
A lot of people have brought this up.
I see it as tangent to the issue. I mean, you could really argue the same thing about anything that you want to be legalized.
"People have been trying to stab eachother for centuries, so let's legalize it so a doctor can do it for them and avoid back-alley stabbings, which often result in infections or death."
Not that stabbings and abortion are the same thing, but the point is clear. The real and only issue is if the fetus can be considered a person. If so, then it should be outlawed regardless of the channels people will go to to kill them. If a fetus cannot be considered a person, then abortion should be legalized.
I see it as tangent to the issue. I mean, you could really argue the same thing about anything that you want to be legalized.
"People have been trying to stab eachother for centuries, so let's legalize it so a doctor can do it for them and avoid back-alley stabbings, which often result in infections or death."
Uh, no, that's not close at all. Stabbings are something someone does to someone else. Abortions are done (at least in the context you're using) to oneself. A better example would be stations like the ones in downtown Vancouver that provide clean, safe needles in order to prevent the spread of AIDS among heroin users.
I'm pretty sure, to a pro-lifer, you're pointing out a false distinction.
I was just going in the context of his analogy. A woman goes to an abortion clinic to do something to herself, that she would (ostensibly) do by herself, but someone else can do more safely. A woman would go to a "stabbing clinic" to have something someone ELSE would do done to her "more safely". It doesn't hold up.
I was just going in the context of his analogy. A woman goes to an abortion clinic to do something to herself, that she would (ostensibly) do by herself, but someone else can do more safely.
I'm pretty sure the analogy didn't define its context with regards to whether it considered an embryo, for instance, a distinct human life or not.
If we assume that it is a distinct human life (so then abortion is "something done to another"), then his analogy works. Come to think of it, his analogy would likely use a context in which it would work.
I'm pretty sure the analogy didn't define its context with regards to whether it considered an embryo, for instance, a distinct human life or not.
If we assume that it is a distinct human life (so then abortion is "something done to another"), then his analogy works. Come to think of it, his analogy would likely use a context in which it would work.
Even if we assume it is a distinct human life, the analogy is not consistent. It would have to be the embryo choosing to go to the abortion clinic, or someone who wanted to stab someone else going to a "stabbing clinic" to have them stab that other person more effectively- a mercenary service, basically.
Even if we assume it is a distinct human life, the analogy is not consistent. It would have to be the embryo choosing to go to the abortion clinic, or someone who wanted to stab someone else going to a "stabbing clinic" to have them stab that other person more effectively- a mercenary service, basically.
I see it as tangent to the issue. I mean, you could really argue the same thing about anything that you want to be legalized.
"People have been trying to stab eachother for centuries, so let's legalize it so a doctor can do it for them and avoid back-alley stabbings, which often result in infections or death."
Not that stabbings and abortion are the same thing, but the point is clear. The real and only issue is if the fetus can be considered a person. If so, then it should be outlawed regardless of the channels people will go to to kill them. If a fetus cannot be considered a person, then abortion should be legalized.
technically, it would be in line with the original intent of the thread (go back and read the first post). The fact that the thread starter didn't want it to turn into what it has become is irrelevant. What it has turned into is certainly a more interesting issue to debate; but the fact remains that the original intent was something on the lines of the future of legalized abortions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am looking for Date Stamped promos from Khans of Tarkir block so I can finish my set. Check my wants if you have any.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
Not from what I see. I got that his "stabbing clinic" was something someone went to to get stabbed themselves.
"People have been trying to stab eachother for centuries, so let's legalize it so a doctor can do it for them and avoid back-alley stabbings, which often result in infections or death."
Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but that sounds like something people would go to the doctor to have done to themselves. Because even if it's legal, a doctor is still probably going to have to do some back-ally work to get to someone who doesn't want to be stabbed.
The intent of the analogy was not to compare abortion to stabbing, as I said in my post. The intent was to show that saying that something should be legal just because it is safer to the person that does it is foolish.
EDIT: No, i meant you would bring in the person you want stabbed. Not that it changes what I was trying to say in any way whatsoever...
The intent of the analogy was not to compare abortion to stabbing, as I said in my post. The intent was to show that saying that something should be legal just because it is safer to the person that does it is foolish.
Hence my response about the free needle stations in Vancouver. It may seem distasteful, but it has been effective at reducing AIDS in the downtown area, and the stations also have ways for people to seek help about their problems.
Hence my response about the free needle stations in Vancouver. It may seem distasteful, but it has been effective at reducing AIDS in the downtown area, and the stations also have ways for people to seek help about their problems.
But once again the argument comes down to: is the fetus a person? If it is, the needle analogy is false because it doesn't involve harming third parties. If not, the analogy holds true.
Which is why I believe the argument is tangent to the real issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As someone with a degree in political science, I can partially agree here. I can tell you though that this particular argument needs to go to the supreme court, not be voted on, but to be rewritten. The liberals seem to think that this is a black and white issue.
You have to make it legal because if you don't then you are infringing on the civil liberities of the individual.
I haven't seen anyone on here make this argument, and for that I applaud, however, if any of you are thinking about it, I will crush you. You have no sense of logic and you, like most liberals, don't know what a civil liberity is. You have double standards and you don't think problems through.
Here is the thing. If you make it illegal, then there is another civil right that you are infringing on, and that is the right for the to be mother to live. What if the mother is young? I know that we all know someone, in one way or another, that is a girl, 12 or 13 and pregnant. That is dangerous. What if she is hemophilic? Why should the mother have to die? What if the mother is a drug abuser. The baby is going to come out mentally damaged? Is that fair to the child? What if there was a rape? What if there was incestual acts and the baby will be mentally and physically deformed? What if the mother is a prostitute? Should the child have to be raised in that enviroment.
However, you make it unconditionally legal. What does that mean. That means that you have a group of people that will use it as contriception, which is sick in my book. What about the people who get an abortion because they get cold feet. I can't have a month go by that I don't hear about a baby that was left in a dumpster, or a public bathroom. I don't know the exact number, so I won't make a comment, but frankly, one is too many.
This is clearly not a black and white issue. It is also an issue that needs to be decided on at the national level. You won't hear me say that often due to me being a libertarian, but this is one of them. If it is decided by the states, then you have a problem, then it just becomes gay marrage (Don't get me started on that ****). If it is illegal in colorado, that's fine, I'll take my girlfriend, hope in the civic, and drive to Nebraska and get one. That's aweful.
This is an a very detailed law that needs to be researched thoroughly. People who are compleatly for abortion are wrong. Logically wrong. People who are compleatly against abortion are wrong. Logically wrong.
You have missed my point by a mile. Looking at simple statistics, one can tell you that most of the births happening in this world are sucessful.
Facts? UYou are saying I am wrong? So you can tell me right now that the majority of the births left unhindered kill the mother....That is incredibly wrong.
Again, I think you missed my point. The point was, that the majority of the time, babies are born without killing the mother. Saying I don't have proof is incredibly un-well thought out. After all, we ALL know that most women die in giving birth :rolleyes:.
Okay, sir, so, you can sit here and tell me that at least 51 percent of women die from childbirth...After all, that is what you mean, amirite?
If you need proof that most women live from having a child, then I implore you to simply look around. I can guarentee you right now that everyone on this forum knows no-one personaly, and, if they do, one, at max. Then, turn around, and I can guarentee that the majority of people here know people that have had babies.
Medical stats? Do you seriously expect me to look up numbers for something so glaringly obvious?
Ah, yes, THIS is where the understanding comes from. You think I meant that in cases where the women will die, she doesn't.
This is wrong. I was saying that both sides are really not *both* on the side of life, since, the MAJORITY of women who have babises do not die from them. It's one thing to calim you are protecting the womens life, but another thing when they life usually is not jeopardized anyway.
Sometimes. Majority, of course not. Which was my point. In fact, I would go so far as to say less than 5 percent of women that give birth actually DIE from it. But, however, that is a ballpark, so don't burn me at the stake because of it.
Yes. Thanks for clearifying. However, you were positioning it in response to having an abortion when the mothers life could be in danger of having the kid. We were talking about aborting a kid when the mothers life is threatened and your response was...
Now. You went on, in all the things you quoted from me, and stated things that were compleatly off the subject.
I think you have missed the point. No one is arguing that the majority of children are born without problem. That has never been stated in this thread, so there is no reason to bring it up.
Please make sure you read everything. We aren't talking about everyday births here. If you would have read my post, you would have seen that I pointed out that this legislation is not black and white and needs exceptions and clearifications. We are talking about having an abortion when the mothers life is in danger. I have said this many times now...sigh You have gone on saying things to me that don't mean anything. Work with me houston, work with me.
Abortion is a form of protecting women. It is also something that is abused. Moving on...
Whether or not abortions are legal, people WILL have them. Making them illegal will only increase the number of unsafe abortions (back alley hacks, doctors who have to look over their shoulders to make sure no one is watching them...). The arguement about abstinence- only education is a great analogy. You can teach abstinence all you want - kids are still going to have sex. Wouldn't the kids that don't follow the abstinence teachings be better off using some sort of protection then not using any? Then again, if they haven't been taught about other methods how will they know that they even exist?
In both cases does the legislation really help anything? What is really gained in either instance? Both sets of legislation seem like they would alienate as many people as they would appease. Is that progress? Other than the religious side being able to say that they have "won."
I'm not really sure what is meant by this quote. What entire generations are being snuffed out? Abortion has been legal in the US for over 30 years. What generation has been "snuffed out" in that time period?
If a female 2000 miles away from has an abortion, how does that affect your life in any way? What business is it of yours that she made that decision?
Actually, lemme go grab the quote that started me off on my tangent:
I bolded what was needed. As you can see, while it wasn't explicitly stated, it was basically meant that the mtoher *may* be harmed in the birth. Not that if the Mother is in danger, abortion is ok.
My response was that in most cases, the mother comes out all right, so you really couln't use that as an argument.
Actually, if you simply follow my train of thought, yu will see that it was, indeed, on track. Sorry if you misunderstood at any point.
Actually, Jose's pretty much was. From what I gathered onit, he was trying to make the point that people that are pro-choice are trying to protect womens lives, when in fact the chances of women dying from childbirth is very, very low.
Actually, I think I have already specified what Jose was trying to come across with. I was not responding to anything you said until you decided to give me a 'C' while misinterpreting what I had to say.
Oh, and please, in the future, cut down on the snide remarks. Thanks.
Which begs the question, why can't they protect themselves? Yes, in cases of rap, it is different, but in cases of being consensual, they should take measures to prevent getting pregnant. The responsiblity is on them more than anyone. There is no excuse to justify a fifty percent abortion rate in places like LA.
OMG. that's not what I am talking about. READ MY POSTS. please. Why can't they protect themselves. Gee. I don't know. Perhaps because there is no way to protect yourself from cancer. Come on man. It doesn't matter. The structure of debates on here is compleatly off base. I'm done.
I don't think a legal ban on abortion would really work anyway. There will always be someone looking for one, and someone willing to do it. All it does is create a black market for the procedure. I would rather have it legal and regulated so it is safer.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
convert bulk into good cards? PucaTrade - https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/21195
Ebay - decks/Promos/DVDs
Trade thread (constantly updated)
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/337-pokerbob1s-casual-trading-emporium
Well excuse me if I didn't understand what was going on in your head, and only went off the type :rolleyes:.
Give me a break. Your sarcastic remarks are what is really making these debates off base.
You said it was a form of protecting women. How in sam hel am I supposed to read anything farther into that than inherent the dangers of getting pregnant on the first place?
I tried to stay civil, but its a shame you didn't...
I agree. Banning abortion won't in any way stop those who truly want one from getting one. What we need to work on getting rid of is the unfortunate attitude that abortions are useful as a form of contraceptive or a way of erasing an 'accident' and avoiding responsibility. I still think it's a personal choice, I just don't think it's one that should be made nearly as often as it is.
Personally, I think the option to have an abortion should be there, but we should have the sense to not ever have to use it save for rare and extreme cases. Not exactly plausible given the rise of irresponsibility and general stupidity, but a guy can dream.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
So the only option would be to keep abortion legal and teach about abortion in sex-ed classes and say that it is not a form of birth control, it has serious ethical and emotional issues to tackle that will remain with you forever, etc. Just teaching abstainance for sex-ed would not be enough. Education is the way to reduce the number of abortions, not banning them.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
convert bulk into good cards? PucaTrade - https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/21195
Ebay - decks/Promos/DVDs
Trade thread (constantly updated)
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/337-pokerbob1s-casual-trading-emporium
Personally, I like "trying to put the pin back in the grenade". More evocative. But in this case, the pin was never in. People have been getting abortions for centuries, albeit with much messier and more dangerous methods. And as mentioned, do we really want to be going back to that?
I see it as tangent to the issue. I mean, you could really argue the same thing about anything that you want to be legalized.
"People have been trying to stab eachother for centuries, so let's legalize it so a doctor can do it for them and avoid back-alley stabbings, which often result in infections or death."
Not that stabbings and abortion are the same thing, but the point is clear. The real and only issue is if the fetus can be considered a person. If so, then it should be outlawed regardless of the channels people will go to to kill them. If a fetus cannot be considered a person, then abortion should be legalized.
Uh, no, that's not close at all. Stabbings are something someone does to someone else. Abortions are done (at least in the context you're using) to oneself. A better example would be stations like the ones in downtown Vancouver that provide clean, safe needles in order to prevent the spread of AIDS among heroin users.
I'm pretty sure, to a pro-lifer, you're pointing out a false distinction.
Silence. Our love must be kept secret - it's passion is a flame that could burn all else down.
An admirable sentiment.
And yet, in this world, it's more likely a lesser evil is the pragmatic choice between that and a good.
And you, my swine-necked, ass-faced, rooster-resembling friend, deserve nothing less than the coldest, harshest gulag of the former Soviet Union.
I'm pretty sure the analogy didn't define its context with regards to whether it considered an embryo, for instance, a distinct human life or not.
If we assume that it is a distinct human life (so then abortion is "something done to another"), then his analogy works. Come to think of it, his analogy would likely use a context in which it would work.
Congrats, that's what his analogy was.
technically, it would be in line with the original intent of the thread (go back and read the first post). The fact that the thread starter didn't want it to turn into what it has become is irrelevant. What it has turned into is certainly a more interesting issue to debate; but the fact remains that the original intent was something on the lines of the future of legalized abortions.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
convert bulk into good cards? PucaTrade - https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/21195
Ebay - decks/Promos/DVDs
Trade thread (constantly updated)
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/337-pokerbob1s-casual-trading-emporium
Not from what I see. I got that his "stabbing clinic" was something someone went to to get stabbed themselves.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but that sounds like something people would go to the doctor to have done to themselves. Because even if it's legal, a doctor is still probably going to have to do some back-ally work to get to someone who doesn't want to be stabbed.
EDIT: No, i meant you would bring in the person you want stabbed. Not that it changes what I was trying to say in any way whatsoever...
Hence my response about the free needle stations in Vancouver. It may seem distasteful, but it has been effective at reducing AIDS in the downtown area, and the stations also have ways for people to seek help about their problems.
Which is why I believe the argument is tangent to the real issue.