Post: #176

(08-03-2015 10:09 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I'll tell you what I think the issue is: you guys want to bring these cute and cuddly babies into this world but then once they're born, you stop giving a shit. Then once they're 18 and choosing a liberal arts major in college, you start saying "Fuck this idiot, he/she is gonna be a drain on society!!". That's when you hear the "My taxes are paying for this?!!" bullshit floating around. And this is the best case scenario. Chances are these unaborted kids are gonna be involved in drugs or crime once they grow up. Ok, but this is what you wanted right? You wanted to bring that kid in because WAAAAAAAHHH babies are humans and abortion is murder! WAAAAAAAH!!

You don't give a flying fuck about these fetuses.

EDIT: I also sense that guys here are psychologically uncomfortable with the fact that abortions are normally a WOMAN'S choice. The way I look at it, if it's part of her body, it's her decision.

What you describe, the ability (and drive) to sire a child without caring for them is biology 101: the male sexual imperative and basis for the survival of the species. This is why virtually all religions all across the world prescribe marriage as a basic tenet. Only in a relationship in which the woman is fully committed to her man do men naturally protect and care for the well being of his woman and offspring. (Women are the opposite, hard wired to love their offspring even in the case of a child being born of rape, which is why rape was often used as part of the strategy to conquer a nation.) Furthering ones genes without expending resources is a win, biologically speaking.

Prior to the safety nets of birth control, welfare and abortion, women knew that the last thing they wanted to have happen was an unplanned pregnancy. Get pregnant, either your father was powerful enough to force a shotgun wedding, or you live in destitute. That's why the "fast" girls of my dad's day mostly gave out hand jobs.

Post: #177

I was going to respond to Tiger Mandingo, but he's just too uninformed and all of his arguments have been refuted ad nauseum by other posters as well as other threads. The "players cannot care about society" argument is so bad (been refuted 100 times on this forum) you honestly should be ashamed of buying yourself a gold membership with such terrible reasoning skills. Why join a forum that contradicts itself if you actually believed that? Trolling level: pathetic.

Tiger your response to me here: /thread-49075-...pid1076549

Was destroyed by Dr. Howard in the very next post. You're not even responding to arguments, everyone here knows you are wrong, you should quit before you make yourself look even worse to the public here.

Post: #178

(08-03-2015 12:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Tiger your response to me here: /thread-49075-...pid1076549

Was destroyed by Dr. Howard in the very next post. You're not even responding to arguments, everyone here knows you are wrong, you should quit before you make yourself look even worse to the public here.

Typo above. Tiger should be replaced with Killer Joe.

As for Tiger, he supports a bunch of cats in the jungle but not the unborn human life:

/thread-49420-...pid1076106

You've got mixed up priorities and your mind is clouded with evil, Tiger.

Post: #179

(08-03-2015 01:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  As for Tiger, he supports a bunch of cats in the jungle but not the unborn human life:

/thread-49420-...pid1076106

Hmm, this is suspiciously consistent with him actually being a Tiger...

Post: #180

Phoenix, you've got me cracking up hard man LOL.

All is well, gentlemen. I still have enormous respect for every poster in this thread and it's great that despite debating what is one of the most controversial topics, we still haven't resorted to name-calling and other such things.

Post: #181

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/5-S...69132.html

Pregnant Woman's Unborn Baby Killed, 4 Others Injured in Brooklyn Drive-By Shooting


B-b-but if it was just a clump of cells how could it be killed?

Post: #182

(08-03-2015 12:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I was going to respond to Tiger Mandingo, but he's just too uninformed and all of his arguments have been refuted ad nauseum by other posters as well as other threads. The "players cannot care about society" argument is so bad (been refuted 100 times on this forum) you honestly should be ashamed of buying yourself a gold membership with such terrible reasoning skills. Why join a forum that contradicts itself if you actually believed that? Trolling level: pathetic.

Tiger your response to me here: /thread-49075-...pid1076549

Was destroyed by Dr. Howard in the very next post. You're not even responding to arguments, everyone here knows you are wrong, you should quit before you make yourself look even worse to the public here.

I re-read Dr. Howard's post. I really don't think he 'destroyed' anything, or even addressed any of my arguments.

He simply shared the story of how he found abortion morally objectionable based on his own personal experience - the premature birth of his daughter. A very valid viewpoint - which is why I didn't respond, as there was nothing to debate.

I did make a mistake though, I said "It's not killing anyone - if we are strictly speaking in legal terms" when I should have said "It's not murdering anyone - if we are strictly speaking in legal terms". I stand corrected.

(08-03-2015 01:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Tiger your response to me here: /thread-49075-...pid1076549

Was destroyed by Dr. Howard in the very next post. You're not even responding to arguments, everyone here knows you are wrong, you should quit before you make yourself look even worse to the public here.

Typo above. Tiger should be replaced with Killer Joe.

It's cool cuz, you simply mistook one cool cat for another.

(08-04-2015 06:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/5-S...69132.html

Pregnant Woman's Unborn Baby Killed, 4 Others Injured in Brooklyn Drive-By Shooting


B-b-but if it was just a clump of cells how could it be killed?

A textbook case of an appeal to emotion.

Post: #183

So how many here have seen the unedited footage or at least read the transcript now that it's available?

Post: #184

Great example Samseau.

The hamster brigade is out in force in the comments. Just look at these amazing arguments from the pro-choice crowd:

   

Post: #185

(08-04-2015 06:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/5-S...69132.html

Pregnant Woman's Unborn Baby Killed, 4 Others Injured in Brooklyn Drive-By Shooting


B-b-but if it was just a clump of cells how could it be killed?

Ha ha yeah now you see the far left's hypocrisy-in-action and double standards.

The reality is that most of these people that are so die-hards and unrelenting re their "policy goals" that they can be incredibly cold-hearted when evidence is produced showing how inhumane a lot of the abortion industry really is. Suffice it to say if someone was selling lion parts a lot of these people would be up in arms!

At a minimum they need to fully ban 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions in my opinion.

Women in the West are taught that "it's my body, my baby" and the father's generally have not say in the matter which is another big problem nobody is addressing.

We need to re-think most of these "women's health" and other NGOs - most aren't helping but rather hurting, at least on the home front.

Post: #186

Appears the only thing that works against them is their own tactics.

Reduce every argument to an appeal to emotion. Do it better and you'll win.

Post: #187

(08-05-2015 02:40 AM)Sooth Wrote:  Appears the only thing that works against them is their own tactics.

Somebody other than Trump finally figured it out.

That is how you always win.

Frankly, any guy that knows how shit works already knows this.

Post: #188

The problem with the abortion issue is that there isn't a logical answer to any of the questions. It is a subject that -- rightly -- touches something very deep and primal in the human condition. Religion often has something to say about it, but only because religion and the human condition have large portions of the Venn diagram in common. Every argument made in this debate is going to have a logical fallacy attached to it, be it argument from nature, appeal to emotion and so on.

I don't actually have that much of a problem with logically fallacious arguments on this particular subject, simply because, as said, logic does not afford a full answer in this instance. Indeed I think we would be in far, far worse shape as a society if this issue did become one solveable logically and coldly. (I think this is why the Planned Parenthood secret interviews chill us on some levels: because, be it the banality of evil or just professional detachment, the discussion is being had about human parts as if they were just job lots.)

Socrates demonstrated the very limits of logic with the Socratic dialectic method attributed to him by Plato: he would approach someone, ask for their definition of, say, justice, and then undercut the person's definition with examples that contravened that definition. The idea of this was not to play asshole with random Greek citizens, but simply to point out that logic and reason only carried a human being so far, that there was a category of knowledge or subjects that simply could not be evaluated by reason, or could not be evaluated by reason alone. Akin to this is that a lot of arguments on the topic come down to bullshit attempts to redefine terms, which helps nobody and which doesn't answer the question either.

Emotion, pragmatism, and morals all have a part to play in the debate, because the abortion debate touches some of the most important subjects in human existence: life, death, and what it means to be human. Fuck I, Robot for existential questions, the bent coathanger presents a far more visceral and immediate question mark to our humanity.

The violence and viscerality of both sides of the argument is significant to understand. Lefties hated it when pro-life protesters resorted to short movies like The Silent Scream in debate because it brought home to people what was being done when an abortion took place. This was a tactic those same lefties had presented when first demanding abortion by waving placards around of dead women lying in hotel rooms from failed abortions. They hated the argument not for its falsity but for the fact it brought home to people what happens in an abortion, whether or not the film was entirely accurate. This could be classed as an appeal to emotion in both cases (and replete with exaggeration in both cases), but I actually prefer to think of these arguments as pointing to reality.

One one hand, if you refuse abortions, you potentially force women to go for illegal, backyard abortions with wire coathangers and suffering. That is a hard reality. With every activity forced underground, it becomes less safe to carry out and more lucrative for the black marketeers. Unwanted children are often treated badly, too, and that is a hard reality as well.

On the other hand, when you abort a foetus, you stop a heartbeat. Often violently. With all that entails. Saying that the heartbeat is not a baby strikes me personally as sophistry: shall we next propose it is less serious to kill a child because that child had not grown up into a man? Every argument made along the lines of "It's a lump of cells" can be distilled down to an attempt to change the listener's view about what it means to be a human being, or to rationalise what is a decision to end a life. The problem being that every living organism is nothing but a lump of cells; dust ye are and to dust ye shall return, as someone once said. The argument is not so much "it's just a lump of cells" as "it's nothing but a lump of cells." That is what stings at our cores. (On a tangent, it's a statement of Epicureanism, but I digress).

It is because it's such a stinging argument that women scream so hard against it. In the screencap above you'll note the woman resorted first, and played hard, to the rationalisation that the foetus is part of her body, that she has absolute agency over it. It is a deflection from debating what a human is to debating what choices that human has. And it is resorted to immediately because it's too disturbing a question to think about deeply. I would suspect given the vehemence of the response that the woman involved has had an abortion in the past herself, and has been taught to rationalise that decision in the manner described. While that's personally repugnant to me, I can understand it.

But these are not complete answers, either: as Stephen King once had his characters say, the end of a life is never pretty. Every day across the world men stop thousands of heartbeats - those of animals that become our food, hell, we rip open and sever at the root living organisms for firewood.

The view I hold to, the one I like best, is admittedly a logically fallacious one. It is a form of argument from nature, resort to design if you will, but it's the argument that rings true most for me:

Human beings are not designed, or evolved, or adapted (take your pick) to spontaneously abort a fertilised egg -- or a foetus -- without significant physical or pharmacological intervention. Women have a biological mechanism to eject unused eggs -- which by definition are not capable of becoming human beings -- and men are capable of spewing unused sperm from their bodies so long as we've got two minutes and a convenient picture of a >= 7. But there is no biological mechanism, no muscle a woman can deliberately clench in her own body, which will trigger an abortion at will. They have that in common with pretty much every other organism on the planet. Insofar as species are teleological -- purpose-driven -- their first and fundamental purpose is to reproduce, to create offspring. Even "lower life forms" like plants do that, where entire lifeforms adapt around or are devoted to the creation, protection, and then dispersal of their seed.

Abortion -- the process of inducing a miscarriage -- goes directly against our most primal purpose as a species. Birth control devices interrupt conception, or make it impossible; abortion is intervening one step after that process has begun. Miscarriage -- the unwilled ending of a pregnancy -- is distinct, simply because it's unwilled. It is a defect in the birth process, for whatever uncontrollable reason.

I could understand completely if someone were to object to this argument on the basis that human beings kill one another fairly regularly and that this is against that primal purpose too, and we could talk for hours about how human musculature and/or brain and/or legs are built to compete, but ultimately I think the reason abortion triggers such a primal response in us is precisely because it's human beings overriding the most basic, most instinctive drive: to successfully carry a fertilised embryo to full term.

(Notice that I distinguish this drive from the act of conception itself, because they're not the same thing. I do that for good reason, because of the comparative rarity: fucking and ejaculation can happen repeatedly in one day (with good game); a kid takes 9 months to reach the point of survival outside another human's body.)

Abortion is a most unique human behaviour in that respect. And it might be noted that even buttfucking homosexuals, triggering sperm up arseholes or eating more carpet than a vacuum cleaner, are responding to the general drive to reproduce, at the level of the amydgala; sexual pleasure seems most likely to have evolved as servant to, as enabler of, procreation. Half the theory about game on this very forum is devoted to accessing that primal drive in women, albeit for fun and profit rather than bringing on kids.

I'm not saying that abortion in all cases is wrong. Abortion in cases where it's threatening the life of the mother is something that has to be seriously considered. But insofar as humanity has a sacred nature -- and I use the word 'sacred' in a very loose sense - abortion strikes me as going against that sanctity. It is not something to be handed out freely, any more than you would hand out alcohol freely to 10 year olds.

Post: #189

(08-05-2015 02:40 AM)Sooth Wrote:  Appears the only thing that works against them is their own tactics.

Reduce every argument to an appeal to emotion. Do it better and you'll win.

Being unapologetically cold and ruthless whilst ridiculing them works well too.

Here's one example from a videogame board I post on where I mock and ultimately drive a hysterical feminist harpy up the wall:



http://forum.bioware.com/topic/559086-fe...p=19483959 (more examples here by me and buddy on there from that dispute)

Never EVER presume they operate with good faith or give a flying fuck what you have to say or that they operate non-emotionally(typical fatal mistakes of moderates and other naive fools). Attack and ridicule them without mercy, for they'd show you none.

Post: #190

(08-05-2015 02:31 AM)Akula Wrote:  At a minimum they need to fully ban 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions in my opinion.

Don't worry, they'll get around that somehow. Check out this gem:

Transcript of Center for Medical Progress's latest video, page 71 Wrote:Buyer: Did I understand you correctly, that you have changed how you define or calculate that gestational age, so what we consider sixteen weeks might be really, you might call it fourteen.

PP Farrell: Yes, and Tram is going to have to explain that. When House BIll Two was first enacted certain parts were effective immediately, and we have started using it, thats one of them. Other parts of it are being challenged in court and they have a stay on it so we’re not doing it immediately so like the ambulatory surgical center requirement throughout Texas a lot of organizations are throwing
in the towel, we know the were not going to to be able to go anywhere with this, the supreme court is not going to rule in or favor. Others have said we're just going to keep doing business under old rules. How it’s defined in terms of weeks from conception versus gestational age, I don't know the exact time difference, in my head I’m think it’s two weeks, about two weeks from LMP to estimated date of conception, EDC. Which is what is referenced in all the legalees. I just need to get them.

Buyer: Right, what’s the change? Two weeks. And then, is there room to, well, we didn’t know to hold the correct information from the patient, so we could stretch it for about three weeks? Is there any wiggle room there?

PP Farrell: I think that- everything the gestational age, estimated date of conception, everything is done by ultrasound, so it’s-

Buyer: Ok, so it’s really how get to define, you get to create your definition of that date and then speak to it that way.

PP Farrell: It’s still- what it did, basically what it ended up doing is knocking two weeks off, instead of it going to twenty two weeks, it goes to twenty weeks, because it impacts in that direction.

Buyer: For us that would mean, we could ask you for a twenty two, in your language that would be a twenty.

PP Farrell: I think so.

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/..._final.pdf

It's incredible. The information found in the transcripts is even more chilling than the one in the videos. I recommend everyone to read them, as boring as most of them are.

Post: #191

When the concept of planned parenthood selling baby organs was started,I knew it would somehow work against male babies. The Left is supporting it,gruesome feminists are supporting it...what more can you expect?Feminists and their actions claim that they are always pushing for mass-hetero-male genocide.Therefore "Another boy" in the fourth video is startling but it was as expected.It's a surprise that none of the media outlets expose the real motive behind planned parenthood.....legalized male genocide.No wonder to curb the attention from it...President Obama is focussing on climate change....and others have started a dentist witch-hunt.On other hand,babies are getting killed like lab rats.When Motherhood becomes a burden for women,it points to the darkest age in history.And we have reached that point.No responsibilities,no care...Just kill your baby,sell it,earn few bucks and move on experimenting with hundreds of other penises.Shocking......
Just check this article....
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/42...onsensical
And as a matter of fact the "77 cents for 1 dollar" woman(Hillary Clinton) supports this genocide and like every time,her email address has been found in the planned parenthood's account.Can't expect much from a woman who pushes for male circumcision but calls female circumcision,unlawful.

Post: #192

(08-05-2015 05:04 AM)Seboist Wrote:  Attack and ridicule them without mercy, for they'd show you none.

Absolutely. The right always forget the "riposte" part of "parry and riposte". They provide an explanation why their opponent is false, but leave it at that and think that's enough. It definitely isn't. Always end each exchange with a direct attack on the opponent. If they attack your character, parry with explanation, but then attack theirs in at least equally bitter terms.

Pure explanation is enough in a world of level-headed, intelligent, calm, and rational citizens. However this is the real world.

Post: #193

Sacrificing babies in the altar of Moloch.

Sanctity of life is just a joke.

Post: #194

(08-04-2015 06:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/5-S...69132.html

Pregnant Woman's Unborn Baby Killed, 4 Others Injured in Brooklyn Drive-By Shooting


B-b-but if it was just a clump of cells how could it be killed?

I agree, there is definitely a consistency issue here. If its not a baby the title should have been.

Pregnant Woman Shot in the Fetus, 4 Others Injured in Brooklyn Drive-By Shooting


Which brings me to another point. What terms to pregnant women use when describing the fetus in them? Do they say "here, feel this pseudo parasitic tumor moving around in my abdomen" or do they say "hey, put your hand here, you can feel the baby kicking"

Post: #195

Yeah, they say it's a baby. It's only when people can't tolerate reality that they try to obfuscate it with weasel words.

Post: #196

(08-05-2015 12:26 AM)Killer Joe Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I was going to respond to Tiger Mandingo, but he's just too uninformed and all of his arguments have been refuted ad nauseum by other posters as well as other threads. The "players cannot care about society" argument is so bad (been refuted 100 times on this forum) you honestly should be ashamed of buying yourself a gold membership with such terrible reasoning skills. Why join a forum that contradicts itself if you actually believed that? Trolling level: pathetic.

Tiger your response to me here: /thread-49075-...pid1076549

Was destroyed by Dr. Howard in the very next post. You're not even responding to arguments, everyone here knows you are wrong, you should quit before you make yourself look even worse to the public here.

I re-read Dr. Howard's post. I really don't think he 'destroyed' anything, or even addressed any of my arguments.

He simply shared the story of how he found abortion morally objectionable based on his own personal experience - the premature birth of his daughter. A very valid viewpoint - which is why I didn't respond, as there was nothing to debate.

I did make a mistake though, I said "It's not killing anyone - if we are strictly speaking in legal terms" when I should have said "It's not murdering anyone - if we are strictly speaking in legal terms". I stand corrected.

It is murder, because you're taking a life unjustly. Dr. Howard explained quite nicely how the idea there isn't a living being inside of the womb is total nonsense. You seem unable to accept the Truth, but that's okay because I enjoy destroying bad arguments for the sake of others reading this thread.

Quote:

(08-04-2015 06:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/5-S...69132.html

Pregnant Woman's Unborn Baby Killed, 4 Others Injured in Brooklyn Drive-By Shooting


B-b-but if it was just a clump of cells how could it be killed?

A textbook case of an appeal to emotion.

No emotions, just cold hard facts and logic. The fact you see it as emotion proves you're the one who can't get past his emotions.

It's obviously a living and growing human being, and killing it is murder. Anyone can see this is as plain as day.

Paracelsus Wrote:The problem with the abortion issue is that there isn't a logical answer to any of the questions.

Bullshit, it's actually very logical. If you think murder is wrong then abortion is wrong because it violates the life of another being.

Post: #197

(08-05-2015 11:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Bullshit, it's actually very logical. If you think murder is wrong then abortion is wrong because it violates the life of another being.

Murder can be wrong, but it can also be excusable in certain circumstances: self-defence, for one, whether in defence of one's own life or in defence of another. However for that we need to clarify the term: are you talking about murder as defined by law, or murder as defined morally? If it's just the violation of the life of another "being", what makes going out to pick up a few herring on the bay any less reprehensible than abortion?

See where I'm going here? This shit is not sortable by pure logic. Emotion, morals, and pragmatism will play big parts in any such debate because they're part of what makes us human, and abortion is about as human a question as you can get.

Post: #198

(08-05-2015 12:10 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 11:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Bullshit, it's actually very logical. If you think murder is wrong then abortion is wrong because it violates the life of another being.

Murder can be wrong, but it can also be excusable in certain circumstances: self-defence, for one, whether in defence of one's own life or in defence of another. However for that we need to clarify the term: are you talking about murder as defined by law, or murder as defined morally?

I'm speaking morally. And yes, I should have included the word "innocent." Abortion is wrong because it violates the life of another innocent being.

Post: #199

(08-05-2015 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:10 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 11:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Bullshit, it's actually very logical. If you think murder is wrong then abortion is wrong because it violates the life of another being.

Murder can be wrong, but it can also be excusable in certain circumstances: self-defence, for one, whether in defence of one's own life or in defence of another. However for that we need to clarify the term: are you talking about murder as defined by law, or murder as defined morally?

I'm speaking morally. And yes, I should have included the word "innocent." Abortion is wrong because it violates the life of another innocent being.

I edited after you posted, sorry ... but the question remains. If it's violation of the life of an innocent being, what intrinsically makes going out to pick up a few herring on the bay any less reprehensible than abortion?

Post: #200

(08-05-2015 12:14 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:10 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 11:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Bullshit, it's actually very logical. If you think murder is wrong then abortion is wrong because it violates the life of another being.

Murder can be wrong, but it can also be excusable in certain circumstances: self-defence, for one, whether in defence of one's own life or in defence of another. However for that we need to clarify the term: are you talking about murder as defined by law, or murder as defined morally?

I'm speaking morally. And yes, I should have included the word "innocent." Abortion is wrong because it violates the life of another innocent being.

I edited after you posted, sorry ... but the question remains. If it's violation of the life of an innocent being, what intrinsically makes going out to pick up a few herring on the bay any less reprehensible than abortion?

Only humans have rights.