Jump to content


Not A Pro Choice?


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 nvrmndtbolcks

nvrmndtbolcks

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 02 March 2006 - 02:10 AM

Denying the right of women to control their own bodies, including the ability to end an unwanted pregnancy, means they are ultimately enslaved by the state. Once you deny a MAJORITY of individuals absolute sovereignty over their own bodies, you in fact completely delegitimize the so-called democracy that everyone mistakenly thinks they are living in. Human rights, which we have at birth, which are not given to us by the state, we have them always and forever - and they are based on ownership of your individual body and mind.Of course there should be restrictions on abortion, (just as their should be restricitions on unbridled robber-baron capitalism ie. toxic waste dump literally in your back yard). Those restrictions already exist under the current laws. No one wants to allow the destruction of a 'developing' fetus after it has reached a stage where it could exist outside of the mother's body. Prior to that point the fetus is very much "part" of the mother .. like an additional organ, with 'potential' to be much more, no doubt, but is not at that stage more than it is.You can be both pro choice, against forcing women to be baby-making machines, and agree that life (the beginning of the process toward a fully realized human) does indeed begin at conception.Again, the hypocrisy of the right-wing christo-fascists in the USA, never ceases to amaze. They are rabid in their opposition to abortion, but are right up front waving their pom-poms everytime someone starts talking about near-total war bombing campaigns in the land of the "evildoers". Do your own research .. try this google search "Robertson Crazy Pat ". ;-)Daniel is obviously highly intelligent, worldly, and should have a sense of what social justice is, given his origins; I hope he can see that faith in God and pro-choice are just one of those many things that have to be reconciled in that very large gray area where human existence on Earth happens.I do not believe in any organized religion's "version" of God and therefore I do not have to adhere to any of their man-made doctrines, or dictates from the current "(mis)leadership". I do however believe that Jesus did exist - I believe in Jesus, just not in the Christ (ascended Jesus) part ;-). He is, like Dubya once said, one of my "favorite philosophers" and revolutionaries (vs foreign occupation, corrupt religious leaders, and for more equitable wealth distribution) - anyway, if Jesus, the man, were alive today with a more up-to-date attitude toward the status of women, even with faith in his Judaic culture's version of God after his "tweaks", he would see the simple moral equation.The mob does not have the right to force a woman (or any individual) to do anything she does not want to do, for 9 months, ending in a potentially life threatening event.Abortion has been used as a divisive issue in order to move that large bloc of progressive religious voters, to the right. It was a brilliant move, but the ever evolving intelligence of humankind guarantees that this will be short-lived. Just as stalling stem cell research is very much temporary, because most people want to see improvements to life on Earth, and are not willing to sit around waiting for the Rapture, while the "meek and infirm" multitudes continue to grow .. and grow.. and grow...Cheers,nvrmndtbolcksBC-

#2 Abbaddabba

Abbaddabba

    breaking even like it's 1999

  • Members
  • 5,225 posts

Posted 02 March 2006 - 03:54 AM

Seriously, nobody cares.Some people think it's human, some dont. If the fetus/unborn child/coat hanger target is to be held under the law as a human life, it's protected by the law. If not, it'll continue to be open season for fetus hunting.Right now it isnt considered human under the law. Some people think that it should be. You apparently dont. There's no scientific argument to support either side. Science tells us about physical properties, not of value. If you regard it as human, there's no "social justice" in allowing it to be killed for a less than proportional benefit to the mother. If you dont regard it as human, there's not much of an argument to stop them from doing it.The way you're moralizing it makes you sound like you're mentally retarded. Yes. Jesus would approve of your beliefs. ****ing twit.

#3 Cooker

Cooker

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Location:Champaign, IL
  • Interests:Physics, Poker, Video Games,

Posted 02 March 2006 - 07:01 AM

View Postnvrmndtbolcks, on Thursday, March 2nd, 2006, 2:10 AM, said:

Denying the right of women to control their own bodies, including the ability to end an unwanted pregnancy, means they are ultimately enslaved by the state.
Is it legal to kill myself? Is it legal to take whatever drugs I want whenever I want? Are these women being forced to have unprotected sex? I don't really care much about abortion, but your arguments seem pretty silly to me. At best you show that in a rape situation abortion is reasonable.I think the argument Freakonomics presents is the best reasoning for abortion I have seen and you completely miss that one. He argues that abortion lowers crime because the children that are aborted are much more likely to have become criminals and has some statistical analysis to back up this conjecture.

#4 chrozzo

chrozzo

    hi™

  • Members
  • 23,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Geico

Posted 02 March 2006 - 10:34 AM

Attempted suicide is against the law, so you are a slave of the state yourself. Welcome to the club.
FCP CBO: Chief Beer Officer

I'm kind of a big deal.




#5 Farnan

Farnan

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 285 posts
  • Interests:Golf, Poker, Music

Posted 02 March 2006 - 10:56 AM

View PostCooker, on Thursday, March 2nd, 2006, 7:01 AM, said:

I think the argument Freakonomics presents is the best reasoning for abortion I have seen and you completely miss that one. He argues that abortion lowers crime because the children that are aborted are much more likely to have become criminals and has some statistical analysis to back up this conjecture.
The only thing Freakonomics should really teach someone is that correlation does not equal causation. You can find a statistical pattern/correlation in just about any two things. For example:One reason behind that correlation is the possibility that a higher percentage of those who are in dire financial straights get abortions. If this were the case, it begs the question--if we are concerned about lowering crime, why not figure out ways to help them lift themselves from those situations instead of increasing their burdens?Another reason behind that is that the more people there are in this world, the more potential criminals there are. Which means, in essence, anything that decreases the population would lower crime--so should we allow companies to sell dangerous products that kill citizens so as to lower the crime rate?Or maybe that is because a substantial number of incarcerated criminals are drug users and we all saw that commercial about how when girls smoke pot, they get pregnant and that other commercial that says "if parents use drugs, they have children who use drugs"--thus, we're lowering the pool of pot-heads thereby lowering the pool of criminals. :club: But you get the point (i hope). There are a 1000 different CAUSES for crime--and to point to a correlation rather than a cause as a justification doesn't make sense.

#6 Cooker

Cooker

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Location:Champaign, IL
  • Interests:Physics, Poker, Video Games,

Posted 02 March 2006 - 01:05 PM

View PostFarnan, on Thursday, March 2nd, 2006, 10:56 AM, said:

The only thing Freakonomics should really teach someone is that correlation does not equal causation. You can find a statistical pattern/correlation in just about any two things. For example:One reason behind that correlation is the possibility that a higher percentage of those who are in dire financial straights get abortions. If this were the case, it begs the question--if we are concerned about lowering crime, why not figure out ways to help them lift themselves from those situations instead of increasing their burdens?Another reason behind that is that the more people there are in this world, the more potential criminals there are. Which means, in essence, anything that decreases the population would lower crime--so should we allow companies to sell dangerous products that kill citizens so as to lower the crime rate?Or maybe that is because a substantial number of incarcerated criminals are drug users and we all saw that commercial about how when girls smoke pot, they get pregnant and that other commercial that says "if parents use drugs, they have children who use drugs"--thus, we're lowering the pool of pot-heads thereby lowering the pool of criminals. :club: But you get the point (i hope). There are a 1000 different CAUSES for crime--and to point to a correlation rather than a cause as a justification doesn't make sense.
Just because I think something is the best of a group doesn't mean I think it is any good.

#7 Redrum

Redrum

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 143 posts

Posted 02 March 2006 - 01:12 PM

I ate a BABY!!!!!I love those babybackbabybackbabybackbabybackrriiiiiiibbbs
THE DUDE ABIDES.....MAN.

#8 malaise_monk

malaise_monk

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 02 March 2006 - 01:19 PM

The most interesting thing I learned from Freakonomics was the structure of drug-dealing enterprises.I think you understate the strength of the connection Levitt found between abortion and crime. Not only did crime drop when the aborted embryos/fetuses would have become teen criminals, but only the number of criminals in the expected age bracket dropped. The crime rate caused by older criminals wasn't significantly affected. He also looked at data from states that had legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade, and found a similar, earlier correlation in those states. Wikipedia has a decent article on his arguments and rebuttals to criticism:http://en.wikipedia....nd_crime_effect

#9 blueodum

blueodum

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 977 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 03 March 2006 - 02:05 AM

Prior to that point the fetus is very much "part" of the mother .. like an additional organ,Not quite the same as another organ - you realize it has a different genetic structure, don't you.He argues that abortion lowers crime because the children that are aborted are much more likely to have become criminals and has some statistical analysis to back up this conjecture.He's not taking a position on whether abortion is moral or immoral; he's merely stating that there is likely a causal relationship between more abortions and less crime 16-25 years later.
"You shouldn't even care whether you win the pot. You should only care about making the correct decisions. Making quality decisions is the only thing you get paid for in poker." - Mike Caro

#10 DonkSlayer

DonkSlayer

    very, very standard

  • Members
  • 5,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond, VA
  • Favorite Poker Game:PL Omaha

Posted 03 March 2006 - 05:05 AM

"More equitable wealth distribution" ::pukes::It's not fair to give people something they didn't earn, period. It goes against natural law. Nobody gives a starving lion meat b/c they suck at hunting. If you distribute wealth based on a system that removes it from some and gives it to others, OR does not offer enough compensation for those who feel have earned it, you will turn that place into the most apathetic, low- or no-growth community around.
Fortune favors the brave.

#11 nvrmndtbolcks

nvrmndtbolcks

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 03 March 2006 - 06:18 AM

Uhhhh.. lolYES, it should be legal for you to kill yourselves.p.s.MORE equitable does not mean ABSOLUTELY EQUAL. Try to get beyond the red light, green light mentality, if you care at all about solving real problems.

#12 DonkSlayer

DonkSlayer

    very, very standard

  • Members
  • 5,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond, VA
  • Favorite Poker Game:PL Omaha

Posted 03 March 2006 - 06:54 AM

View Postnvrmndtbolcks, on Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 9:18 AM, said:

Uhhhh.. lolYES, it should be legal for you to kill yourselves.p.s.MORE equitable does not mean ABSOLUTELY EQUAL. Try to get beyond the red light, green light mentality, if you care at all about solving real problems.
This however will not work in an open, free-market system. If you redistribute wealth then prices will go up with the increased buying power, plus the producers, who will then have less capital, will be unable to produce to the increased demand, inflation will skyrocket, and people will be "poor" again, with no investors to right the ship. Great idea.By the way, money isn't what is important. If the world was like Star Trek and we really didn't have money, there would still be "rich" and "poor". Rich in spirit, friends, love....and those poor in those things. Are we to force people to share happiness, friends, love? I know "rich" people who are miserable and very average folk who are deliriously happy.
Fortune favors the brave.

#13 Farnan

Farnan

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 285 posts
  • Interests:Golf, Poker, Music

Posted 03 March 2006 - 07:26 AM

View PostDonkSlayer, on Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 6:54 AM, said:

This however will not work in an open, free-market system. If you redistribute wealth then prices will go up with the increased buying power, plus the producers, who will then have less capital, will be unable to produce to the increased demand, inflation will skyrocket, and people will be "poor" again, with no investors to right the ship. Great idea.
I'm not following you here. As an initial matter, i'm not all that certain what level of wealth redistribution you're talking about. Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pork funding, etc.--some of which are favored by either side of the isle involve a form of "redistribution of wealth" whereby money is taken from those who have it and used to pay for services/etc. that are not otherwise viable under a true free-market system. In other words, this country actively redistributes wealth--and it isn't just democrats who are doing it. Is inflation running out of control? Are our stock markets without shareholders?That being said, your economic analysis doesn't really hold up. The increased buying power of those who gain in the wealth shift is offset by lowered buying power of those who lose the wealth. And seeing as that those who benefit purchase different types of services with their gain (basic living expenses like food, shelter, etc.) -- you cannot assume that the very industry that is losing wealth is negatively impacted at all, let alone to the point that they cannot meet production demand. Not to mention it ignores the industries that benefit from the new purchasers who could not survive without the wealth redistribution.I'm all for looking at the macro and micro economic impact of any public policy, but i don't see any validity to your argument.

#14 DonkSlayer

DonkSlayer

    very, very standard

  • Members
  • 5,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond, VA
  • Favorite Poker Game:PL Omaha

Posted 03 March 2006 - 08:03 AM

View PostFarnan, on Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 10:26 AM, said:

I'm not following you here. As an initial matter, i'm not all that certain what level of wealth redistribution you're talking about. Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pork funding, etc.--some of which are favored by either side of the isle involve a form of "redistribution of wealth" whereby money is taken from those who have it and used to pay for services/etc. that are not otherwise viable under a true free-market system. In other words, this country actively redistributes wealth--and it isn't just democrats who are doing it. Is inflation running out of control? Are our stock markets without shareholders?
I think it's more than obvious that the post I was replying to supports income redistribution past safety-net programs, and I never said I even supported those.

Quote

That being said, your economic analysis doesn't really hold up. The increased buying power of those who gain in the wealth shift is offset by lowered buying power of those who lose the wealth. And seeing as that those who benefit purchase different types of services with their gain (basic living expenses like food, shelter, etc.) -- you cannot assume that the very industry that is losing wealth is negatively impacted at all, let alone to the point that they cannot meet production demand. Not to mention it ignores the industries that benefit from the new purchasers who could not survive without the wealth redistribution.I'm all for looking at the macro and micro economic impact of any public policy, but i don't see any validity to your argument.
If you can draw a graph, you'll see. The curve will become flatter, as demand will rise but supply will fall (falling supply isn't a "negative", it just "is"). The more the distribution of income and the increase of purchasing power on the demand side, the less on the supply side (assuming the increase comes from income redistribution and no other mitigating factors, like int'l trade, apply).Thus, less growth will occur because supply/demand will be near equilibrium, and something else in the market basket will have to change in order to enhance growth (see, the European Union economies).Now that we've talked about the econ, I find it also interesting that you've made a freudian slip in the sociological aspect of this problem. You said that those receiving more income will spend it (on needs/wants is debatable). I believe "they" will NOT, however, invest it, and they MAY save some as well. If all the income that is redistributed is spent/saved, you will not see growth coming from this redistribution, especially if it cripples the supply side. That's why tax cuts slanted toward only the lower-middle class will only make China richer, not the US.
Fortune favors the brave.

#15 Farnan

Farnan

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 285 posts
  • Interests:Golf, Poker, Music

Posted 03 March 2006 - 08:32 AM

View PostDonkSlayer, on Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 8:03 AM, said:

I think it's more than obvious that the post I was replying to supports income redistribution past safety-net programs, and I never said I even supported those.If you can draw a graph, you'll see. The curve will become flatter, as demand will rise but supply will fall (falling supply isn't a "negative", it just "is"). The more the distribution of income and the increase of purchasing power on the demand side, the less on the supply side (assuming the increase comes from income redistribution and no other mitigating factors, like int'l trade, apply).Thus, less growth will occur because supply/demand will be near equilibrium, and something else in the market basket will have to change in order to enhance growth (see, the European Union economies).
The "negative" i meant was your reference to an inability to produce do to their lowered buying power.The overall point i was trying to make is that it affect different industries differently and you cannot look at the effects in a vacuum. It is hard for me to think about this graph without understanding what perspective the graph is measuring. Is it for a particular company? Industry? US Economy? World Economy? I think this can greatly impact how this redistribtion affects us.And when you consider the change in supply/demand from wealth redistribution--are you talking a shift in the entire curve or are you talking about moving along its points? I assume you're talking about complete shifts. The problem is, there are so many other factors that also affect this that it doesn't make sense to discuss this in a complete vacuum. I think this brings up the point that it places upward PRESSURE on prices, etc. But the affects are not foregone conclusions--not to mention it doesn't take into what the effect of NOT providing these programs (not only from an economic standpoint, but from a social standpoint). For example, without safety nets, people who fall on hard times will have a less chance of pulling themselves out of whatever caused it, thus placing negative pressures on demand for the products/services they consumed; more homeless on the street can increase crime placing negative stress on those industries near such crime; greater unemployment numbers cause people to spend less. You get the point. There are just too many factors to discuss the impact of redistribution of wealth in any certain terms and to look at it without recognizing the other factors will cause you to lose the forest for the trees.

#16 Cooker

Cooker

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Location:Champaign, IL
  • Interests:Physics, Poker, Video Games,

Posted 03 March 2006 - 08:51 AM

View Postnvrmndtbolcks, on Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 6:18 AM, said:

Uhhhh.. lolYES, it should be legal for you to kill yourselves.p.s.MORE equitable does not mean ABSOLUTELY EQUAL. Try to get beyond the red light, green light mentality, if you care at all about solving real problems.
The point is, no one has the right to do whatever they want with his own body, and there are many such situations in which this is the case (drug laws, sodomy laws, suicide laws, and so on). Also, in reality there is no such thing as "human" rights given to you at birth, and certainly no right to a medical proceedure that has existed less than 100 years. If abortion was some part of a birth given human rights package then how in the world would a woman 500 years ago redeem her abortion card??

#17 nvrmndtbolcks

nvrmndtbolcks

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 03 March 2006 - 11:50 AM

View PostCooker, on Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 8:51 AM, said:

there is no such thing as "human" rights given to you at birth
WHAT!? That's what HUMAN RIGHTS are! Human rights are not "given" to you because they transcend law. They can not be given or taken away, they can only be respected or infringed upon.I am sorry I posted here, you people are obviously not equipped to discuss the subject. And whoever that guy is going on about "income" redistribution, I have no *** idea what he is on about! I was speaking of "more equitable" in terms of generational, class/caste based poverty; from a feudal, uni-directional (always upwards) distribution, to something less-so - I wasn't trying to make an argument for *** communism! I can however make an argument for social capitalism, but this thread isn't about ecomomics, is it!!?? Anyway, be proud, your attempt at derailing the discussion was successful.

#18 Cooker

Cooker

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Location:Champaign, IL
  • Interests:Physics, Poker, Video Games,

Posted 03 March 2006 - 01:45 PM

View Postnvrmndtbolcks, on Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 11:50 AM, said:

WHAT!? That's what HUMAN RIGHTS are! Human rights are not "given" to you because they transcend law. They can not be given or taken away, they can only be respected or infringed upon.I am sorry I posted here, you people are obviously not equipped to discuss the subject.
I personally think you are unequipped to discuss the subject. You simply have a belief that abortion should be allowed and you state it as if it were some sort of provable fact. It is not provable. Get over it. You seem to have some trouble with anyone that does not agree ferverently with any assertion you make. This is not a good way to go through life.You say "human rights" as if that means something I should care about. You can also say every apple has the right to be put into fertile soil, the right to grow into a tree without shade from other trees, and the right not to be eaten, You can say that these "apple rights" cannot be given or taken away, they can only be respected or infringed upon. Human rights have exactly as much meaning as apple rights. They are just some made up list of crap you hope people and other animals will let you do. Very few people will be so lucky as to have their human rights respected.Also note that these rights will vary greatly from person to person. I feel one of my human rights was the right to not be aborted. Does this mean my mother didn't have the right to abort me? Did she have the right to abort me and had she would that have simply been an infringement of my rights? Whose rights win in this case?

#19 MasterLJ

MasterLJ

    Bus Fare Gambler

  • Members
  • 2,576 posts

Posted 03 March 2006 - 02:03 PM

I think nvrmnd is on to something...I can use that in my next child support proceedings. "It came from her body, I had nothing to do with it."In all seriousness you even give libertarians a bad name. Is the baby only part of a woman's body when it's convinient? Then when daddy isn't the picture it's DEFINITELY both of the parent's responsibilities.Let's extrapolate your idea then. THis means that a mother can never be guilty of murdering her own child since it's merely an extension of her own body.
Me Blog (Updated: **12/22/2006**)


#20 Abbaddabba

Abbaddabba

    breaking even like it's 1999

  • Members
  • 5,225 posts

Posted 03 March 2006 - 02:31 PM

Quote

It's not fair to give people something they didn't earn, period. It goes against natural law. Nobody gives a starving lion meat b/c they suck at hunting. If you distribute wealth based on a system that removes it from some and gives it to others, OR does not offer enough compensation for those who feel have earned it, you will turn that place into the most apathetic, low- or no-growth community around.
An increase in tax rates will decrease work effort if the increased tax burden is carried by people who get their income primarily from... not shockingly, their work effort. Increasing taxes on capital gains for those who live off of the return on capital (the wealthy) isnt going to make them lazy. It's going to them invest less and consume more.I generally dont give much consideration to upholding imaginary "Natural Laws". Human welfare tends to take precedence when im looking at what policy would be 'best' for society.

Quote

Thus, less growth will occur because supply/demand will be near equilibrium, and something else in the market basket will have to change in order to enhance growth (see, the European Union economies).
Yes. It probably would. Not because "supply/demand curves will be near equilibrium" though. Either way,... you say that as if the redistribution itself is just some sort of fancy idea that sounds good, but should take second seat to more important things like growth.The benefit of the redistribution isnt arbitrary. It represents a net increase in social utility. A fairly significant one at that.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users