Abortion absolutism

Neither of your arguments is sound, exactly for the reasons explained in my post.

1. Would it be hypocritical for a man who thought about doing something then say it should be against the law? You didn't answer that question, which is the analogy to Palin, who thought about an abortion, saying it should be against the law.

2. The policy supported by the anti-abortion individuals is (1) the law should forbid abortions and (2) women should not *have* abortions. That's different from thinking about what you might do or what you wish you could do.

Finally, I'll just note that showing that Palin is a hypocrite doesn't answer the substantive question of what the law should be.

/shakes head after defending Sarah Palin

*The word "hypocrite" gets thrown around a lot, and many times improperly. Referring to pro-lifers who vote Democratic as "hypocrites," for example, is another incorrect ad hominem attack.

 

Christ are you ever stretching on this one.

So if a man or women thinks about cheating, but don't follow through they are hypocrites because of their thoughts?

 

If they're telling other people that they are bad people for cheating, then yeah, they are.

It's one thing to think of something, and then do the opposite. That's called changing one's mind. It's another thing to be telling others that they should not be allowed to think of an option, and encourage laws to prevent others from considering that option, then turn around and consider that option for yourself. That's hypocrisy.

Simple enough for ya?

 

1. The way you put it here, yes, it would be hypocritical of the man.

2. You are using an argument about the abortion act itself. What I'm pointing out here is the choice aspect of it. I consider what Palin did to be a pro-choice position, even though she's anti-abortion. What pregnant women do is make a choice. Palin made a choice too. She chose to have the baby.

As far as what the law should be, while it varies by state, I think it should be legal. In the original study posted on here, there was something about how there were 6 women who died from abortion complications in, if I remember correctly, one year. Make abortion illegal, and you might be having 6 women dying from illegal abortions each day, which would make up about 1.5 percent of the daily amount of abortions (which I think, is around 4,000 or so). Do pro-lifers really want to be reading on the news about 6 women per day dying from illegal abortions?

 

I have no idea how this supports your contention she is a hypocrite.

Is an atheist who ponders the existence of God a hypocrite? Is a vegetarian who is tempted by the smell of bacon a hypocrite.

Christ was famously tempted. He questioned his mission. That's because he was both man and divine. I'm not sure we should hold Palin to a higher standard.

And, besides, while there are some calls for a Constitutional Amendment to protect life, the most realistic change would be the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. This would leave it up to the states. A woman of Palin's means, would need only to fly to California or Washington state to have an abortion if she sought one.

Even if it was outlawed throughout the land, she could travel to Europe.

(And if there's an argument for keeping abortion legal, this is a pretty good one.)

It gets very frustrating to argue with you. You make emotional arguments. You ascribe evil intentions to the people you disagree with -- basically anyone who is a Republican, or a Capitalist. And you have such anger about there policies.

And, you really get worked up about hypocrites.

So, ponder me this: what do you call someone who rails against CEOs and the way they treat their employees, and then professes to be a fan of Vince McMahon -- who treats his employees like shit -- simply because he's a fan of the product?

 

If we lowered the speed limit, it would save lives.

If we made alcohol illegal, it would save lives.

Do you really want to drive 55 MPH and faster so bad as to cause people to die?

Is your beer after work so important to you that your willing to let people die in exchange for it?

 

Is the atheist trying to pass laws banning people from praying? Is the vegetarian trying to pass laws banning people from eating bacon?

Nope. People are free to pray to whomever they want, and to eat bacon whenever they want. They just can't tell others that they must pray alongside with them and force them to eat bacon.

And oh yeah, if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, Palin could shop around. Poor women cannot. So now, you have abortion for rich women only. That's really fair. And if you don't think that the pro-life states would ban women from traveling to pro-choice states to have an abortion, then you're just as naive as I'm often accused of being.

And I have anger towards Republican policies because they attempt to pass laws that tell others how they should live their private lives, laws that make the air that I breathe and the water I drink worse, complain about their taxes being too high even though it's been proven that they wouldn't create jobs if the taxes were lowered, and oh yeah, sent out troops into a war to die and be maimed so the president could recreate V-E Day and fly on a fighter jet.

As far as Vince McMahon goes, I've also criticized him for how he treats his employees (firing wrestlers even though they have contracts), and I've criticized his product multiple times. Thing is, I'm just one person. I suppose I could go to one of his matches, run to the ring, and set myself on fire in protest. Somehow, I'd doubt that would be too smart.

If anything, his wrestlers should unionize, and McMahon wouldn't treat them like shit then. But he's basically the only player in the game right now (TNA is not very strong), and his wrestlers are scared that if they stick their necks out, they'll be chopped off. And the top stars are actually treated very well, so they don't have any incentive to help the guys lower than them.

 

Difference again, is about choice.

I can choose to drive slower than 65. I can choose to drink, or not to drink. I willingly choose to take the risks associated with driving faster or drinking.

If pro-lifers had their way, women would either choose to have an abortion in a dirty back alley, or give birth. Why should they be forced into just those two choices when there are other, more safer for them alternatives, to choose from.

 

Thank you for proving each of my points.

 

It just doesn't seem fair to put abortion into this category. They believe that the unborn fetus is alive (as do I). Therefore, abortion is the same as banning infanticide, which none of us have a problem with, even though that's also telling people how to live their private lives.

It's the old saw: My right to swing my first ends at someone else's nose.

 

You're just fucking stunned Baron.

 

Partial birth abortion is definitely third-term.