|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quotable Conversationalist
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:06 am
In abortion debate threads, I've seen quite a few stupid arguments used by pro-choicers, including
"The fetus is not alive until it's born. talk2hand "
Among others that I can't remember right now. xd
I was also in this thread where a girl said she was pro-choice, but she thought abortion is immoral and would never get one herself. Immediately the pro-choice asshats attacked, saying "No one cares about your morals!" and "Stop forcing your morals on people!" and "You're not a real pro-choicer!" It was the one of the most disgusting, blatantly stupid things that I've witnessed.
Sooo guys. What have you seen other pro-choicers say/arguments they've used that should never be said again? ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:15 pm
Even though I've actually seen evidence of this in a Criminal Justice course, one should never drag the fact that the crime rate went down after Roe v. Wade because less kids were being born into impoverished conditions and hence were not raised in and eventually admitted to a life of crime. It just carries too many racial and classist undertones and gets people way too riled up, true as it may be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:46 pm
"It's a parasite!"
Sure, the fetus shows a lot of parasitic characteristics, but flat-out calling it a parasite just makes you look like you know little about biology.
Oh, and this is a note for both sides: Do not confuse legal status with species membership. Human =/= person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:19 pm
Fetii are alive. Fetii are human. Do not say that they aren't.
Fetii are not parasites for the simple fact that they are human, like the women carrying them. To be a parasite, the host and parasite must be of two different species.
"You're stupid!" and other retarded arguments of no merit.
Anything that shows your lack of basic biological knowledge. I swear, if anyone ever says something about a fetus residing in a woman's stomach again, I will kill.
More coming... eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:02 pm
On the occasion, I do not mind throwing in a legal definition, or two; however, when your arguments center around something so fluid as semantics you risk losing substantial support when such changes occur.
Yes, legally speaking, abortion isn't classified as "murder"; however, legal definitions are subject to change (let us hope that it doesn't). Were the tables turned, would you want to be the one being slapped with legal definitions that you thought were unfairly created/imposed?
Don't believe that abortion qualifies as murder? Great, me too -- now, all you have to do is explain why you, personally, feel that the law's current definition of murder is correct. And, if your justification is along the lines of "well, the law does say so," I would suggest that you refrain from using this particular approach in debating abortion -- actually, I would suggest that you go back to the drawing board and wholly reconsider some of these things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:12 pm
'Pro-Choice But's'
Either you support a woman's choice, or you don't. You can't put limitations on her simply, because it squicks you out. Rape, incest, or whether or not contraception was used should not be factors in whether or not she should be able to get an abortion.
The whole 'a fetus is not alive' thing pisses me off. Same with 'a fetus isn't human yet'. What is a fetus to start with then, a cat?
Not an argument, but something that pisses me off in debate,
'Pro-Choice political, Pro-Life personal'
If you wouldn't get an abortion, but you don't think your feelings should be forced on another you are PRO-CHOICE! Pro-Choice =/= abort every pregnancy. You don't need to add the 'pro-life personal' part when saying you're pro-choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:21 pm
Deformography Anything that shows your lack of basic biological knowledge. I swear, if anyone ever says something about a fetus residing in a woman's stomach again, I will kill. There's a baby in mah tummy! But that's because I am a cannibal. x3 Nummers...-------- Hmm...I hate it when people get distracted from the main point by focusing on what the other side calls themselves. "You call yourself pro-life? Well you're really anti-choice/woman!" "You call yourself pro-choice? Well you're really pro-murder/abortion!" and whatever...to me, that sort of thing doesn't even matter. It's what the person stands for that matters. I could jabber on and on about how feminsts should start calling themselves equalists instead of feminists in this day and age and why, but all it does is distract from whatever you are talking about and who really cares anyways? If the main argument is about abortion people should be discussing abortion. However if the main argument is about the two arguing side's names then they should be discussing the names.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:23 pm
"But this is just my opinion!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:35 pm
Yes, "The fetus is not alive" is a LAME argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:45 pm
Has anyone other then me and a few others I know noticed that that pro choicers and pro lifers who don't belong to either guild - yet debate on gaia are usually the most a**-hatted group? surprised
I find that those in the guilds tend to be a bit more organised and less ready to insult when someone says something they don't agree with.
(seraph and pyro are exceptions though)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:54 pm
Trite~Elegy Has anyone other then me and a few others I know noticed that that pro choicers and pro lifers who don't belong to either guild - yet debate on gaia are usually the most a**-hatted group? surprised
I find that those in the guilds tend to be a bit more organised and less ready to insult when someone says something they don't agree with.
(seraph and pyro are exceptions though)
And me. *shame* I tried working on that, the idiots you mentioned don't make it easy for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:27 pm
Arguments like "you could be aborting the next Hitler" are asinine for so many reasons. 1) You could also not be. Whatever. It's way too easy to counter with "you could be aborting the next {your favorite person here}". 2) I don't know any women who get abortions because they're scared they'll give birth to "the next Hitler" otherwise. Maybe there are such women out there, but wtf? This ignores the real issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:50 am
..Le Chat du Noir.. Yes, "The fetus is not alive" is a LAME argument.
I think I hate that one the most.
Not being able to sustain life on one's own doesn't mean that they aren't alive. If so, then there's a whole bunch of zombies running around. XP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:32 am
Asexual-Slut~Enya On the occasion, I do not mind throwing in a legal definition, or two; however, when your arguments center around something so fluid as semantics you risk losing substantial support when such changes occur. Yes, legally speaking, abortion isn't classified as "murder"; however, legal definitions are subject to change (let us hope that it doesn't). Were the tables turned, would you want to be the one being slapped with legal definitions that you thought were unfairly created/imposed? Don't believe that abortion qualifies as murder? Great, me too -- now, all you have to do is explain why you, personally, feel that the law's current definition of murder is correct. And, if your justification is along the lines of "well, the law does say so," I would suggest that you refrain from using this particular approach in debating abortion -- actually, I would suggest that you go back to the drawing board and wholly reconsider some of these things. That bugs me, too. I hate it when someone bases their entire argument on semantics (and, oddly enough, I see pro-choicers do this more than anti-choicers). Say that a fetus and a baby aren't the same thing, abortion is murder, and so on. Call them what they are (appeal to emotion fallacy). Move on. Debate is not all in semantics. While it is, without a doubt, important, your argument should not center on it. They are saying more than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:19 pm
The problem is when anyone thinks that their morals trumps anyone else's. This includes pro-choicers who want to moralize another pro-choicer for something he or she said (although, I must admit that the "moralizing" junk occurs more on the pro-life side).
Dont'cha know, there's no such thing as moral absolutes, anyone can do anything the ******** they want! lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
