Scrolls of Lore Forums  

Go Back   Scrolls of Lore Forums > Scrolls of Lore > Halls of Lordaeron

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 01-22-2014, 10:39 PM
Shroombie Shroombie is offline

Eternal
Shroombie's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,262

Default

How do you guys feel about the claim that abortions reduce crime? I mean, logically it makes sense and the data seems to be there, but do you think the drop in crime is justified?
__________________
...Place loses all significance...
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-22-2014, 10:40 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagan View Post
We can't say anything is "really wrong". We don't have answers to these questions, never have, and never will. That's why it is pointless to get bogged down in what is "right" and "wrong". We can't justify any morals, nor can we justify the worthiness of any human life. These are things left to God, it seems, as humans haven't had much luck figuring such stuff out. We should not worry about justification and thinking. Instead, we should just go with our guts. That's as close as we can get to God's decision-making, as it is an innate part of us we can't suppress. Differently people's guts say different things, but nevertheless, it seems most true to God's creation if we all do what our God-given intuitive sense asks us to do.
And I would say this is the best argument for legislating morality. Morality is part of someone's upbringing. That is why in a place like North Dakota you have a culture where they boycott doctors who perform abortions and they protest clinics to chase them out of their states. In New York City 40% of all pregnancies end in abortion. The later has become completely desensitized to it. People make these associations based off of their experiences. If a fetus was sacralized by law this wouldn't be the case. If people grew up in a society where there were laws in place against it they would have a different perspective. This perspective would affect other aspects of life as well and how people view things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
If their effects are contrary to their intentions and/or demonstrably a net negative for society.
People could argue about effects and what is considered a net negative for society forever. I don't think people come to these conclusions that way. I think preserving human life is an important human value. Having people care more about the children they produce. Not seeing it as a side effect of having sex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufin View Post
Because the removal of a parasite that will live its own wretched and tortured life after halting the life of its mother is the same as slavery. Right.

Which is more valuable? A blank slate that needs to be taught everything and costs thousands of dollars to be even raised somewhat succesfully at the cost of their mother's own acceleration, or someone already past the critical period, already taught, already on their way to a succesful life in society?

Are you willing to make that gamble? Do you want to go to the ghetto and tell me all those single mothers working three jobs are better off now with their children than they would be without them? Is society better off with all the unwanted children roaming the streets? I thought you said that street gangs were one of the largest problems for inner city crime?
Releasing the slaves ended up with both the slave owner and the slave in poverty. The former required the later to pay the bills and the later has little social work related skills. Freed slaves lives were preferable to bondage but it wasn't exactly living in luxury or even 'middle class' after being freed for most of them.

A blank slate is valuable. That is why children dying is more upsetting than when adults die. It isn't just a parasite. It is a baby. That is how humans reproduce. It is no more a parasite than a child that depends on their parents. Humans are more dependent on their parents than most animals. They have a long gestation time and a longer maturity time.

Ideally people would use birth control or condoms. If that fails they should get married or put the child up for adoption. Freedom is a double edged sword. I would rather give them the chance to succeed or fail and have them suffer the consequences then. It is preferable to never having them see the light of day.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-22-2014, 10:45 PM
Erthad Erthad is offline

Elune
Erthad's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stromgarde
Posts: 9,549
BattleTag: Erthad #1438

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shroombie View Post
How do you guys feel about the claim that abortions reduce crime? I mean, logically it makes sense and the data seems to be there, but do you think it's moral?
Eugenics and sterilization could reduce crime, but it don't make it right.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-22-2014, 10:49 PM
Omacron Omacron is offline


Omacron's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 34,376
BattleTag: Omacron#1477

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
People could argue about effects and what is considered a net negative for society forever. I don't think people come to these conclusions that way. I think preserving human life is an important human value. Having people care more about the children they produce. Not seeing it as a side effect of having sex.
There are plenty of people who come to these conclusions. They're called consequentialists and they're part of a philosophical tradition that stretches back to ancient Greece.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-22-2014, 10:50 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erthad View Post
Eugenics and sterilization could reduce crime, but it don't make it right.
You could just as easily say the War on Drugs reduced crime rates. Crime rates have been dropping for decades now. You can't just pin point your pet issue as the reason it has happened. There are many factors that influence these type of things. There is no way to isolate potential causes.

I would bet though that districts/cities with higher abortion rates have higher crime rates if that means anything.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-22-2014, 11:13 PM
Shroombie Shroombie is offline

Eternal
Shroombie's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,262

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
You could just as easily say the War on Drugs reduced crime rates. Crime rates have been dropping for decades now. You can't just pin point your pet issue as the reason it has happened. There are many factors that influence these type of things. There is no way to isolate potential causes.

I would bet though that districts/cities with higher abortion rates have higher crime rates if that means anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legaliz...d_crime_effect

So, no, not really. And the war on drugs hasn't actually done much too curb the usage of said drugs. As spending has increased, the amount of illegal drug usage has stayed more or less the same.

Not only that, but countries with legal abortion are, on average, safer and more prosperous than those without. There are exceptions, of course (cough Russia cough), but the trend is definitely there.

I mean, you can argue all you want about whether abortion is moral or not, or what the life of a fetus is worth, but it's effects on society are pretty clear. The question is whether you feel the ends justify the means.
__________________
...Place loses all significance...

Last edited by Shroombie; 01-22-2014 at 11:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-23-2014, 12:41 AM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shroombie View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legaliz...d_crime_effect

So, no, not really. And the war on drugs hasn't actually done much too curb the usage of said drugs. As spending has increased, the amount of illegal drug usage has stayed more or less the same.

Not only that, but countries with legal abortion are, on average, safer and more prosperous than those without. There are exceptions, of course (cough Russia cough), but the trend is definitely there.

I mean, you can argue all you want about whether abortion is moral or not, or what the life of a fetus is worth, but it's effects on society are pretty clear. The question is whether you feel the ends justify the means.
It is difficult to pin point anything as the reason the crime rate has dropped. Crime had just recently been on the increase in the 1960s and 1970s. The lowest homocide rate this country had in the 20th century was in 1957. Homocide started to rise at that point and peaked in 1980 and then started to go down again. Considering Roe V Wade was passed in 1973 it becomes difficult to point at that specific reason. The homocide rate in 1957 was lower than it is now where abortion is more accessible. There is just as much evidence that the war on drugs caused the crime rate to drop as there is abortion did.

This is an issue of framing. Instead of using nations why not use cities?

http://www.abort73.com/blog/tracking...argest_cities/

This guy finds the information on the ratio of abortions per birth rate for many cities. The national average is 22%(in 2008.) Most of the places that have higher abortion rates than average have higher murder rates than average as well. So no. It is not clear at all.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-23-2014, 12:44 AM
Bolvar Bolvar is offline

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Get Off My Lawn!
Bolvar's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Get off my lawn!
Posts: 19,898

Default

When Republicans abolished slavery, racist Democrats in the south swore it would be the end of their lifestyle. They were right, to a degree. Rich white plantation owners no longer enjoyed cheap slave labor, and they had to learn to treat blacks like human beings.

When Republicans abolish abortion, racist Democrats will swear that it will be the end of their lifestyle. They'll be right, to a degree. State-sponsored parenthood will no longer be able to support welfare mothers, and children will have to return to being a real financial consequence for having sex. They'll have to be treated like human beings that you'll have to raise on your own, and families will once again be more important than state-run communities.

Men will return to their traditional roles of having to be gainfully employed providers before they enjoy regular sexual gratification, because women will refuse to put out otherwise, lest they be burdened with the lifelong consequence of a few moment's pleasure.

The horror. Putting human life ahead of the selfish satisfaction of a five-second orgasm.

See, it's not hypocritical to expect a person to pay their own consequences. You don't get to slaughter babies because you want to get your rocks off without bothering with birth control or marriage or commitment or the notion of actually raising a child. Sorry. Your sexual pleasure doesn't supersede the value of human life, nor should you expect the state to pay the cost.

Grow the fuck up already. Stop acting like everyone owes you free sex. It's fucking juvenile.
__________________
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-23-2014, 01:44 AM
Omacron Omacron is offline


Omacron's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 34,376
BattleTag: Omacron#1477

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolvar View Post
When Republicans abolished slavery, racist Democrats in the south swore it would be the end of their lifestyle. They were right, to a degree. Rich white plantation owners no longer enjoyed cheap slave labor, and they had to learn to treat blacks like human beings.

When Republicans abolish abortion, racist Democrats will swear that it will be the end of their lifestyle. They'll be right, to a degree. State-sponsored parenthood will no longer be able to support welfare mothers, and children will have to return to being a real financial consequence for having sex. They'll have to be treated like human beings that you'll have to raise on your own, and families will once again be more important than state-run communities.
When democrats try to legalize gay marriage, republicans cry "states' rights!". When democrats fight to keep abortion legal, why don't republicans cry "states' rights"?

Quote:
Men will return to their traditional roles of having to be gainfully employed providers before they enjoy regular sexual gratification, because women will refuse to put out otherwise, lest they be burdened with the lifelong consequence of a few moment's pleasure.
That'd be feasible except the way the economy of the future is going to head, men will go from being unemployed singles to unemployed fathers. Welcome to the 21st century.

Quote:
The horror. Putting human life ahead of the selfish satisfaction of a five-second orgasm.
It's much easier to quantify the value of an orgasm than it is human life. In most cases I could say an orgasm comes ahead of human life, especially considering how much human life is already on this planet.

Quote:
See, it's not hypocritical to expect a person to pay their own consequences. You don't get to slaughter babies because you want to get your rocks off without bothering with birth control or marriage or commitment or the notion of actually raising a child. Sorry. Your sexual pleasure doesn't supersede the value of human life, nor should you expect the state to pay the cost.
Abortions save the state money: aborting a child is far cheaper than having it go through the public education system, not to mention, statistically, children that would be aborted are more likely to be born into poverty, meaning they will rely on the state more as they grow up. If the state is worried about money, they should be chomping at the bit to abort more children: it's a one-time cost rather than thousands if not millions of dollars over eighteen years.

Quote:
Grow the fuck up already. Stop acting like everyone owes you free sex. It's fucking juvenile.
"Free sex" is known as rape, and it's already illegal. All other kinds of sex have opportunity costs in the form of drinks dinners and the time lost in the store while my bitch of a girlfriend shops for fucking shoes.






If the government is going to regulate who can't prevent their own pregnancies, they should go whole-hog and implement a system of genetic engineering and tank-grown babies a la Brave New World: just take the individual out of the equation. Then it would be fair: no one is getting pregnant to start with, so then they could make abortion legal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-23-2014, 05:12 AM
Hammerbrew Hammerbrew is offline

Banished
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,773

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
It's much easier to quantify the value of an orgasm than it is human life. In most cases I could say an orgasm comes ahead of human life, especially considering how much human life is already on this planet.
You're a fucking idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-23-2014, 05:13 AM
Anansi Anansi is offline

Master Worldbuilder
Anansi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Dying World
Posts: 18,025

Orb of Venom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerbrew View Post
You're a fucking idiot.
He's 'enlightened.'
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
And the HRE was a meme that went too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You are pretty cool for being one of the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I was probably just upset about the Horde fleet in the Second War.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-23-2014, 07:11 AM
Eagan Eagan is offline

Eternal
Eagan's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,136

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolvar View Post
When Republicans abolished slavery, racist Democrats in the south swore it would be the end of their lifestyle. They were right, to a degree. Rich white plantation owners no longer enjoyed cheap slave labor, and they had to learn to treat blacks like human beings.

When Republicans abolish abortion, racist Democrats will swear that it will be the end of their lifestyle. They'll be right, to a degree. State-sponsored parenthood will no longer be able to support welfare mothers, and children will have to return to being a real financial consequence for having sex. They'll have to be treated like human beings that you'll have to raise on your own, and families will once again be more important than state-run communities.

Men will return to their traditional roles of having to be gainfully employed providers before they enjoy regular sexual gratification, because women will refuse to put out otherwise, lest they be burdened with the lifelong consequence of a few moment's pleasure.

The horror. Putting human life ahead of the selfish satisfaction of a five-second orgasm.

See, it's not hypocritical to expect a person to pay their own consequences. You don't get to slaughter babies because you want to get your rocks off without bothering with birth control or marriage or commitment or the notion of actually raising a child. Sorry. Your sexual pleasure doesn't supersede the value of human life, nor should you expect the state to pay the cost.

Grow the fuck up already. Stop acting like everyone owes you free sex. It's fucking juvenile.
Plenty of the "plantation class" maintained their wealth. The former slaves merely became sharecroppers who were paid a pittance to farm their master's lands. It was really no different than slavery. Ain't you ever seen "In the Heat of the Night"? Take a look at Endicott Cotton Company. Looks pretty much like a plantation, doesn't it? All in the name of "states' rights" that enforced a system of inequality.

"Pro-choice" folks never refer to anything about "lifestyle" when talking about abortion. They talk about "choice". You don't have to be a sex-crazed lunatic to support choice. You also don't have to be a sex-crazed lunatic to have made a mistake and need a manner in which to rectify it. Honestly, what kind of generalisation is that? It is totally uncalled for.

Why do we allow the euthanisation of terminally ill animals, or those we cannot care for? It is because this is considered an act of mercy, rather than to allow the poor fellow to suffer. The same applies to a foetus, which isn't conscious or "experiencing" life, and which will endure much suffering if it is made to live.

Anyway, it is irrelevant. As I said, there is no persuading to be done on this issue. The discussion is pointless.

Last edited by Eagan; 01-23-2014 at 08:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-23-2014, 08:29 AM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,065

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
If it's okay to force a lady to give birth, why isn't it okay for people to force healthy people to donate organs?

People are dying right?
Ehh... that's tricker, but I equate it more with someone has already donated his organs. Does he now have the option to take them back? I'd say no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagan View Post
"Living" in the sense of "experiencing", that is, living in a human sense, and not in a mechanical sense.
Newborns don't have that, so I guess they wouldn't be alive based on this definition you made up.

Are you over with Rufin, in the "it's okay to kill 2-year-olds" corner?

Quote:
We can't say anything is "really wrong". We don't have answers to these questions, never have, and never will. That's why it is pointless to get bogged down in what is "right" and "wrong".
That's folderol. We use "right" and "wrong" concepts all the time. You just told me it was wrong to gun down the drug dealer across the street.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shroombie View Post
How do you guys feel about the claim that abortions reduce crime? I mean, logically it makes sense and the data seems to be there, but do you think the drop in crime is justified?
As Erthad said, we could round up and exterminate the most impoverished members of the population, and I bet there'd be a drop in crime. (So long as we don't count the extermination as a crime itself. )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
Abortions save the state money: aborting a child is far cheaper than having it go through the public education system, not to mention, statistically, children that would be aborted are more likely to be born into poverty, meaning they will rely on the state more as they grow up. If the state is worried about money, they should be chomping at the bit to abort more children: it's a one-time cost rather than thousands if not millions of dollars over eighteen years.
Omacron, the reason it's difficult to argue against you is because you actually don't value human life. At all. I'm pretty sure it's something you're proud of.

For most people, I can say something like "let's wipe out the ghettos to reduce crime!" or "let's shoot preteens in the head so they don't have to go through the horrors of puberty and adulthood!" and they'd think I'm exaggerating or summoning a strawman. Yet with you, a part of me thinks you would favor killing off random people for the benefit of us survivors, or for the sake of sparing them the pains of further life.

Between folks like you and Rufin, there is no strawman left. You've already embraced the absurd. I can say "infanticide!", and you can answer with "yeah, so what?". Monstrous. Frightening. And yet, coldly logical in its indifference.

Last edited by BaronGrackle; 01-23-2014 at 08:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-23-2014, 09:17 AM
Eagan Eagan is offline

Eternal
Eagan's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,136

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post

Newborns don't have that, so I guess they wouldn't be alive based on this definition you made up.

Are you over with Rufin, in the "it's okay to kill 2-year-olds" corner?
I have memories of when I was two years old. An infant senses the world around, and responds, whether with a cry or with silence. An infant can see and think, and reason. That's how an infant learns to walk, talk, and so on.

An embryo or foetus cannot do these things. Neither can sense the world, nor respond to it. They have not yet entered sensory experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post

That's folderol. We use "right" and "wrong" concepts all the time. You just told me it was wrong to gun down the drug dealer across the street.
I did not say it was wrong. I said it violated near-universal principles, and the laws of the state.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-23-2014, 01:27 PM
Omacron Omacron is offline


Omacron's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 34,376
BattleTag: Omacron#1477

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerbrew View Post
You're a fucking idiot.
Compare the amount of orgasms you had in the last day to the amount if people you met.


Point goes to the little death.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-23-2014, 02:06 PM
Cemotucu Cemotucu is offline

Elune
Cemotucu's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: St. M. of Tucumán, Argentina
Posts: 6,663
BattleTag: CEMOTucu#2138

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anansi View Post
He's 'enlightened.'
I'm feeling nausea after Omacron's post. I cannot understand how a human being can consider an orgasm more valuable than a person (even if you don't consider embryos as persons).
__________________
FOR NYORLOTH, ALWAYS AND FOREVER!

Loremaster on
MundoWarcraft

(Spanish Warcraft Lore Community and Roleplay)
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-23-2014, 05:01 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,065

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagan View Post
I have memories of when I was two years old.
I wasn't talking about two years old. I was talking about birth. Are you up there with Rufin and Omacron?

You guys can tell me now if "under two years" is the new boundary you want for abortion to be legal. Please let me know if that's the new pro-choice standard.

Last edited by BaronGrackle; 01-23-2014 at 05:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-23-2014, 06:14 PM
Omacron Omacron is offline


Omacron's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 34,376
BattleTag: Omacron#1477

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cemotucu View Post
I'm feeling nausea after Omacron's post. I cannot understand how a human being can consider an orgasm more valuable than a person (even if you don't consider embryos as persons).
Well how do you ascribe value to a person?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-23-2014, 06:18 PM
Eagan Eagan is offline

Eternal
Eagan's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,136

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I wasn't talking about two years old. I was talking about birth. Are you up there with Rufin and Omacron?

You guys can tell me now if "under two years" is the new boundary you want for abortion to be legal. Please let me know if that's the new pro-choice standard.
As I said, if you'd kindly do me a favour and re-read my post, a newborn is capable of experiencing the sensory world and responding to it, learning and reasoning.

A foetus or embryo cannot do this. That is the distinction. So no, I don't support "legalised infanticide".
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-23-2014, 06:38 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,065

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagan View Post
As I said, if you'd kindly do me a favour and re-read my post, a newborn is capable of experiencing the sensory world and responding to it, learning and reasoning.
Do you give the same credit to the brain-developed unborn child, in later stages of pregnancy?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-23-2014, 07:40 PM
Eagan Eagan is offline

Eternal
Eagan's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,136

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
Do you give the same credit to the brain-developed unborn child, in later stages of pregnancy?
I'm not sure about "brain-developed" (science isn't my specialty), but late-term abortions are inevitably more tricky. I find it hard to accept the abortion of a viable foetus, that is, a foetus that could survive outside the womb.

However, many could argue that mercy killing is a valid approach, even for a viable foetus. I don't necessarily agree (I haven't thought much about it, to be honest, as I shan't ever be needing an abortion), however I can see where they are coming from.

This inevitably brings up another question: euthanasia!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-23-2014, 11:32 PM
Eterna Eterna is offline

Arch-Druid
Eterna's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,295

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolvar View Post
When Republicans abolished slavery, racist Democrats in the south swore it would be the end of their lifestyle. They were right, to a degree. Rich white plantation owners no longer enjoyed cheap slave labor, and they had to learn to treat blacks like human beings.

When Republicans abolish abortion, racist Democrats will swear that it will be the end of their lifestyle. They'll be right, to a degree. State-sponsored parenthood will no longer be able to support welfare mothers, and children will have to return to being a real financial consequence for having sex. They'll have to be treated like human beings that you'll have to raise on your own, and families will once again be more important than state-run communities.

Men will return to their traditional roles of having to be gainfully employed providers before they enjoy regular sexual gratification, because women will refuse to put out otherwise, lest they be burdened with the lifelong consequence of a few moment's pleasure.

The horror. Putting human life ahead of the selfish satisfaction of a five-second orgasm.

See, it's not hypocritical to expect a person to pay their own consequences. You don't get to slaughter babies because you want to get your rocks off without bothering with birth control or marriage or commitment or the notion of actually raising a child. Sorry. Your sexual pleasure doesn't supersede the value of human life, nor should you expect the state to pay the cost.

Grow the fuck up already. Stop acting like everyone owes you free sex. It's fucking juvenile.
That's a lot of delusion crammed into one post.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-24-2014, 02:09 AM
Arcadia Arcadia is offline

Wisp
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 7

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolvar View Post
When Republicans abolished slavery, racist Democrats in the south swore it would be the end of their lifestyle. They were right, to a degree. Rich white plantation owners no longer enjoyed cheap slave labor, and they had to learn to treat blacks like human beings.
Negative points for blatant political flame baiting. The Democrats and Republicans of the post-Antebellum period are completely different beasts from what they are today.

Quote:
When Republicans abolish abortion, racist Democrats will swear that it will be the end of their lifestyle. They'll be right, to a degree. State-sponsored parenthood will no longer be able to support welfare mothers, and children will have to return to being a real financial consequence for having sex. They'll have to be treated like human beings that you'll have to raise on your own, and families will once again be more important than state-run communities.
Negative points for invoking the Welfare Queen myth. Though congratulations, you've just killed untold amounts of women who will desperately seek back alley abortions an die from complications. Though I doubt you care about their lives. Bonus points for the economic tail spin that would result from millions of families being forced to have children they can't afford.

Quote:
Men will return to their traditional roles of having to be gainfully employed providers before they enjoy regular sexual gratification, because women will refuse to put out otherwise, lest they be burdened with the lifelong consequence of a few moment's pleasure.
Lets be real, if your scenario were even possible, men would turn around and demand abortion be made legal again.

Quote:
The horror. Putting human life ahead of the selfish satisfaction of a five-second orgasm.

See, it's not hypocritical to expect a person to pay their own consequences. You don't get to slaughter babies because you want to get your rocks off without bothering with birth control or marriage or commitment or the notion of actually raising a child. Sorry. Your sexual pleasure doesn't supersede the value of human life, nor should you expect the state to pay the cost.
Negative points for acting like the government pays for abortions. Overwhelmingly, they don't. More negative points for assuming that all people who want abortions are unmarried, uncommitted harlots who sleep around blindly with strangers. Bonus points for the "slaughtering babies" buzzwording.

But you would agree things like affordable, wide-spread birth control availability, scientifically factual sex education that teaches kids about birth control options should be employed?

Isn't it telling that, instead of employing simple and more effective measures like birth control and education, some people's solutions are to institute grandiose, sweeping attempts to manipulate and control personal relationships through social engineering?

===

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagan View Post
I'm not sure about "brain-developed" (science isn't my specialty), but late-term abortions are inevitably more tricky. I find it hard to accept the abortion of a viable foetus, that is, a foetus that could survive outside the womb.

However, many could argue that mercy killing is a valid approach, even for a viable foetus. I don't necessarily agree (I haven't thought much about it, to be honest, as I shan't ever be needing an abortion), however I can see where they are coming from.

This inevitably brings up another question: euthanasia!
Due to the federal ban on late-term, elective abortions, abortions performed in the 2nd and 3rd trimester are due to medical complications. And thanks to overreaching abortion laws, getting one of those can be nigh impossible.

Last edited by Arcadia; 01-24-2014 at 02:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-24-2014, 02:15 AM
Erthad Erthad is offline

Elune
Erthad's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stromgarde
Posts: 9,549
BattleTag: Erthad #1438

Default

Double posting is against the rules.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-24-2014, 06:16 AM
SmokeBlader SmokeBlader is offline

Elune
SmokeBlader's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 30,980

Default

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
barongrackle is right!, inappropriately named, morally indefensible, not done yet, population control

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.