Corner of Berkshire & Fairfax Message Board

General Category => Politics => Topic started by: Gregmal on August 10, 2018, 04:18:14 PM

Title: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 10, 2018, 04:18:14 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/license-meme-social-media-mocks-racist-reactions-latest-idris-elba-bond-rumors-143505638.html

So let me get this straight... Nothing has even happened yet, and these people have completely fabricated a narrative, branded people racists, and started an outrage campaign??? For something that doesn't even exist?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: bathtime on August 10, 2018, 06:54:05 PM
I think you misread the article — it indicated that there have already been intolerant comments online. Which the humorous comments responded to, "...rather than simply engaging with those trolls."

My take is that your being upset by this and feeling that you needed to create a thread dedicated to it suggests that you are the one with the sensitive, snowflake-like feelings.

Quote
This week a new report indicated that such casting may actually take place — and the response on Twitter has been especially pointed.

As one might expect, many have reacted to this news with less-than-tolerant online comments, given that Elba is black and Bond has historically been white.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 10, 2018, 07:15:30 PM
I think you misread the article — it indicated that there have already been intolerant comments online. Which the humorous comments responded to, "...rather than simply engaging with those trolls."

My take is that your being upset by this and feeling that you needed to create a thread dedicated to it suggests that you are the one with the sensitive, snowflake-like feelings.

Quote
This week a new report indicated that such casting may actually take place — and the response on Twitter has been especially pointed.

As one might expect, many have reacted to this news with less-than-tolerant online comments, given that Elba is black and Bond has historically been white.

"a few fans have used this potential casting news to joke about the racist treatment an Elba Bond might actually face — all as a way to both turn the tables on those who might object to his participation because of his skin color and to simultaneously address heated issues that remain front and center in contemporary society."

Secondarily, I don't know how people having a more than half century old perception of what James Bond would or should look like makes them racist...

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on August 11, 2018, 04:11:07 AM
I think the speculation started in 2015 so we have already seen what the reaction was back then. Just some poor reporting by the “journalist” to not point that out.

Trevor Noah even did a bit about it in a special.

https://youtu.be/riKAW0Iil4g
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 11, 2018, 04:53:18 AM
Gillian Anderson is also in the running for the part.  https://www.thewrap.com/next-james-bond-idris-elba-tom-hiddleston-damian-lewis-jamie-bell-aidan-turner-james-norton-gillian-anderson-daniel-craig-007/
The people fixated on casting Elba for the part are clearly misogynist.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: SharperDingaan on August 11, 2018, 06:40:14 AM
"Secondarily, I don't know how people having a more than half century old perception of what James Bond would or should look like makes them racist..."

It's simply modernization, and the changing of culture with the times.
The objectors just aren't able to move on, and have a public venue in which to vent in.

Q becoming the young techy 'nerd', M becoming a women, Bond becoming a .......
All evidence that pushing the envelope is not a bad thing.

At one time the Canadian Mountie had to be male, white, 6'2"+, and handy with his fist/club - all desirable things back in early 1900.
Today our Mountie comes in a variety of dress, both genders, lots of colours, a number of heights, and is handy in many diferent areas - all desirable things in early 2000. Times change, and so do Mounties. Bond is no different.

Our own vote is for JANE Bond  ....
The black James would just keep getting pulled over!

SD




Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: nkp007 on August 11, 2018, 06:55:33 AM

Secondarily, I don't know how people having a more than half century old perception of what James Bond would or should look like makes them racist...
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 11, 2018, 07:03:57 AM
SharperDingaan

"Our own vote is for JANE Bond  ....
The black James would just keep getting pulled over!"

 Well done!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 11, 2018, 07:43:06 AM
Seriously though - Black men represent just slightly over 1% of the British population.  Casting Elba as Bond - the quintessential British spy - strikes me as political correctness run amuck. 
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: ScottHall on August 11, 2018, 05:21:46 PM
If you own/control the IP, you can do whatever you want.

This reminds me of the big blow-up on '80s Bruh Twitter about the new She-Ra cartoon being designed with shorts. People who can emotionally invest in these sort of matters generally don't have much of interest to say.

When your life revolves around the fantasy worlds of others, to the point that it causes you emotional distress, it is time to figure out some of your own hobbies that you can have a hand in sculpting. No need to have a tantrum over someone else's art when you can create your own.

Not to say this isn't all very educational, because it is to me. The strong aversion people have to seeing their favorite nostalgia acts "mutilated" in front of them highlights the power of media and modern mythology to leave lasting impressions. Disney is a business that makes billions off of children and the nostalgia, in a sense temporary infantilization, of adults.

The adults bring their kids to a movie or park, and then in thirty years the kids begin to bring their own. The adults get to relive the memories of good times with their parents, and pass them down to their own children to continue the cycle. There's something to that.

Just IMO.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 11, 2018, 06:15:51 PM
Seriously though - Black men represent just slightly over 1% of the British population.  Casting Elba as Bond - the quintessential British spy - strikes me as political correctness run amuck.

Well they dis cast and Irishman so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rukawa on August 11, 2018, 06:20:40 PM
I hate political correctness but I think Elba would make a great Bond or even anything else for that matter. He is a fantastic actor and I think he would have an interesting take on it.

I had a much bigger problem with the female Ghostbusters or the lesbian Batwoman. It just seems like left wing liberals have decided to exert their power by arbitrarily assigning characters some mix of transgender, racial or other characteristics that don't really add anything to the story. Its annoying and arbitrary.

I also just don't get how these people have so much power. I mean whole companies have been driven into the ground by liberal bullshit being pushed down customers throats. On the other hand conservative media are making money hand over fist. Its an incredible irony that the free market that conservatives favor is actually leading to a culture that conservatives hate. Liberals have taken over most of corporate America.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: SharperDingaan on August 12, 2018, 09:14:14 AM
The target market is 'people of colour', black is just one of many shades.
'People of colour' are also a lot more than 1% of the UK population, and their inclusion is quite relevant. Given that Prince Harry's wife is a 'person of colour', in todays UK society it's pretty hard to argue against.

The 'old' Bond's time was the cold-war era, & most of the movie-going public were born AFTER it ended (no experience with it).
Cast the 'new' Bond's time as today, and Bond as a women/'person of colour', & you've both a bigger audience and refreshed product.
A very smart business decision, not a political one.

JANE Bond also doesn't just break the mold, she also captures 1/2 the UK population via role modelling, and works against comparison to the 'old' Bonds - grandpas/dads Bonds. Out with the fossils who can't change, & in with the young - as it's our time now!.
There's also prior precedent with 'Lara Croft'

No political correctness involved.

SD

 
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 12, 2018, 10:14:14 AM
The target market is 'people of colour', black is just one of many shades.
'People of colour' are also a lot more than 1% of the UK population, and their inclusion is quite relevant. Given that Prince Harry's wife is a 'person of colour', in todays UK society it's pretty hard to argue against.

The 'old' Bond's time was the cold-war era, & most of the movie-going public were born AFTER it ended (no experience with it).
Cast the 'new' Bond's time as today, and Bond as a women/'person of colour', & you've both a bigger audience and refreshed product.
A very smart business decision, not a political one.

JANE Bond also doesn't just break the mold, she also captures 1/2 the UK population via role modelling, and works against comparison to the 'old' Bonds - grandpas/dads Bonds. Out with the fossils who can't change, & in with the young - as it's our time now!.
There's also prior precedent with 'Lara Croft'

No political correctness involved.

SD

I wonder if the snowflakes would then write articles anticipating Jane Bond being "slut shamed" or whatever the stupid term used this day to justify promiscuity.

While I don't think it would really alter things that much if Bond was played by a non-tradtional looking Bond actor, I just also don't see why society needs to "prove" things are different by forcefully pushing EVERYTHING to change, even when it isn't really needed. Given that Bond is still predominantly controlled by the original family that's overseen this franchise pretty much from the beginning, why not just let them do their thing. They've been quite successful with it, and as a big time Bond fan, I can't say any of their choices have been too bad. Even Timothy Dalton.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 12, 2018, 10:30:07 AM
Why do you assume they are "pushing" anything? Isn't it rather as SD says above, a response to a changing social climate?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 12, 2018, 11:40:16 AM
LC,

SD argues: "Cast the 'new' Bond's time as today, and Bond as a women/'person of colour', & you've both a bigger audience and refreshed product."  By process of elimination (basically) he is saying anyone but a white male.   Daniel Craig has been amongst the most successful Bonds ever so I'm not sure where he's going with his conclusion that the franchise is dated. SD is apparently convinced that there isn't another white male actor who could perform as well as Craig at least from a business perspective.  Since his sweeping conclusion has been made before the first screen test takes place, one could in good conscious conclude that he is pushing an agenda rather than offering the idea as a good business decision. 
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 12, 2018, 11:42:46 AM
Why do you assume they are "pushing" anything? Isn't it rather as SD says above, a response to a changing social climate?

I don't assume anything. For the past decade there has been a major push for a non-traditional Bond. It's not exactly been subtle either.

I'm not against it, I just don't really care either way and would prefer the Broccoli family do what they think is necessary to stay true the integrity of the franchise. Simply rolling over and turning one of the greatest movie franchises ever into a political statement would be a disgrace. To this point they've obviously done a great job and I'm pretty sure Barbara has even hinted that there might be changes ahead. I don't know how many people here are that into Bond, but the last couple movies have even had some innuendo Bond may be bi-sexual. As long as it's done in a way that is true to that franchise and doesn't cheapen it; you know, rather than just give in the same way many do, simply to make a political statement. Kind like how America has spent the past two decades yearning for a black president, and a female president, well, just because... it checks a box on the imaginary "look how far we've come" checklist.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: SharperDingaan on August 12, 2018, 12:12:03 PM
LC,

SD argues: "Cast the 'new' Bond's time as today, and Bond as a women/'person of colour', & you've both a bigger audience and refreshed product."  By process of elimination (basically) he is saying anyone but a white male.   Daniel Craig has been amongst the most successful Bonds ever so I'm not sure where he's going with his conclusion that the franchise is dated. SD is apparently convinced that there isn't another white male actor who could perform as well as Craig at least from a business perspective.  Since his sweeping conclusion has been made before the first screen test takes place, one could in good conscious conclude that he is pushing an agenda rather than offering the idea as a good business decision.

I suggested that its an opportunity to refresh the franchise, and a business decision.
Going forward a female bond might well sell more tickets and contribute to a stronger franchise extension, than another male will.
Marketing 201.

We all make business decisions every day, they are not agenda's.
If we're right we do very well, if we're wrong we just revert back to what we had (same as coke).
Too busy making money.

SD


Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Spekulatius on August 12, 2018, 01:51:03 PM
LC,

SD argues: "Cast the 'new' Bond's time as today, and Bond as a women/'person of colour', & you've both a bigger audience and refreshed product."  By process of elimination (basically) he is saying anyone but a white male.   Daniel Craig has been amongst the most successful Bonds ever so I'm not sure where he's going with his conclusion that the franchise is dated. SD is apparently convinced that there isn't another white male actor who could perform as well as Craig at least from a business perspective.  Since his sweeping conclusion has been made before the first screen test takes place, one could in good conscious conclude that he is pushing an agenda rather than offering the idea as a good business decision.

I suggested that its an opportunity to refresh the franchise, and a business decision.
Going forward a female bond might well sell more tickets and contribute to a stronger franchise extension, than another male will.
Marketing 201.

We all make business decisions every day, they are not 'agenda's.
If we're right we do very well, if we're wrong we just revert back to what we had (same as coke).
Too busy making money.

SD

The Bond franchise has changed over the years and ai expect this to continue. After having 2 smooth as silk bonds like Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, I enjoyed the hard knuckle Daniel Craig. I don’t think the skin color of the actors matter much, but I think the main character should be different than his predecessors. Just keep it distinctively British, in terms of humor and background and don’t create just another American action movie.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 12, 2018, 06:34:31 PM
The target market is 'people of colour', black is just one of many shades.
'People of colour' are also a lot more than 1% of the UK population, and their inclusion is quite relevant. Given that Prince Harry's wife is a 'person of colour', in todays UK society it's pretty hard to argue against.

The 'old' Bond's time was the cold-war era, & most of the movie-going public were born AFTER it ended (no experience with it).
Cast the 'new' Bond's time as today, and Bond as a women/'person of colour', & you've both a bigger audience and refreshed product.
A very smart business decision, not a political one.

JANE Bond also doesn't just break the mold, she also captures 1/2 the UK population via role modelling, and works against comparison to the 'old' Bonds - grandpas/dads Bonds. Out with the fossils who can't change, & in with the young - as it's our time now!.
There's also prior precedent with 'Lara Croft'

No political correctness involved.

SD

I wonder if the snowflakes would then write articles anticipating Jane Bond being "slut shamed" or whatever the stupid term used this day to justify promiscuity.

While I don't think it would really alter things that much if Bond was played by a non-tradtional looking Bond actor, I just also don't see why society needs to "prove" things are different by forcefully pushing EVERYTHING to change, even when it isn't really needed. Given that Bond is still predominantly controlled by the original family that's overseen this franchise pretty much from the beginning, why not just let them do their thing. They've been quite successful with it, and as a big time Bond fan, I can't say any of their choices have been too bad. Even Timothy Dalton.

I think your comments are exactly what "the snowflakes" were projecting they would see.  What is the harm in Bond being black?  Just as what was the harm in him being white or some other ethnicity?  Fifty years ago, we still had segregation. 

Thank God it's not like 50 years ago, where Peter Sellers portrayed a South-Indian person similar to blackface in "The Party".  I'm hoping society has become more illuminated in 50 years!

I'm not offended if Bond is white, black or a woman.  Just like I wouldn't be offended if these changes occurred with Batman or some other fictional character. 

Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 12, 2018, 06:45:13 PM
LC,

SD argues: "Cast the 'new' Bond's time as today, and Bond as a women/'person of colour', & you've both a bigger audience and refreshed product."  By process of elimination (basically) he is saying anyone but a white male.   Daniel Craig has been amongst the most successful Bonds ever so I'm not sure where he's going with his conclusion that the franchise is dated. SD is apparently convinced that there isn't another white male actor who could perform as well as Craig at least from a business perspective.  Since his sweeping conclusion has been made before the first screen test takes place, one could in good conscious conclude that he is pushing an agenda rather than offering the idea as a good business decision.

I suggested that its an opportunity to refresh the franchise, and a business decision.
Going forward a female bond might well sell more tickets and contribute to a stronger franchise extension, than another male will.
Marketing 201.

We all make business decisions every day, they are not 'agenda's.
If we're right we do very well, if we're wrong we just revert back to what we had (same as coke).
Too busy making money.

SD

The Bond franchise has changed over the years and ai expect this to continue. After having 2 smooth as silk bonds like Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, I enjoyed the hard knuckle Daniel Craig. I don’t think the skin color of the actors matter much, but I think the main character should be different than his predecessors. Just keep it distinctively British, in terms of humor and background and don’t create just another American action movie.

The "007" designation can be assigned to anyone...it's doesn't have to be "Jane Bond".  You could retire the "Bond" character, especially considering what happened in the last two stories where he's seeking to leave the spy life, and have someone else reprise the "007" role under a new name. 

You watch Charlize Theron in Atomic Blonde, Kate Beckinsale in the "Underworld" series, Evangeline Lilly in "Ant Man & Wasp" or Rebecca Ferguson in the last two "Mission Impossibles" and a female 007 looks quite enticing!

Regardless, it's a fictional character and I welcome any changes that continue to make the franchise entertaining and exciting.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 12, 2018, 08:02:40 PM
Quote
SD argues: "Cast the 'new' Bond's time as today, and Bond as a women/'person of colour', & you've both a bigger audience and refreshed product."  By process of elimination (basically) he is saying anyone but a white male.   Daniel Craig has been amongst the most successful Bonds ever so I'm not sure where he's going with his conclusion that the franchise is dated. SD is apparently convinced that there isn't another white male actor who could perform as well as Craig at least from a business perspective.  Since his sweeping conclusion has been made before the first screen test takes place, one could in good conscious conclude that he is pushing an agenda rather than offering the idea as a good business decision.

You must be exhausted from jumping through those logical hoops towards a bogus conclusion.

I just wonder where the outrage was when they cast Pierce Brosnan, an IRISHMAN (shh!)

Oh right, there wasn't. Because nobody gives a damn until the skin color changes, apparently.
I guess the only way a black guy could play Bond is due to some social-political agenda?
The only way a black guy could be President is so American can check a box?

Maybe they're just good at their jobs.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 12, 2018, 08:09:28 PM
Quote
I don't assume anything. For the past decade there has been a major push for a non-traditional Bond. It's not exactly been subtle either.

I'm not against it, I just don't really care either way and would prefer the Broccoli family do what they think is necessary to stay true the integrity of the franchise. Simply rolling over and turning one of the greatest movie franchises ever into a political statement would be a disgrace

I don't get it. So you're saying there's been a social push for decades for a non-traditional Bond. OK let's accept that.

There hasn't been a non-traditional Bond over that decade, so this "push" has apparently not amounted to anything.

Now once a black dude is in the mix, it's because of this previously-unsuccessful social push, and not because he is a good actor and fits the role?

Instead of saying, "wow Elba is a damn good actor and a good fit for the role, maybe that's why he is being considered", you're instead arguing that a decade-long push which has never been successful, is suddenly the cause of his consideration?  :-X
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 12, 2018, 08:38:38 PM
LOL imagine if it is Elba and the villain is Igor and the bond girl is a nice white Russian model - totally plausible plot given recent events. Blood vessels will pop. 
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 13, 2018, 05:07:40 AM
LC

I wasn't particularly mad or outraged over what SD wrote.  I was just pointing out the he was advocating against a group just because of the dangly parts between their legs and the color of the skin.


Shhh! They even cast an Ausie once.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 13, 2018, 06:43:07 PM
LOL They just can't help but trip over themselves!

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/people-outraged-jack-whitehalls-playing-disneys-first-openly-gay-character-jungle-cruise-damn-shame-150335651.html

James Bond can be any color or gender, yes as seen here James Bond should even be a female according to some. I'm not arguing. But a gay CHARACTER has to be played by a gay person? Funny how that works.

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 13, 2018, 07:25:25 PM
LOL They just can't help but trip over themselves!

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/people-outraged-jack-whitehalls-playing-disneys-first-openly-gay-character-jungle-cruise-damn-shame-150335651.html

James Bond can be any color or gender, yes as seen here James Bond should even be a female according to some. I'm not arguing. But a gay CHARACTER has to be played by a gay person? Funny how that works.

Not all liberals agree with that stance...just like not all conservatives necessarily agree with every right-wing view.  Will & Grace was a celebrated show and ground-breaking, but Eric McCormack was not gay.  No one had a problem with it, including those very much on the deep left.  Acting is acting and the character is fictional. 

You will always have people with extreme views.  It doesn't mean that everyone agrees with it.  Just like a lot of conservatives who may agree with some policies of the current administration, don't necessarily subscribe to the President's conduct in many other ways.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 13, 2018, 08:16:02 PM
LOL They just can't help but trip over themselves!

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/people-outraged-jack-whitehalls-playing-disneys-first-openly-gay-character-jungle-cruise-damn-shame-150335651.html

James Bond can be any color or gender, yes as seen here James Bond should even be a female according to some. I'm not arguing. But a gay CHARACTER has to be played by a gay person? Funny how that works.

Not all liberals agree with that stance...just like not all conservatives necessarily agree with every right-wing view.  Will & Grace was a celebrated show and ground-breaking, but Eric McCormack was not gay.  No one had a problem with it, including those very much on the deep left.  Acting is acting and the character is fictional. 

You will always have people with extreme views.  It doesn't mean that everyone agrees with it.  Just like a lot of conservatives who may agree with some policies of the current administration, don't necessarily subscribe to the President's conduct in many other ways.  Cheers!

True, but this is why main stream media deserves to be shit on and attacked. These are the headline stories and it highlights how full of it THEY are. How they are blatantly hypocritical and have no interest other than dividing the country to generate clicks. While left and right folks can have differing opinions as you said, you can tell where the media lies(pun intended) by what the headlines are. One day it's anyone can play anyone. The next day its outrage a gay actor isn't playing a gay character.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 13, 2018, 08:30:32 PM
LOL They just can't help but trip over themselves!

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/people-outraged-jack-whitehalls-playing-disneys-first-openly-gay-character-jungle-cruise-damn-shame-150335651.html

James Bond can be any color or gender, yes as seen here James Bond should even be a female according to some. I'm not arguing. But a gay CHARACTER has to be played by a gay person? Funny how that works.

Not all liberals agree with that stance...just like not all conservatives necessarily agree with every right-wing view.  Will & Grace was a celebrated show and ground-breaking, but Eric McCormack was not gay.  No one had a problem with it, including those very much on the deep left.  Acting is acting and the character is fictional. 

You will always have people with extreme views.  It doesn't mean that everyone agrees with it.  Just like a lot of conservatives who may agree with some policies of the current administration, don't necessarily subscribe to the President's conduct in many other ways.  Cheers!

True, but this is why main stream media deserves to be shit on and attacked. These are the headline stories and it highlights how full of it THEY are. How they are blatantly hypocritical and have no interest other than dividing the country to generate clicks. While left and right folks can have differing opinions as you said, you can tell where the media lies(pun intended) by what the headlines are. One day it's anyone can play anyone. The next day its outrage a gay actor isn't playing a gay character.

Right wing media isn't any different.  I'm ok if you shit on left-wing media, if you do the same with right-wing media.  Unfortunately, most people don't do that.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 13, 2018, 08:35:42 PM
True, but this is why main stream media deserves to be shit on and attacked. These are the headline stories and it highlights how full of it THEY are. How they are blatantly hypocritical and have no interest other than dividing the country to generate clicks. While left and right folks can have differing opinions as you said, you can tell where the media lies(pun intended) by what the headlines are. One day it's anyone can play anyone. The next day its outrage a gay actor isn't playing a gay character.
WTF are you talking about main stream media? What would be considered main stream media isn't overly concerned about who's playing who in movies.

And what about chasing clicks? You turn news into a profit centre and they'll go for clicks. What does that have to do with main stream media? Last time I've checked Breitbart doesn't charge a subscription. How do you think they pay their 20 year old reporters? Oh yeah, they go for clicks. So give me a break. It seems that whenever your read something you don't like it becomes written by the main stream media. And subsequently main stream media is bad and must be shit on because they're dividers. Whereas the media outlets you enjoy are the great national unifiers right?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 13, 2018, 08:57:06 PM
True, but this is why main stream media deserves to be shit on and attacked. These are the headline stories and it highlights how full of it THEY are. How they are blatantly hypocritical and have no interest other than dividing the country to generate clicks. While left and right folks can have differing opinions as you said, you can tell where the media lies(pun intended) by what the headlines are. One day it's anyone can play anyone. The next day its outrage a gay actor isn't playing a gay character.
WTF are you talking about main stream media? What would be considered main stream media isn't overly concerned about who's playing who in movies.

And what about chasing clicks? You turn news into a profit centre and they'll go for clicks. What does that have to do with main stream media? Last time I've checked Breitbart doesn't charge a subscription. How do you think they pay their 20 year old reporters? Oh yeah, they go for clicks. So give me a break. It seems that whenever your read something you don't like it becomes written by the main stream media. And subsequently main stream media is bad and must be shit on because they're dividers. Whereas the media outlets you enjoy are the great national unifiers right?

Both stories were front page news on Yahoo on consecutive days...but yea...

Whereas I've never actually stated which outlets I enjoy. I read a lot. NY Post is the closest I've come to enjoyable, but even that's debatable and more than 50% of the time rubbish, but a good mix of stuff across a fairly wide spectrum of topics. I don't read Fox, it's too political. I've actually never viewed Breitbart. I like a nice mix of everything. Way to try to manufacture and then run with a self serving narrative that never existed though.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 13, 2018, 09:16:09 PM
My issue is that the conversation eventually turns from the merits of the axial event to  how some liberal or conservative group views it.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 13, 2018, 09:36:06 PM
True, but this is why main stream media deserves to be shit on and attacked. These are the headline stories and it highlights how full of it THEY are. How they are blatantly hypocritical and have no interest other than dividing the country to generate clicks. While left and right folks can have differing opinions as you said, you can tell where the media lies(pun intended) by what the headlines are. One day it's anyone can play anyone. The next day its outrage a gay actor isn't playing a gay character.
WTF are you talking about main stream media? What would be considered main stream media isn't overly concerned about who's playing who in movies.

And what about chasing clicks? You turn news into a profit centre and they'll go for clicks. What does that have to do with main stream media? Last time I've checked Breitbart doesn't charge a subscription. How do you think they pay their 20 year old reporters? Oh yeah, they go for clicks. So give me a break. It seems that whenever your read something you don't like it becomes written by the main stream media. And subsequently main stream media is bad and must be shit on because they're dividers. Whereas the media outlets you enjoy are the great national unifiers right?

Both stories were front page news on Yahoo on consecutive days...but yea...

Whereas I've never actually stated which outlets I enjoy. I read a lot. NY Post is the closest I've come to enjoyable, but even that's debatable and more than 50% of the time rubbish, but a good mix of stuff across a fairly wide spectrum of topics. I don't read Fox, it's too political. I've actually never viewed Breitbart. I like a nice mix of everything. Way to try to manufacture and then run with a self serving narrative that never existed though.

How can anyone comment on the hypocrisy of "mainstream" media, when they haven't even read things like Breitbart or Infowars?  And then are you comparing Yahoo to outlets like the Washington Post or the NY Times?  These are uninformed comments...and worse things than these come out of the Commander in Chief's mouth...very dangerous when the leader usurps the free press and people buy into those messages!  Cheers!

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 13, 2018, 11:13:13 PM
True, but this is why main stream media deserves to be shit on and attacked. These are the headline stories and it highlights how full of it THEY are. How they are blatantly hypocritical and have no interest other than dividing the country to generate clicks. While left and right folks can have differing opinions as you said, you can tell where the media lies(pun intended) by what the headlines are. One day it's anyone can play anyone. The next day its outrage a gay actor isn't playing a gay character.
WTF are you talking about main stream media? What would be considered main stream media isn't overly concerned about who's playing who in movies.

And what about chasing clicks? You turn news into a profit centre and they'll go for clicks. What does that have to do with main stream media? Last time I've checked Breitbart doesn't charge a subscription. How do you think they pay their 20 year old reporters? Oh yeah, they go for clicks. So give me a break. It seems that whenever your read something you don't like it becomes written by the main stream media. And subsequently main stream media is bad and must be shit on because they're dividers. Whereas the media outlets you enjoy are the great national unifiers right?

Both stories were front page news on Yahoo on consecutive days...but yea...

Whereas I've never actually stated which outlets I enjoy. I read a lot. NY Post is the closest I've come to enjoyable, but even that's debatable and more than 50% of the time rubbish, but a good mix of stuff across a fairly wide spectrum of topics. I don't read Fox, it's too political. I've actually never viewed Breitbart. I like a nice mix of everything. Way to try to manufacture and then run with a self serving narrative that never existed though.
LOL! Since when is Yahoo main stream media? They don't get within miles. Also if you would re-read my post you would see that while I did mention some specific outlets I never ascribed any to you.

For what it's worth I think that the news part of Fox News is actually quite good. I was also surprised to find out that their political polling is actually really good as well. Is that just a big fig leaf? Sure. Is the news part swamped by opinion and editorial content to the point that you don't know what's what? Yes. But I still think that I should give credit where it's due.

I read a lot too. I actually do go to places like Breitbart and Infowars. But I'd say for news and information you don't read places you like. You read good, professional, reliable places. Not that you've asked, but in my opinion if you're looking for good, hard core, old school journalism, today probably nothing beats Reuters. But then that's the kind of place that doesn't care if the next Bond is white, black, or purple or whether it sports a muffin or a dingle berry.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 14, 2018, 04:59:03 AM
True, but this is why main stream media deserves to be shit on and attacked. These are the headline stories and it highlights how full of it THEY are. How they are blatantly hypocritical and have no interest other than dividing the country to generate clicks. While left and right folks can have differing opinions as you said, you can tell where the media lies(pun intended) by what the headlines are. One day it's anyone can play anyone. The next day its outrage a gay actor isn't playing a gay character.
WTF are you talking about main stream media? What would be considered main stream media isn't overly concerned about who's playing who in movies.

And what about chasing clicks? You turn news into a profit centre and they'll go for clicks. What does that have to do with main stream media? Last time I've checked Breitbart doesn't charge a subscription. How do you think they pay their 20 year old reporters? Oh yeah, they go for clicks. So give me a break. It seems that whenever your read something you don't like it becomes written by the main stream media. And subsequently main stream media is bad and must be shit on because they're dividers. Whereas the media outlets you enjoy are the great national unifiers right?

Both stories were front page news on Yahoo on consecutive days...but yea...

Whereas I've never actually stated which outlets I enjoy. I read a lot. NY Post is the closest I've come to enjoyable, but even that's debatable and more than 50% of the time rubbish, but a good mix of stuff across a fairly wide spectrum of topics. I don't read Fox, it's too political. I've actually never viewed Breitbart. I like a nice mix of everything. Way to try to manufacture and then run with a self serving narrative that never existed though.

How can anyone comment on the hypocrisy of "mainstream" media, when they haven't even read things like Breitbart or Infowars?  And then are you comparing Yahoo to outlets like the Washington Post or the NY Times?  These are uninformed comments...and worse things than these come out of the Commander in Chief's mouth...very dangerous when the leader usurps the free press and people buy into those messages!  Cheers!

With all due respect, I'm assuming you don't know how Yahoo works? Yahoo for he most part funnels stories from everywhere, in addition to their own content; on a huge variety of topics which range from politics to sports to science to tabloid. Their bias is only evident in the uneven display of pro left vs pro right content. It's about 80/20. But you do get everything from their own content, partnered content, Wapo, CNN, The Federalist, Vox, Fox, etc... I rarely go to Fox or CNN because I can already tell you what it's going to say. I'd actually say it's the perfect representation of mainstream media as a whole...

Edit: quoted Parsad but more so was responding to rb.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Spekulatius on August 14, 2018, 05:32:17 AM
I love BBC.com and Spiegel.de for foreign news. Articles are clickbait- you need to read the whole thing. If you read thexwhole article, it becomes much less biased.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Schwab711 on August 14, 2018, 05:33:15 AM
You are just making up those numbers. I think your expectations for the media are unrealistic but what do you read or what do you think is independent?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: SharperDingaan on August 14, 2018, 09:37:25 AM
The media are paid to either sell, or produce stories that sell.
Harping on 'media bias' just evidences an inability to move on; if you the reader, want an unbiased view, it is to you the reader to read reporting on the same event from multiple sources. You can read aggregated news (yahoo, wire services, etc), or you can read the same story from multiple branded outlets (pick your papers). Each 'brand' a particular 'slant', and each 'brand' can only exist commercially if you repeatedly buy their stories (via clicks or subscription). No different to what it has always been.

Nobody loves the media when they tell 'bad' stories about you, we only want them to tell the 'good' stories that we tell them to publish; they are supposed to be propaganda vehicles, not f'g critics!

Bloggers, videographers, etc. do not have to be journalists, or follow journalistic standards.
They also don't require a media organization in order to 'publish' their story. Very bad news for would-be despots as smart-phones are everywhere, all of them record both video and sound, and its very hard to choke distribution by threatening news outlets. Anarchy can be such a bitch!

Keeps circling back to inability to change, and resistance to change.
Much harder for the US, because 1) the US has seldom been good at societal change (slavery, civil rights, Vietnam, etc,), and 2) the US is no longer the dominant world power that it used to be.

The UK went through the same thing following WWII.
There's resistance at first, but it fades pretty quickly as age/declining-health takes care of the objectors.

SD



 

 
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 14, 2018, 01:30:50 PM
Sharper,

I agree with your statement asserting that the media is a propaganda machine. You wrote:   "Nobody loves the media when they tell 'bad' stories about you, we only want them to tell the 'good' stories that we tell them to publish; they are supposed to be propaganda vehicles, not f'g critics! "

The left has used the media for years to manipulate the public in an attempt to normalize left wing agendas like abortion, race, gender...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Propaganda

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/tv/a9610991/tv-writers-abortion-interviews/or

It has reached a point where the media is ranked only slightly ahead of Congress when it comes to trust - only 6% have significant confidence in media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trust-in-media_us_57148543e4b06f35cb6fec58

The remainder of your lecture - not so much.





Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 14, 2018, 02:17:57 PM
Sharper,

I agree with your statement asserting that the media is a propaganda machine. You wrote:   "Nobody loves the media when they tell 'bad' stories about you, we only want them to tell the 'good' stories that we tell them to publish; they are supposed to be propaganda vehicles, not f'g critics! "

The left has used the media for years to manipulate the public in an attempt to normalize left wing agendas like abortion, race, gender...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Propaganda

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/tv/a9610991/tv-writers-abortion-interviews/or

It has reached a point where the media is ranked only slightly ahead of Congress when it comes to trust - only 6% have significant confidence in media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trust-in-media_us_57148543e4b06f35cb6fec58

The remainder of your lecture - not so much.

Yes, you're absolutely correct Mark.  The media definitely manipulated the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade.  They also brainwashed millions and millions of people into thinking that abortion should be a women's choice, and the stupid reason why...because it's their body!  How innane!  How unsympathetic to fathers, grandparents, rapists and clear-thinking politicans.  I'm pretty sure I've been brainwashed as well.  It happened shortly after I was abducted by a UFO when I was 8 and before God spoke to me and said "Get yer shit together!" when I was 45.  Now look at this crazy world...you have a leftie like Bezos owning the Washington Post, another leftie running the NFL and another liberal nutjob controlling Facebook.  Thank God for Twitter!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: SharperDingaan on August 14, 2018, 02:21:42 PM
The folks on the right just have a seige mentality re the media 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_mentality

"Siege mentality is a shared feeling of victimization and defensiveness—a term derived from the actual experience of military defences of real sieges. It is a collective state of mind whereby a group of people believe themselves constantly attacked, oppressed, or isolated in the face of the negative intentions of the rest of the world. Although a group phenomenon, the term describes both the emotions and thoughts of the group as a whole, and as individuals". Seem familiar?  ;D

Rattle the cage, feed the bunker a few meds, and you can herd it into doing most anything.
Put down your books, pick up a gun, we're going to have a whole lotta fun. And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for. Don't ask me I don't give a damn! ... Come on fathers dont hesitate, send your sons off before its too late. Be the first on the block, to have your boy come home in a box!
https://www.learner.org/courses/amerhistory/resource_archive/resource.php?unitChoice=20&ThemeNum=3&resourceType=2&resourceID=10118

It takes very little to give someone a target ...


SD



 
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 14, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Sharper,

I agree with your statement asserting that the media is a propaganda machine. You wrote:   "Nobody loves the media when they tell 'bad' stories about you, we only want them to tell the 'good' stories that we tell them to publish; they are supposed to be propaganda vehicles, not f'g critics! "

The left has used the media for years to manipulate the public in an attempt to normalize left wing agendas like abortion, race, gender...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Propaganda

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/tv/a9610991/tv-writers-abortion-interviews/or

It has reached a point where the media is ranked only slightly ahead of Congress when it comes to trust - only 6% have significant confidence in media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trust-in-media_us_57148543e4b06f35cb6fec58

The remainder of your lecture - not so much.

Yes, you're absolutely correct Mark.  The media definitely manipulated the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade.  They also brainwashed millions and millions of people into thinking that abortion should be a women's choice, and the stupid reason why...because it's their body!  How innane!  How unsympathetic to fathers, grandparents, rapists and clear-thinking politicans.  I'm pretty sure I've been brainwashed as well.  It happened shortly after I was abducted by a UFO when I was 8 and before God spoke to me and said "Get yer shit together!" when I was 45.  Now look at this crazy world...you have a leftie like Bezos owning the Washington Post, another leftie running the NFL and another liberal nutjob controlling Facebook.  Thank God for Twitter!  Cheers!

I mean that is at least partially true. I feel like abortion is probably one of, if not the last major topic where we are still in the stone age and will ultimately, decades from now, look at it with shame the same way we view many other embarrassing policies like 3/5 rule and women being more or less considered property. The left has 100% brainwashed many here. It's a woman's body, her choice! They shout. How about being responsible with your body? How allowing some selfish hedonist the "right" to slaughter a child because they couldn't control their urges and put irresponsibly fornicating for self gratification ahead of well, idk, heeding to and taking precautions that the average American learns in what? 6th grade? is something people support can only be the result of brainwashing(or lack of morals)??? Please... Also, I am not at all referring to cases of rape or whatever, so don't try playing that card.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 14, 2018, 02:54:03 PM
Sharper,

I agree with your statement asserting that the media is a propaganda machine. You wrote:   "Nobody loves the media when they tell 'bad' stories about you, we only want them to tell the 'good' stories that we tell them to publish; they are supposed to be propaganda vehicles, not f'g critics! "

The left has used the media for years to manipulate the public in an attempt to normalize left wing agendas like abortion, race, gender...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Propaganda

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/tv/a9610991/tv-writers-abortion-interviews/or

It has reached a point where the media is ranked only slightly ahead of Congress when it comes to trust - only 6% have significant confidence in media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trust-in-media_us_57148543e4b06f35cb6fec58

The remainder of your lecture - not so much.

Yes, you're absolutely correct Mark.  The media definitely manipulated the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade.  They also brainwashed millions and millions of people into thinking that abortion should be a women's choice, and the stupid reason why...because it's their body!  How innane!  How unsympathetic to fathers, grandparents, rapists and clear-thinking politicans.  I'm pretty sure I've been brainwashed as well.  It happened shortly after I was abducted by a UFO when I was 8 and before God spoke to me and said "Get yer shit together!" when I was 45.  Now look at this crazy world...you have a leftie like Bezos owning the Washington Post, another leftie running the NFL and another liberal nutjob controlling Facebook.  Thank God for Twitter!  Cheers!

I mean that is at least partially true. I feel like abortion is probably one of, if not the last major topic where we are still in the stone age and will ultimately, decades from now, look at it with shame the same way we view many other embarrassing policies like 3/5 rule and women being more or less considered property. The left has 100% brainwashed many here. It's a woman's body, her choice! They shout. How about being responsible with your body? How allowing some selfish hedonist the "right" to slaughter a child because they couldn't control their urges and put irresponsibly fornicating for self gratification ahead of well, idk, heeding to and taking precautions that the average American learns in what? 6th grade? is something people support can only be the result of brainwashing(or lack of morals)??? Please... Also, I am not at all referring to cases of rape or whatever, so don't try playing that card.

This is kind of like the Bible and pretty much all other religious texts.  Rules written for women by men.  What gives you the high horse thinking that most women don't go through anguish, pain and trauma when they decide to have an abortion.  Do you think it's like ordering a latte at Starbucks?  Do think that all of these women are unfeeling, uncaring bitches that just want to have all of the sex they can without any of the consequences?  Do you have any sisters or daughters? 

I would want my girlfriend, spouse, sister, daughter, whomever to make an informed choice, taking everything into consideration with none of the guilt.  Then go forward and do what they must with their own body to pursue their life, retain their sanity or choose to become a mother.

Let me ask you something.  If this is truly your opinion and you truly believe this, tell us how many impoverished women who have chosen to have babies you have helped, aided or supported financially in your lifetime since becoming an adult and holding this opinion?  Every time I've asked a man this question with this belief, the answer has always been "none, but I plan to".  Good luck with that!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 14, 2018, 03:00:22 PM
Sharper
You wrote:
"It takes very little to give someone a target ..."
That sounds like a threat. Are you threatening me?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 14, 2018, 03:11:27 PM
Sharper,

I agree with your statement asserting that the media is a propaganda machine. You wrote:   "Nobody loves the media when they tell 'bad' stories about you, we only want them to tell the 'good' stories that we tell them to publish; they are supposed to be propaganda vehicles, not f'g critics! "

The left has used the media for years to manipulate the public in an attempt to normalize left wing agendas like abortion, race, gender...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Propaganda

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/tv/a9610991/tv-writers-abortion-interviews/or

It has reached a point where the media is ranked only slightly ahead of Congress when it comes to trust - only 6% have significant confidence in media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trust-in-media_us_57148543e4b06f35cb6fec58

The remainder of your lecture - not so much.

Yes, you're absolutely correct Mark.  The media definitely manipulated the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade.  They also brainwashed millions and millions of people into thinking that abortion should be a women's choice, and the stupid reason why...because it's their body!  How innane!  How unsympathetic to fathers, grandparents, rapists and clear-thinking politicans.  I'm pretty sure I've been brainwashed as well.  It happened shortly after I was abducted by a UFO when I was 8 and before God spoke to me and said "Get yer shit together!" when I was 45.  Now look at this crazy world...you have a leftie like Bezos owning the Washington Post, another leftie running the NFL and another liberal nutjob controlling Facebook.  Thank God for Twitter!  Cheers!

I mean that is at least partially true. I feel like abortion is probably one of, if not the last major topic where we are still in the stone age and will ultimately, decades from now, look at it with shame the same way we view many other embarrassing policies like 3/5 rule and women being more or less considered property. The left has 100% brainwashed many here. It's a woman's body, her choice! They shout. How about being responsible with your body? How allowing some selfish hedonist the "right" to slaughter a child because they couldn't control their urges and put irresponsibly fornicating for self gratification ahead of well, idk, heeding to and taking precautions that the average American learns in what? 6th grade? is something people support can only be the result of brainwashing(or lack of morals)??? Please... Also, I am not at all referring to cases of rape or whatever, so don't try playing that card.

This is kind of like the Bible and pretty much all other religious texts.  Rules written for women by men.  What gives you the high horse thinking that most women don't go through anguish, pain and trauma when they decide to have an abortion.  Do you think it's like ordering a latte at Starbucks?  Do think that all of these women are unfeeling, uncaring bitches that just want to have all of the sex they can without any of the consequences?  Do you have any sisters or daughters? 

I would want my girlfriend, spouse, sister, daughter, whomever to make an informed choice, taking everything into consideration with none of the guilt.  Then go forward and do what they must with their own body to pursue their life, retain their sanity or choose to become a mother.

Let me ask you something.  If this is truly your opinion and you truly believe this, tell us how many impoverished women who have chosen to have babies you have helped, aided or supported financially in your lifetime since becoming an adult and holding this opinion?  Every time I've asked a man this question with this belief, the answer has always been "none, but I plan to".  Good luck with that!  Cheers!

I didn't think I'd see or hear it, and you never do with abortion. But how about simply being responsible for your actions? It has nothing to do with the Bible or controlling women, that's the propaganda talking. If you can't handle the above you described, maybe you shouldn't be having sex??? Nah, that's too much personal accountability to ask for. I think both male and female should be fully prepared and ready for any possible consequences of their actions. I think laws punishing deadbeat dads should be significantly tougher as well. Am I quoting the Bible there or trying to "control men"? It's simply called having values and being accountable.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 14, 2018, 03:11:43 PM
Sharper
You wrote:
"It takes very little to give someone a target ..."
That sounds like a threat. Are you threatening me?

He's not threatening you.  He's saying seige mentality, whether right wing or left, although SD was referring to the right wing...need a target to swing at when their defenses are up, so their target of choice presently is the media.  It was Obama for 8 years, but you can't blame the black President whose been out of office for two years forever, so now they go after the media.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 14, 2018, 03:17:54 PM
Bullshit Parsad.

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: SharperDingaan on August 14, 2018, 03:20:32 PM
Sharper
You wrote:
"It takes very little to give someone a target ..."
That sounds like a threat. Are you threatening me?

Aw-shucks snowflake, its time for another med in the bunker  :D
I didn't threaten anyone, I merely suggested that folks in the bunker could be easily led by the unscrupulous.
Are you the unscrupulous?

SD
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 14, 2018, 03:22:40 PM
Sharper,

I agree with your statement asserting that the media is a propaganda machine. You wrote:   "Nobody loves the media when they tell 'bad' stories about you, we only want them to tell the 'good' stories that we tell them to publish; they are supposed to be propaganda vehicles, not f'g critics! "

The left has used the media for years to manipulate the public in an attempt to normalize left wing agendas like abortion, race, gender...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Propaganda

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/tv/a9610991/tv-writers-abortion-interviews/or

It has reached a point where the media is ranked only slightly ahead of Congress when it comes to trust - only 6% have significant confidence in media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trust-in-media_us_57148543e4b06f35cb6fec58

The remainder of your lecture - not so much.

Yes, you're absolutely correct Mark.  The media definitely manipulated the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade.  They also brainwashed millions and millions of people into thinking that abortion should be a women's choice, and the stupid reason why...because it's their body!  How innane!  How unsympathetic to fathers, grandparents, rapists and clear-thinking politicans.  I'm pretty sure I've been brainwashed as well.  It happened shortly after I was abducted by a UFO when I was 8 and before God spoke to me and said "Get yer shit together!" when I was 45.  Now look at this crazy world...you have a leftie like Bezos owning the Washington Post, another leftie running the NFL and another liberal nutjob controlling Facebook.  Thank God for Twitter!  Cheers!

I mean that is at least partially true. I feel like abortion is probably one of, if not the last major topic where we are still in the stone age and will ultimately, decades from now, look at it with shame the same way we view many other embarrassing policies like 3/5 rule and women being more or less considered property. The left has 100% brainwashed many here. It's a woman's body, her choice! They shout. How about being responsible with your body? How allowing some selfish hedonist the "right" to slaughter a child because they couldn't control their urges and put irresponsibly fornicating for self gratification ahead of well, idk, heeding to and taking precautions that the average American learns in what? 6th grade? is something people support can only be the result of brainwashing(or lack of morals)??? Please... Also, I am not at all referring to cases of rape or whatever, so don't try playing that card.

This is kind of like the Bible and pretty much all other religious texts.  Rules written for women by men.  What gives you the high horse thinking that most women don't go through anguish, pain and trauma when they decide to have an abortion.  Do you think it's like ordering a latte at Starbucks?  Do think that all of these women are unfeeling, uncaring bitches that just want to have all of the sex they can without any of the consequences?  Do you have any sisters or daughters? 

I would want my girlfriend, spouse, sister, daughter, whomever to make an informed choice, taking everything into consideration with none of the guilt.  Then go forward and do what they must with their own body to pursue their life, retain their sanity or choose to become a mother.

Let me ask you something.  If this is truly your opinion and you truly believe this, tell us how many impoverished women who have chosen to have babies you have helped, aided or supported financially in your lifetime since becoming an adult and holding this opinion?  Every time I've asked a man this question with this belief, the answer has always been "none, but I plan to".  Good luck with that!  Cheers!

I didn't think I'd see or hear it, and you never do with abortion. But how about simply being responsible for your actions? It has nothing to do with the Bible or controlling women, that's the propaganda talking. If you can't handle the above you described, maybe you shouldn't be having sex??? Nah, that's too much personal accountability to ask for. I think both male and female should be fully prepared and ready for any possible consequences of their actions. I think laws punishing deadbeat dads should be significantly tougher as well. Am I quoting the Bible there or trying to "control men"? It's simply called having values and being accountable.

My brother was 9 when our father died.  I was 21 and raised him with my mother.  I knew how hard it was to raise a child, so I chose not to ever become a father.  It's not a one day, one-year or even a decade responsibility.  It's a complete lifetime. 

Interestingly enough, by complete coincidence or perhaps they shared a common trait, my brother's closest friends over the years where other boys/young men who lost their father's as well or their father's left them when they were young.  So my mother and I spent a great deal of time with alot of single Mom's who struggled and somehow managed to raise fine young men.  But for each of those fine young men, I can tell you another story of where things went awfully wrong, and children died, lost their way or suffered.  And in all those cases, the father was absent. 

So it's very easy to talk about accountability, but to walk the talk is another thing.  Again, why don't you answer the question I posed to you...how many impoverished women who chose to have children have you supported over the years?  Let's even extend that observation...how often do you donate to the food bank?  To the toy bank?  To a children's hospital that provides pro-bono care for children?  How many abused children have you supported in some way?  How many organizations that support abused children have you donated to?  I can give you answers for myself to all of these questions.  Easy to demand accountability...hard to walk the talk! 

Cheers! 
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 14, 2018, 03:23:27 PM
Bullshit Parsad.

Re-read the post.  Why the hell would he threaten you?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 14, 2018, 03:37:40 PM
Sharper,

I agree with your statement asserting that the media is a propaganda machine. You wrote:   "Nobody loves the media when they tell 'bad' stories about you, we only want them to tell the 'good' stories that we tell them to publish; they are supposed to be propaganda vehicles, not f'g critics! "

The left has used the media for years to manipulate the public in an attempt to normalize left wing agendas like abortion, race, gender...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Propaganda

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/tv/a9610991/tv-writers-abortion-interviews/or

It has reached a point where the media is ranked only slightly ahead of Congress when it comes to trust - only 6% have significant confidence in media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trust-in-media_us_57148543e4b06f35cb6fec58

The remainder of your lecture - not so much.

Yes, you're absolutely correct Mark.  The media definitely manipulated the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade.  They also brainwashed millions and millions of people into thinking that abortion should be a women's choice, and the stupid reason why...because it's their body!  How innane!  How unsympathetic to fathers, grandparents, rapists and clear-thinking politicans.  I'm pretty sure I've been brainwashed as well.  It happened shortly after I was abducted by a UFO when I was 8 and before God spoke to me and said "Get yer shit together!" when I was 45.  Now look at this crazy world...you have a leftie like Bezos owning the Washington Post, another leftie running the NFL and another liberal nutjob controlling Facebook.  Thank God for Twitter!  Cheers!

I mean that is at least partially true. I feel like abortion is probably one of, if not the last major topic where we are still in the stone age and will ultimately, decades from now, look at it with shame the same way we view many other embarrassing policies like 3/5 rule and women being more or less considered property. The left has 100% brainwashed many here. It's a woman's body, her choice! They shout. How about being responsible with your body? How allowing some selfish hedonist the "right" to slaughter a child because they couldn't control their urges and put irresponsibly fornicating for self gratification ahead of well, idk, heeding to and taking precautions that the average American learns in what? 6th grade? is something people support can only be the result of brainwashing(or lack of morals)??? Please... Also, I am not at all referring to cases of rape or whatever, so don't try playing that card.

This is kind of like the Bible and pretty much all other religious texts.  Rules written for women by men.  What gives you the high horse thinking that most women don't go through anguish, pain and trauma when they decide to have an abortion.  Do you think it's like ordering a latte at Starbucks?  Do think that all of these women are unfeeling, uncaring bitches that just want to have all of the sex they can without any of the consequences?  Do you have any sisters or daughters? 

I would want my girlfriend, spouse, sister, daughter, whomever to make an informed choice, taking everything into consideration with none of the guilt.  Then go forward and do what they must with their own body to pursue their life, retain their sanity or choose to become a mother.

Let me ask you something.  If this is truly your opinion and you truly believe this, tell us how many impoverished women who have chosen to have babies you have helped, aided or supported financially in your lifetime since becoming an adult and holding this opinion?  Every time I've asked a man this question with this belief, the answer has always been "none, but I plan to".  Good luck with that!  Cheers!

I didn't think I'd see or hear it, and you never do with abortion. But how about simply being responsible for your actions? It has nothing to do with the Bible or controlling women, that's the propaganda talking. If you can't handle the above you described, maybe you shouldn't be having sex??? Nah, that's too much personal accountability to ask for. I think both male and female should be fully prepared and ready for any possible consequences of their actions. I think laws punishing deadbeat dads should be significantly tougher as well. Am I quoting the Bible there or trying to "control men"? It's simply called having values and being accountable.

My brother was 9 when our father died.  I was 21 and raised him with my mother.  I knew how hard it was to raise a child, so I chose not to ever become a father.  It's not a one day, one-year or even a decade responsibility.  It's a complete lifetime. 

Interestingly enough, by complete coincidence or perhaps they shared a common trait, my brother's closest friends over the years where other boys/young men who lost their father's as well or their father's left them when they were young.  So my mother and I spent a great deal of time with alot of single Mom's who struggled and somehow managed to raise fine young men.  But for each of those fine young men, I can tell you another story of where things went awfully wrong, and children died, lost their way or suffered.  And in all those cases, the father was absent. 

So it's very easy to talk about accountability, but to walk the talk is another thing.  Again, why don't you answer the question I posed to you...how many impoverished women who chose to have children have you supported over the years?  Let's even extend that observation...how often do you donate to the food bank?  To the toy bank?  To a children's hospital that provides pro-bono care for children?  How many abused children have you supported in some way?  How many organizations that support abused children have you donated to?  I can give you answers for myself to all of these questions.  Easy to demand accountability...hard to walk the talk! 

Cheers!

So it's very easy to talk about accountability, but to walk the talk is another thing.  Again, why don't you answer the question I posed to you...how many impoverished women who chose to have children have you supported over the years? 
Why do they have to be impoverished?

Let's even extend that observation...how often do you donate to the food bank?  Probably 2-3 times a year(not counting the annual free Devils tickets for donating food cans offer either)

To the toy bank?  Every Christmas

To a children's hospital that provides pro-bono care for children?  Once a year

How many abused children have you supported in some way?  I don't know any. Although I've donated to plenty of causing that I'd imagine do work here

How many organizations that support abused children have you donated to?  See above. Off the top of my head, maybe a half dozen in the last two years.


I can give you answers for myself to all of these questions.  I am sure you do. Bravo! World needs more of this.

Easy to demand accountability...hard to walk the talk! Agree, but I guess when people want to be hedonists, just press the red button...

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 14, 2018, 03:43:43 PM
I didn't think I'd see or hear it, and you never do with abortion. But how about simply being responsible for your actions? It has nothing to do with the Bible or controlling women, that's the propaganda talking. If you can't handle the above you described, maybe you shouldn't be having sex??? Nah, that's too much personal accountability to ask for. I think both male and female should be fully prepared and ready for any possible consequences of their actions. I think laws punishing deadbeat dads should be significantly tougher as well. Am I quoting the Bible there or trying to "control men"? It's simply called having values and being accountable.
LMFAO man give me a break! Republican lost their shit when the mayor of a very liberal city tried to limit the liquid sugar intake to 12.5 teaspoons of sugar in one go. Tyranny! Freedom killer! Strangely no talk about how one maybe has a personal responsibility to try to avoid diabetes. But the same group wants to legislate how people get it on.

I could go on and say tax and punish fat people. If you're overweight you should be penalized. Why not? Obviously you don't have the personal responsibility to keep your body healthy. This is obviously ridiculous. But it has a way more solid basis than the nonsense you've wrote.  ::)

Man you guys crack me up. LOL!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 14, 2018, 03:59:10 PM
Some of you guys seem to be missing the core issue on abortion - isn't it about whether the fetus is a human life? and if it is, then that is murder?

You can talk about poverty, impoverishment, etc - I don't think that is the issue - if it's a life, then it's murder.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 14, 2018, 05:58:08 PM
Some of you guys seem to be missing the core issue on abortion - isn't it about whether the fetus is a human life? and if it is, then that is murder?

You can talk about poverty, impoverishment, etc - I don't think that is the issue - if it's a life, then it's murder.

Well that's the million dollar question.  But where do you draw the line?  Is it once the fetus takes a breath?  Is it at 32 weeks?  Is it at 12 weeks?  Is it at conception?  What about when guys wack off every day...should sperm be protected?  Women have periods every month...could that be considered abortion...murder?

It would be much more interesting to have this debate around abortion if men could get pregnant.  Accountability and the debate itself would go out the window.  Men can barely go a week without wacking off.  Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and women were telling us the same thing we are telling them?!

I think a rational line to explore would be when there is better than a 50/50 chance that the fetus will survive if removed...so somewhere around 22-24 weeks.  Before that, I just don't think men have the right to even infer if the fetus has rights or not.  98% of North American legal abortions occur before the 21st week.  Of the remaining 2%, about half occur because of possible medical risk to the mother.

Cheers!

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 14, 2018, 06:25:19 PM
Some of you guys seem to be missing the core issue on abortion - isn't it about whether the fetus is a human life? and if it is, then that is murder?

You can talk about poverty, impoverishment, etc - I don't think that is the issue - if it's a life, then it's murder.

Well that's the million dollar question.  But where do you draw the line?  Is it once the fetus takes a breath?  Is it at 32 weeks?  Is it at 12 weeks?  Is it at conception?  What about when guys wack off every day...should sperm be protected?  Women have periods every month...could that be considered abortion...murder?

It would be much more interesting to have this debate around abortion if men could get pregnant.  Accountability and the debate itself would go out the window.  Men can barely go a week without wacking off.  Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and women were telling us the same thing we are telling them?!

I think a rational line to explore would be when there is better than a 50/50 chance that the fetus will survive if removed...so somewhere around 22-24 weeks.  Before that, I just don't think men have the right to even infer if the fetus has rights or not.  98% of North American legal abortions occur before the 21st week.  Of the remaining 2%, about half occur because of possible medical risk to the mother.

Cheers!
I don't think there's a debate to be had. We've had the debate, we reached a conclusion, it was reasonable. A group of people just don't want to accept it and probably never will.

The fact is that sperm actually has a longer lifespan than most aborted fetuses. So if abortion is murder so whenever one of us rubs one out we're not just murderers we're flat out genocidal maniacs. I alone have killed more than the entire population of the planet. Horror!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 14, 2018, 06:36:29 PM
Whether it's a life or not is certainly the most important question - just because it's hard does not excuse abortion. You don't justify abortion because of
poverty or economic circumstances. And you don't draw an arbitrary line because you think maybe that is where life begins. Your argument about women makes NO sense.  There are MILLIONS of women that oppose abortion - millions.

Cheers Bro!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 14, 2018, 06:41:59 PM
Sharper
You wrote:
"It takes very little to give someone a target ..."
That sounds like a threat. Are you threatening me?
And the snowflake mentality has emerged.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 14, 2018, 06:51:02 PM
Quote
Why do they have to be impoverished?
Nobody wants to sit here and debate abortion with you and the other bible-thumpers. It's a waste of time and thank fucking god that civilized society has realized it, ignored the argument, and done the right thing anyways.

Chris Hitchens (RIP) has always done a masterful job on this topic, despite his views on the fetus:

Quote
... the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jO2Uk0zU4c
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 14, 2018, 07:07:22 PM
That's about the dumbest video I've ever seen, so much for your dead hero.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 14, 2018, 07:14:07 PM
Whether it's a life or not is certainly the most important question - just because it's hard does not excuse abortion. You don't justify abortion because of
poverty or economic circumstances. And you don't draw an arbitrary line because you think maybe that is where life begins. Your argument about women makes NO sense.  There are MILLIONS of women that oppose abortion - millions.

Cheers Bro!
The thing is that what the pro-lifers want to do is also to draw an arbitrary line. They just want to draw it where they want it to be. Sangeev's argument is actually very reasonable. You just don't like it.

Furthermore he wasn't talking so much about women as about men. He was basically saying that if somehow dudes had to do 20 years in the slammer  for whacking off you would see their attitudes on the subject change abruptly.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 14, 2018, 07:24:05 PM
That's about the dumbest video I've ever seen, so much for your dead hero.
If you think that's dumb I'd avoid reading your posts in this thread.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 14, 2018, 07:25:34 PM
Whether it's a life or not is certainly the most important question - just because it's hard does not excuse abortion. You don't justify abortion because of
poverty or economic circumstances. And you don't draw an arbitrary line because you think maybe that is where life begins. Your argument about women makes NO sense.  There are MILLIONS of women that oppose abortion - millions.

Cheers Bro!
The thing is that what the pro-lifers want to do is also to draw an arbitrary line. They just want to draw it where they want it to be. Sangeev's argument is actually very reasonable. You just don't like it.

Furthermore he wasn't talking so much about women as about men. He was basically saying that if somehow dudes had to do 20 years in the slammer  for whacking off you would see their attitudes on the subject change abruptly.

No - I'm asking you where you draw the line and why? You have no idea, you're just guessing - and you don't do that with a life.
Just because it's a hard question, doesn't mean it not worth getting right.  The poverty, education, etc, etc issues are TOTALLY irrelevant to
whether you take a life. And it's TOTALLY irrelevant if you are a man or a women - they are NOT the ones being killed. Those are awful
arguments for abortion.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 14, 2018, 07:27:00 PM
Whether it's a life or not is certainly the most important question - just because it's hard does not excuse abortion. You don't justify abortion because of
poverty or economic circumstances. And you don't draw an arbitrary line because you think maybe that is where life begins. Your argument about women makes NO sense.  There are MILLIONS of women that oppose abortion - millions.

Cheers Bro!
The thing is that what the pro-lifers want to do is also to draw an arbitrary line. They just want to draw it where they want it to be. Sangeev's argument is actually very reasonable. You just don't like it.

Furthermore he wasn't talking so much about women as about men. He was basically saying that if somehow dudes had to do 20 years in the slammer  for whacking off you would see their attitudes on the subject change abruptly.

Except for the whole thing about life beginning at conception, not in isolation as sperm, or an egg. Almost as poor as the argument comparing soda bans to the murder of innocent children.

FWIW There was an interesting article recently about how whether one is right handed or left handed is determined based on the position of the spine at 8-12 weeks.

The libs here basically wanna say people should have no responsibility for their actions and be free to f*ck recklessly and without repercussion or responsibility. The only difference from one to another is how well they wrap the above in some rhetoric or argument that diverts this unavoidable fact.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: doc75 on August 14, 2018, 07:47:47 PM
That's about the dumbest video I've ever seen, so much for your dead hero.

What made it dumb, exactly?

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 14, 2018, 08:18:09 PM
Whether it's a life or not is certainly the most important question - just because it's hard does not excuse abortion. You don't justify abortion because of
poverty or economic circumstances. And you don't draw an arbitrary line because you think maybe that is where life begins. Your argument about women makes NO sense.  There are MILLIONS of women that oppose abortion - millions.

Cheers Bro!
The thing is that what the pro-lifers want to do is also to draw an arbitrary line. They just want to draw it where they want it to be. Sangeev's argument is actually very reasonable. You just don't like it.

Furthermore he wasn't talking so much about women as about men. He was basically saying that if somehow dudes had to do 20 years in the slammer  for whacking off you would see their attitudes on the subject change abruptly.

No - I'm asking you where you draw the line and why? You have no idea, you're just guessing - and you don't do that with a life.
Just because it's a hard question, doesn't mean it not worth getting right.  The poverty, education, etc, etc issues are TOTALLY irrelevant to
whether you take a life. And it's TOTALLY irrelevant if you are a man or a women - they are NOT the ones being killed. Those are awful
arguments for abortion.
I'm probably not the right person to ask where you draw the line because I've seen how societies look with abortion bans in place and it's not pretty. But in an honest discussion I'd say that Sanjeev's arguments are reasonable. You can maybe say that if it lives it's alive. If it doesn't it's not. So if I hypothetically snatch a fetus out at 21 weeks it has zero chance of living. That would be a hard line that it's not alive. After that we can get into nuanced arguments of percentages, what could be, what couldn't be, rights of the person vs rights of the unperson etc...

Btw, even when abortion was banned a fetus was not considered a child and abortion was not murder.

Hypothetical question: If a baby was carried out to term and has complications that could be dressed but it would be expensive and the parents can't afford them and the child dies. Is that state sanctioned negligent homicide? You don't have to answer.



Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Cigarbutt on August 14, 2018, 08:26:50 PM

Except for the whole thing about life beginning at conception, not in isolation as sperm, or an egg. Almost as poor as the argument comparing soda bans to the murder of innocent children.

FWIW There was an interesting article recently about how whether one is right handed or left handed is determined based on the position of the spine at 8-12 weeks.

This thread is taking a funny direction and I just wanted to squeeze in a small contribution.
@Gregmal,
I've been working on an idea that you recently shared (thank you) that provides equipment and services to IVF clinics and plan to contribute one or more posts.

The idea behind this post is that the "truth" may not be so clear-cut.
The definition of conception is vague (at least from the scientific point of view). The process begins with insemination of the egg. Then, there is a period (including a span of about 48 hours before a "functioning" genome appears) that stretches over a few days before implantation in the uterus.  In that transition phase, many procedures can occur (IVF clinic and the lab): sorting out of and discarding "unhealthy" embryos, freezing and storing embryos, using embryos in scientific research, and testing.

Interesting (relevant?) reference:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fe0d/25d889bcf10d7c54774aa03e5118191b0a7f.pdf

Does this info change anything?
Not trying to reach consensus here. Simply want to underline the moral sensitivity.

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 14, 2018, 08:37:56 PM
Whether it's a life or not is certainly the most important question - just because it's hard does not excuse abortion. You don't justify abortion because of
poverty or economic circumstances. And you don't draw an arbitrary line because you think maybe that is where life begins. Your argument about women makes NO sense.  There are MILLIONS of women that oppose abortion - millions.

Cheers Bro!
The thing is that what the pro-lifers want to do is also to draw an arbitrary line. They just want to draw it where they want it to be. Sangeev's argument is actually very reasonable. You just don't like it.

Furthermore he wasn't talking so much about women as about men. He was basically saying that if somehow dudes had to do 20 years in the slammer  for whacking off you would see their attitudes on the subject change abruptly.

No - I'm asking you where you draw the line and why? You have no idea, you're just guessing - and you don't do that with a life.
Just because it's a hard question, doesn't mean it not worth getting right.  The poverty, education, etc, etc issues are TOTALLY irrelevant to
whether you take a life. And it's TOTALLY irrelevant if you are a man or a women - they are NOT the ones being killed. Those are awful
arguments for abortion.
I'm probably not the right person to ask where you draw the line because I've seen how societies look with abortion bans in place and it's not pretty. But in an honest discussion I'd say that Sanjeev's arguments are reasonable. You can maybe say that if it lives it's alive. If it doesn't it's not. So if I hypothetically snatch a fetus out at 21 weeks it has zero chance of living. That would be a hard line that it's not alive. After that we can get into nuanced arguments of percentages, what could be, what couldn't be, rights of the person vs rights of the unperson etc...

Btw, even when abortion was banned a fetus was not considered a child and abortion was not murder.

Hypothetical question: If a baby was carried out to term and has complications that could be dressed but it would be expensive and the parents can't afford them and the child dies. Is that state sanctioned negligent homicide? You don't have to answer.

I would answer your question this way: Don't use the marginal case to justify abortion. IF all this bad stuff happened, then we should be allowed to do an
abortion. The rape argument is the same. 99% of abortions have nothing to do with the marginal case.  The core and critical issue is - when is this actually a life? 
It's really that simple and all these other arguments do not answer the important question. At some point, there is a life being taken - and it's not the mother's.

For those advocating abortion, I still have not heard when does life begin, just a bunch of guesses.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 14, 2018, 08:38:31 PM

Except for the whole thing about life beginning at conception, not in isolation as sperm, or an egg. Almost as poor as the argument comparing soda bans to the murder of innocent children.

FWIW There was an interesting article recently about how whether one is right handed or left handed is determined based on the position of the spine at 8-12 weeks.

This thread is taking a funny direction and I just wanted to squeeze in a small contribution.
@Gregmal,
I've been working on an idea that you recently shared (thank you) that provides equipment and services to IVF clinics and plan to contribute one or more posts.

The idea behind this post is that the "truth" may not be so clear-cut.
The definition of conception is vague (at least from the scientific point of view). The process begins with insemination of the egg. Then, there is a period (including a span of about 48 hours before a "functioning" genome appears) that stretches over a few days before implantation in the uterus.  In that transition phase, many procedures can occur (IVF clinic and the lab): sorting out of and discarding "unhealthy" embryos, freezing and storing embryos, using embryos in scientific research, and testing.

Interesting (relevant?) reference:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fe0d/25d889bcf10d7c54774aa03e5118191b0a7f.pdf

Does this info change anything?
Not trying to reach consensus here. Simply want to underline the moral sensitivity.

Haha good stuff. I was hoping someone would bring this up because it is truly the unique example the throws a big wrench into everything. Science. Science and religion don't typically go together. Despite the cries of Bible thumper, I swear, I'm an agnostic. Much to the chagrin on those that raised me. At the end of the day this shit is just too far above our heads(in relation to religion).

My feeling with regards to IVF is that it creates something that only survives with human help(duh). But it is still inherently different than two people getting it on and conceiving. Typically the IVF process has the mother start carrying after the "baby" has been "alive" for about a week. It's different from naturally conceiving and within the realm of apples to apples its apples to oranges if that makes sense. Essentially it is something that is meant to happen vs something that is not meant to happen.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 14, 2018, 08:43:42 PM
Whether it's a life or not is certainly the most important question - just because it's hard does not excuse abortion. You don't justify abortion because of
poverty or economic circumstances. And you don't draw an arbitrary line because you think maybe that is where life begins. Your argument about women makes NO sense.  There are MILLIONS of women that oppose abortion - millions.

Cheers Bro!
The thing is that what the pro-lifers want to do is also to draw an arbitrary line. They just want to draw it where they want it to be. Sangeev's argument is actually very reasonable. You just don't like it.

Furthermore he wasn't talking so much about women as about men. He was basically saying that if somehow dudes had to do 20 years in the slammer  for whacking off you would see their attitudes on the subject change abruptly.

No - I'm asking you where you draw the line and why? You have no idea, you're just guessing - and you don't do that with a life.
Just because it's a hard question, doesn't mean it not worth getting right.  The poverty, education, etc, etc issues are TOTALLY irrelevant to
whether you take a life. And it's TOTALLY irrelevant if you are a man or a women - they are NOT the ones being killed. Those are awful
arguments for abortion.
I'm probably not the right person to ask where you draw the line because I've seen how societies look with abortion bans in place and it's not pretty. But in an honest discussion I'd say that Sanjeev's arguments are reasonable. You can maybe say that if it lives it's alive. If it doesn't it's not. So if I hypothetically snatch a fetus out at 21 weeks it has zero chance of living. That would be a hard line that it's not alive. After that we can get into nuanced arguments of percentages, what could be, what couldn't be, rights of the person vs rights of the unperson etc...

Btw, even when abortion was banned a fetus was not considered a child and abortion was not murder.

Hypothetical question: If a baby was carried out to term and has complications that could be dressed but it would be expensive and the parents can't afford them and the child dies. Is that state sanctioned negligent homicide? You don't have to answer.

I would answer your question this way: Don't use the marginal case to justify abortion. IF all this bad stuff happened, then we should be allowed to do an
abortion. The rape argument is the same. 99% of abortions have nothing to do with the marginal case.  The core and critical issue is - when is this actually a life? 
It's really that simple and all these other arguments do not answer the important question. At some point, there is a life being taken - and it's not the mother's.

For those advocating abortion, I still have not heard when does life begin, just a bunch of guesses.
You have to re-read my post. In responding to your posts I haven't employed any of my personal biases and I have employed your premise. I didn't give you my oppinion on when life begins but I've stated clearly. At 21 weeks it's not a life. That's not the marginal case either.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 14, 2018, 08:53:13 PM
Why 21 weeks?  Why are you so sure?  Because some other people say so?  So up to 21 weeks, your perfectly ok with abortion because it's not a human life - it's just like a surgery to remove a wart or something?  You're really sure it's not a life?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: doc75 on August 14, 2018, 08:53:39 PM
FWIW There was an interesting article recently about how whether one is right handed or left handed is determined based on the position of the spine at 8-12 weeks.

This seems irrelevant in the context of a debate on abortion. But the science is interesting. Please provide the source?   Unless there have been some new developments, I think you're misstating the results of a study from last year that suggested handedness develops in the spinal cord rather than the brain.  (At the time I don't think they linked it to position of the spine.)

Quote
The libs here basically wanna say people should have no responsibility for their actions and be free to f*ck recklessly and without repercussion or responsibility. The only difference from one to another is how well they wrap the above in some rhetoric or argument that diverts this unavoidable fact.

You aren't very good at the art of summarizing.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: doc75 on August 14, 2018, 09:06:43 PM
For those advocating abortion, I still have not heard when does life begin, just a bunch of guesses.

Interesting.

Why do you say "just a bunch of guesses"?   

Don't you mean "just a bunch of opinions"?

And isn't yours just one of them?


Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 14, 2018, 09:12:27 PM
Fair enough Doc - just a bunch of opinions is better.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 14, 2018, 10:02:51 PM
Pretty sure nobody knows when "life" begins. At least there's no consensus among the medical community. Here's your timeline, make your own decision:

http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/

This does not justify regressive policies, less so in the face of the history (and frankly, success) of pro-abortion policies.

Shall we ignore the fact that pro-choice societies are by far more "successful" (quality of life, individual freedom, etc.) than restrictive (often religious-controlled) societies? Shall we ignore the fact that for centuries when abortion was illegal, women were still going to back-alley doctors and makeshift at-home procedures?

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 14, 2018, 10:05:16 PM
Why 21 weeks?  Why are you so sure?  Because some other people say so?  So up to 21 weeks, your perfectly ok with abortion because it's not a human life - it's just like a surgery to remove a wart or something?  You're really sure it's not a life?
As I've said, for reasons not mentioned, I'm ok even later. But they way you've framed the argument is at what point are you sure it's not a life. As I've said that point is 21 weeks. There is overwhelming evidence that at that point life is not viable. So therefore it's not a life.

You can compare it to a wart. But in the overwhelming majority of cases it's not like that. Even if it is sometimes. Callousness is not a crime. And freedom means that people should be able to decide what happens to their bodies.

By the way, despite the fact that I'm for abortion and it should be an option in a free society I also think we should do our best to avoid it. I am overwhelmingly in favour of sexual education and contraception. They've proven to be exceptionally effective as family planning methods. Consequently they've been highly effective in reducing the number of abortions and having to put people in the position to make that unpleasant choice. Guess who's against sex ed and contraceptives?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 15, 2018, 01:45:54 AM
Why 21 weeks?  Why are you so sure?  Because some other people say so?  So up to 21 weeks, your perfectly ok with abortion because it's not a human life - it's just like a surgery to remove a wart or something?  You're really sure it's not a life?
As I've said, for reasons not mentioned, I'm ok even later. But they way you've framed the argument is at what point are you sure it's not a life. As I've said that point is 21 weeks. There is overwhelming evidence that at that point life is not viable. So therefore it's not a life.

You can compare it to a wart. But in the overwhelming majority of cases it's not like that. Even if it is sometimes. Callousness is not a crime. And freedom means that people should be able to decide what happens to their bodies.

By the way, despite the fact that I'm for abortion and it should be an option in a free society I also think we should do our best to avoid it. I am overwhelmingly in favour of sexual education and contraception. They've proven to be exceptionally effective as family planning methods. Consequently they've been highly effective in reducing the number of abortions and having to put people in the position to make that unpleasant choice. Guess who's against sex ed and contraceptives?

So before 21 weeks, the baby can't live without assistance, so you have the right to kill it?
How about you can't live without assistance of a machine, say a pacemaker, so I can take it away because you are a burden?

So freedom of my body means I can kill it because it's inconvenient to me?

Ok, I got your point.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Spekulatius on August 15, 2018, 04:53:07 PM
Anyone notice that candidates now get classified by their gender, religion or skin color (first transgender, first Muslim, first black in XX state). So what matters is apparently everything that ideally  should not matter. I have not heard about anything that qualifies these candidates or what they want to do differently, which is what should matter. Politics is strange.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 16, 2018, 12:25:53 PM
Some of you guys seem to be missing the core issue on abortion - isn't it about whether the fetus is a human life? and if it is, then that is murder?

You can talk about poverty, impoverishment, etc - I don't think that is the issue - if it's a life, then it's murder.

Well that's the million dollar question.  But where do you draw the line?  Is it once the fetus takes a breath?  Is it at 32 weeks?  Is it at 12 weeks?  Is it at conception?  What about when guys wack off every day...should sperm be protected?  Women have periods every month...could that be considered abortion...murder?

It would be much more interesting to have this debate around abortion if men could get pregnant.  Accountability and the debate itself would go out the window.  Men can barely go a week without wacking off.  Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and women were telling us the same thing we are telling them?!

I think a rational line to explore would be when there is better than a 50/50 chance that the fetus will survive if removed...so somewhere around 22-24 weeks.  Before that, I just don't think men have the right to even infer if the fetus has rights or not.  98% of North American legal abortions occur before the 21st week.  Of the remaining 2%, about half occur because of possible medical risk to the mother.

Cheers!
I don't think there's a debate to be had. We've had the debate, we reached a conclusion, it was reasonable. A group of people just don't want to accept it and probably never will.

The fact is that sperm actually has a longer lifespan than most aborted fetuses. So if abortion is murder so whenever one of us rubs one out we're not just murderers we're flat out genocidal maniacs. I alone have killed more than the entire population of the planet. Horror!

LOL!  Hilarious!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 16, 2018, 12:43:00 PM
Whether it's a life or not is certainly the most important question - just because it's hard does not excuse abortion. You don't justify abortion because of
poverty or economic circumstances. And you don't draw an arbitrary line because you think maybe that is where life begins. Your argument about women makes NO sense.  There are MILLIONS of women that oppose abortion - millions.

Cheers Bro!
The thing is that what the pro-lifers want to do is also to draw an arbitrary line. They just want to draw it where they want it to be. Sangeev's argument is actually very reasonable. You just don't like it.

Furthermore he wasn't talking so much about women as about men. He was basically saying that if somehow dudes had to do 20 years in the slammer  for whacking off you would see their attitudes on the subject change abruptly.

Except for the whole thing about life beginning at conception, not in isolation as sperm, or an egg. Almost as poor as the argument comparing soda bans to the murder of innocent children.

FWIW There was an interesting article recently about how whether one is right handed or left handed is determined based on the position of the spine at 8-12 weeks.

The libs here basically wanna say people should have no responsibility for their actions and be free to f*ck recklessly and without repercussion or responsibility. The only difference from one to another is how well they wrap the above in some rhetoric or argument that diverts this unavoidable fact.

If you want to talk about accountability and people f**king without any responsibility, try changing the behavior of the President of the United States first.  Three wives, multiple kids by them and mistresses/porn stars probably rivaling Wilt Chamberlain.  The other guy, who you guys hate so much, was married to one women, had two daughters, and as far as we know...no mistresses.  I will go as far and say that it's probably a safe bet that Obama didn't have affairs with any porn stars.

And as far as when life begins, you can't have it both ways...which is it...the Bible says seed is sacred and life begins when the breath of God enters the nostrils, and there are interpretation that it could even begin before conception.  You guys might have to stop wacking off!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-lowery-phd/abortion-what-the-bible-says-and-doesnt-say_b_1856049.html

Cheers!

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 16, 2018, 12:54:13 PM
Pardon the language:

Rb, if handjobs are genocide let's not even talk about the oral equivalent!  :D
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 16, 2018, 12:59:59 PM
Why 21 weeks?  Why are you so sure?  Because some other people say so?  So up to 21 weeks, your perfectly ok with abortion because it's not a human life - it's just like a surgery to remove a wart or something?  You're really sure it's not a life?

Assume that it is a life.  What is your answer to the issue of abortion then...that every woman, regardless of circumstance or mental well being, should continue to full-term and bring that child into this world regardless?  And if you suggest that she could give that child for adoption if she cannot manage, can you guarantee that the state will take care of that child as well as any mother?  And what is the responsibility of the father here?  Can the father be criminally prosecuted if he does not support the child...not just for monetary payments, but not being part of their life?  For every mother and father that chooses not to keep their child, will the community be responsible for the long-term well being of those children?  Such oversimplifications of such complex issues like abortion that some of you are making are extraordinarily irresponsible. 

And for the record, while I believe that women should have that choice and no one else, I can assure you 100% that I absolutely adore children and wish that if my circumstances had been different, that I would have been a father to several children.  But I made a conscious decision not to...in fact, taken absolute responsibility for my actions, and fully comprehend the lifetime commitment children take.  Most people who are against abortion, do not understand that.  Their answer is always an oversimplified response about conception and personal responsibility.

How well has abstinence worked throughout history?  And it doesn't matter which party, what political affiliation, ethnicity, social class, whatever...it hasn't worked.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 01:01:38 PM

And as far as when life begins, you can't have it both ways...which is it...the Bible says seed is sacred and life begins when the breath of God enters the nostrils, and there are interpretation that it could even begin before conception.  You guys might have to stop wacking off!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-lowery-phd/abortion-what-the-bible-says-and-doesnt-say_b_1856049.html

Cheers!

I have great respect for you Parsad, you know that - but you got it completely wrong.

I am not  religious, and have not been to church in 20 years. This has nothing to do with religion and every thing to do with
science and morality.

Are you really telling me that a 10 week old pregnancy is not a life? I'm sure you've seen the pictures. Doesn't seem like much doubt to me - heart beat, formed lungs, etc, etc.

You all have very convenient reasons for condoning abortion. Of course it's legal, but it's highly, highly immoral.
It's very convenient to say it's not a life, when in fact, it's just a problem that you want get rid of with an abortion.
And the life you are taking has no say in the matter - thank god there are others willing to offer their voice.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 01:09:49 PM
Why 21 weeks?  Why are you so sure?  Because some other people say so?  So up to 21 weeks, your perfectly ok with abortion because it's not a human life - it's just like a surgery to remove a wart or something?  You're really sure it's not a life?

Assume that it is a life.  What is your answer to the issue of abortion then...that every woman, regardless of circumstance or mental well being, should continue to full-term and bring that child into this world regardless?  And if you suggest that she could give that child for adoption if she cannot manage, can you guarantee that the state will take care of that child as well as any mother?  And what is the responsibility of the father here?  Can the father be criminally prosecuted if he does not support the child...not just for monetary payments, but not being part of their life?  For every mother and father that chooses not to keep their child, will the community be responsible for the long-term well being of those children?  Such oversimplifications of such complex issues like abortion that some of you are making are extraordinarily irresponsible. 

And for the record, while I believe that women should have that choice and no one else, I can assure you 100% that I absolutely adore children and wish that if my circumstances had been different, that I would have been a father to several children.  But I made a conscious decision not to...in fact, taken absolute responsibility for my actions, and fully comprehend the lifetime commitment children take.  Most people who are against abortion, do not understand that.  Their answer is always an oversimplified response about conception and personal responsibility.

How well has abstinence worked throughout history?  And it doesn't matter which party, what political affiliation, ethnicity, social class, whatever...it hasn't worked.  Cheers!

Congratulations Parsad - you just answered the most important question: It is a life.

Second question:  Can we take that life?   My answer is no, your answer is yes.   My voice is with the life, your voice is with all your
excuses to kill it.

My answer to your question:  Abortions are immoral and therefore should be illegal. Period, end of story.

I am not the one drawing lines on abortion. They should not be done. You should not be the one playing god and justifying abortion with 20 different reasons.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 16, 2018, 01:12:34 PM

And as far as when life begins, you can't have it both ways...which is it...the Bible says seed is sacred and life begins when the breath of God enters the nostrils, and there are interpretation that it could even begin before conception.  You guys might have to stop wacking off!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-lowery-phd/abortion-what-the-bible-says-and-doesnt-say_b_1856049.html

Cheers!

I have great respect for you Parsad, you know that - but you got it completely wrong.

I am not  religious, and have not been to church in 20 years. This has nothing to do with religion and every thing to do with
science and morality.

Are you really telling me that a 10 week old pregnancy is not a life? I'm sure you've seen the pictures. Doesn't seem like much doubt to me - heart beat, formed lungs, etc, etc.

You all have very convenient reasons for condoning abortion. Of course it's legal, but it's highly, highly immoral.
It's very convenient to say it's not a life, when in fact, it's just a problem that you want get rid of with an abortion.
And the life you are taking has no say in the matter - thank god there are others willing to offer their voice.

I personally wish abortion didn't exist.  That children were only conceived by responsible individuals who never made mistakes and have never made an error in judgment.  I have never gotten a woman pregnant, let alone encouraged one to have an abortion.  In fact, I would be supportive and provide any emotional, financial and personal means I could if she chose to have a child rather than an abortion...I've always wanted to be a father. 

But the world doesn't work that way.  People don't all work that way.  Have you ever had sex with someone after getting drunk?  Have you ever driven a car after 2 glass of wine or hard liquor?  Have you ever fired a gun while hunting?  Have you ever kept a loaded gun at home accessible to family members?  Have you ever done any sort of drugs?  Have you ever done something that could have risked someone's life...be it by accident, at a frat party, as a child, teenager or adult?  People do stupid things.  They put themselves and others at risk often...whether by accident or on purpose.  Every decision has some sort of consequence.  Don't oversimplify "life" with your personal morality.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 16, 2018, 01:16:49 PM
Why 21 weeks?  Why are you so sure?  Because some other people say so?  So up to 21 weeks, your perfectly ok with abortion because it's not a human life - it's just like a surgery to remove a wart or something?  You're really sure it's not a life?

Assume that it is a life.  What is your answer to the issue of abortion then...that every woman, regardless of circumstance or mental well being, should continue to full-term and bring that child into this world regardless?  And if you suggest that she could give that child for adoption if she cannot manage, can you guarantee that the state will take care of that child as well as any mother?  And what is the responsibility of the father here?  Can the father be criminally prosecuted if he does not support the child...not just for monetary payments, but not being part of their life?  For every mother and father that chooses not to keep their child, will the community be responsible for the long-term well being of those children?  Such oversimplifications of such complex issues like abortion that some of you are making are extraordinarily irresponsible. 

And for the record, while I believe that women should have that choice and no one else, I can assure you 100% that I absolutely adore children and wish that if my circumstances had been different, that I would have been a father to several children.  But I made a conscious decision not to...in fact, taken absolute responsibility for my actions, and fully comprehend the lifetime commitment children take.  Most people who are against abortion, do not understand that.  Their answer is always an oversimplified response about conception and personal responsibility.

How well has abstinence worked throughout history?  And it doesn't matter which party, what political affiliation, ethnicity, social class, whatever...it hasn't worked.  Cheers!

Congratulations Parsad - you just answered the most important question: It is a life.

Second question:  Can we take that life?   My answer is no, your answer is yes.   My voice is with the life, your voice is with all your
excuses to kill it.

My answer to your question:  Abortions are immoral and therefore should be illegal. Period, end of story.

I am not the one drawing lines on abortion. They should not be done. You should not be the one playing god and justifying abortion with 20 different reasons.

If abortion is murder and is immoral, I hope your opinion of war is equal.  Your constitution also allows your citizens to bear arms...but guns kill millions.  If you believe abortion clinics should be banned, do you believe guns should be banned?  Do you believe that wars the United States enters on foreign soil should be banned?  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 01:17:11 PM
  Don't oversimplify "life" with your personal morality.  Cheers!

Parsad - you're making life real simple - you're playing god. Keep on with those abortions. After all, it doesn't
affect you. Cheers to you Bro.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 01:21:19 PM
[
If abortion is murder and is immoral, I hope your opinion of war is equal.  Your constitution also allows your citizens to bear arms...but guns kill millions.  If you believe abortion clinics should be banned, do you believe guns should be banned?  Do you believe that wars the United States enters on foreign soil should be banned?  Cheers!

You are equating war with abortion, which is completely ridiculous. You are are taking a life that does not need to be taken
LARGELY because it is inconvenient, because YOU don't want to deal with it. You are smarter than this Parsad.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 16, 2018, 01:54:54 PM
[
If abortion is murder and is immoral, I hope your opinion of war is equal.  Your constitution also allows your citizens to bear arms...but guns kill millions.  If you believe abortion clinics should be banned, do you believe guns should be banned?  Do you believe that wars the United States enters on foreign soil should be banned?  Cheers!

You are equating war with abortion, which is completely ridiculous. You are are taking a life that does not need to be taken
LARGELY because it is inconvenient, because YOU don't want to deal with it. You are smarter than this Parsad.

It's not different at all.  If something is immoral, it's immoral.  If some nutjob flies two planes into the Twin Towers, does that allow us to invade another nation and kill 200,000 citizens there?

Murder is murder...whether it's abortion, drone strikes or someone shooting someone at a convenience store.  All are done for some reason...be it valid or invalid...complex or straight forward.

Abortion does not have to occur...it's not something I want...but the consequences would be millions of children that are neglected, abused, impoverished and without homes.  It also means millions of unprepared parents, mental instability for some and a lifetime of personal/economic/social devaluation.  For every child that is saved and has a good life, there would be 10 that suffer and become wards of the state.

Finally, you would have the rights of a fetus superceding the rights of the woman.  The courts found a balance for this, but your moral superiority seems to disregard this balance.  For you, it's an absolute, no matter what the truth is.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 02:26:29 PM
[
If abortion is murder and is immoral, I hope your opinion of war is equal.  Your constitution also allows your citizens to bear arms...but guns kill millions.  If you believe abortion clinics should be banned, do you believe guns should be banned?  Do you believe that wars the United States enters on foreign soil should be banned?  Cheers!

You are equating war with abortion, which is completely ridiculous. You are are taking a life that does not need to be taken
LARGELY because it is inconvenient, because YOU don't want to deal with it. You are smarter than this Parsad.

It's not different at all.  If something is immoral, it's immoral.  If some nutjob flies two planes into the Twin Towers, does that allow us to invade another nation and kill 200,000 citizens there?

Murder is murder...whether it's abortion, drone strikes or someone shooting someone at a convenience store.  All are done for some reason...be it valid or invalid...complex or straight forward.

Abortion does not have to occur...it's not something I want...but the consequences would be millions of children that are neglected, abused, impoverished and without homes.  It also means millions of unprepared parents, mental instability for some and a lifetime of personal/economic/social devaluation.  For every child that is saved and has a good life, there would be 10 that suffer and become wards of the state.

Finally, you would have the rights of a fetus superceding the rights of the woman.  The courts found a balance for this, but your moral superiority seems to disregard this balance.  For you, it's an absolute, no matter what the truth is.  Cheers!

Dude

That's all I want you to say - Abortion is murder. That's what you believe and I believe it as well.

And of course I know it's legal. And FOR WHATEVER REASON DESIRED, the woman can kill that baby without restriction because the court says the baby has NO RIGHTS.

That's all you needed to say. It's murder, it's legal, so piss off.

You think it's MORAL, I DON"T.

This is inexcusable for the United States of America or Canada. We have the resources to deal with unborn.
IF you need to have them in India and other impoverished nations, have at it - but NOT here.

Lastly, Abortion is NOTHING like war and you know it.

Cheers!

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 16, 2018, 02:29:48 PM
Sorry cubsfan but you haven;'t answered your own question - when does life begin?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: writser on August 16, 2018, 02:33:55 PM
Finally, you would have the rights of a fetus superceding the rights of the woman.  The courts found a balance for this, but your moral superiority seems to disregard this balance.  For you, it's an absolute, no matter what the truth is.  Cheers!

Well said. For a guy like cubs there are only two possibilities: either you have a separate sperm cell and an egg cell or you have a full-blown person. At 20:01:00 it's nothing, at 20:01:01 it's a kid and an abortion is as worse as slicing your wife's head off with a steak knife (probably even worse because the lump of cells can't defend itself), regardless of whether you were raped by your father and/or have a genetic defect that will mean you die horribly during childbirth. Of course that's a nice and easy way to think about life and it makes you feel morally superior if you can post abortion is murder a bunch of times in a row on an online investing forum but in practice life is not that simple and I think it's a good thing that a woman can decide _for herself_ what to do in that in-between area.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 02:36:20 PM
Sorry cubsfan but you haven;'t answered your own question - when does life begin?

LC - I don't need to answer this question, you need to - you are the one that wants abortion.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 16, 2018, 02:36:51 PM
My answer to your question:  Abortions are immoral and therefore should be illegal. Period, end of story.

I am not the one drawing lines on abortion. They should not be done. You should not be the one playing god and justifying abortion with 20 different reasons.
Who cares whether it's moral or immoral. Since when do we legislate morality in liberal democracies? And who's to decide what's moral and what's not? you?

Here's a biggie: I think, and probably many agree, that it's immoral to cheat on your spouse. Yet about half the married population has done that. Should the state throw them in prison?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
Finally, you would have the rights of a fetus superceding the rights of the woman.  The courts found a balance for this, but your moral superiority seems to disregard this balance.  For you, it's an absolute, no matter what the truth is.  Cheers!

Well said. For a guy like cubs there are only two possibilities: either you have a separate sperm cell and an egg cell or you have a full-blown person. At 20:01:00 it's nothing, at 20:01:01 it's a kid and an abortion is as worse as slicing your wife's head off with a steak knife (probably even worse because the lump of cells can't defend itself), regardless of whether you were raped by your father and/or have a genetic defect that will mean you die horribly during childbirth. Of course that's a nice and easy way to think about life and it makes you feel morally superior if you can post abortion is murder a bunch of times in a row on an online investing forum but in practice life is not that simple and I think it's a good thing that a woman can decide _for herself_ what to do in that in-between area.

Writer - nice job of dodging the issue. And nice job of using the 1% marginal case (rape/incest) to justify all the other abortions.
How transparent.
 
Of course, you feel morally superior because "it's not really a life" now is it?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 02:42:20 PM
My answer to your question:  Abortions are immoral and therefore should be illegal. Period, end of story.

I am not the one drawing lines on abortion. They should not be done. You should not be the one playing god and justifying abortion with 20 different reasons.
Who cares whether it's moral or immoral. Since when do we legislate morality in liberal democracies? And who's to decide what's moral and what's not? you?

Here's a biggie: I think, and probably many agree, that it's immoral to cheat on your spouse. Yet about half the married population has done that. Should the state throw them in prison?

So Rb - are you taking a life or not?  It's really pretty simple?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 16, 2018, 02:45:38 PM
My answer to your question:  Abortions are immoral and therefore should be illegal. Period, end of story.

I am not the one drawing lines on abortion. They should not be done. You should not be the one playing god and justifying abortion with 20 different reasons.
Who cares whether it's moral or immoral. Since when do we legislate morality in liberal democracies? And who's to decide what's moral and what's not? you?

Here's a biggie: I think, and probably many agree, that it's immoral to cheat on your spouse. Yet about half the married population has done that. Should the state throw them in prison?

So Rb - are you taking a life or not?  It's really pretty simple?
Went down this road before. Not taking a life.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 16, 2018, 02:51:28 PM
Sorry cubsfan but you haven;'t answered your own question - when does life begin?

LC - I don't need to answer this question, you need to - you are the one that wants abortion.
So you want to regulate what someone else can do with their body without providing any reason to justify it.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 02:53:09 PM
My answer to your question:  Abortions are immoral and therefore should be illegal. Period, end of story.

I am not the one drawing lines on abortion. They should not be done. You should not be the one playing god and justifying abortion with 20 different reasons.
Who cares whether it's moral or immoral. Since when do we legislate morality in liberal democracies? And who's to decide what's moral and what's not? you?

Here's a biggie: I think, and probably many agree, that it's immoral to cheat on your spouse. Yet about half the married population has done that. Should the state throw them in prison?

So Rb - are you taking a life or not?  It's really pretty simple?
Went down this road before. Not taking a life.

Try this road Rb - ok - it's not a life:

Rb's wife:   Hi Rb, I have news for you - I'm pregnant!

Rb:  Great honey, how's the fetus?

Wife:  Rb! It's our baby!

Rb:  No it's not - we're progressive. It's a fetus.

Wife:  Really? wow Rb, I thought it was a baby.

Rb: Nope honey, it's a fetus and the great thing is, if I lose my job you can have a abortion because it has no rights and it's not really a life!

Wife:  Wow - that's great honey. But what if you and your parents want the baby and I don't?

Rb:  Well, we're progressive and we have no say in the matter - don't worry honey, it's not a real life anyway.

Is that how it's gonna go Rb?



Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 02:55:42 PM
Sorry cubsfan but you haven;'t answered your own question - when does life begin?

LC - I don't need to answer this question, you need to - you are the one that wants abortion.
So you want to regulate what someone else can do with their body without providing any reason to justify it.

LC - is it ok with you if I kill and torture my dogs in front of you?

My response:  They are my property and YOU have no say in the matter. You can't turn me in for animal cruelty because it
does not affect you.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: writser on August 16, 2018, 02:58:43 PM
Of course, you feel morally superior because "it's not really a life" now is it?

I don't give a shit about morality (however one might define that), you bring it up every post in this topic. As far as I am concerned women can choose for themselves what to do with the stuff in their belly. It's not like they are doing abortions for fun .. What's your stance about postnatal abortions? We're thinking about those in Europe.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 03:00:39 PM
Of course, you feel morally superior because "it's not really a life" now is it?

I don't give a shit about morality (however one might define that), you bring it up every post in this topic. As far as I am concerned women can choose for themselves what to do with the stuff in their belly. It's not like they are doing abortions for fun .. What's your stance about postnatal abortions? We're thinking about those in Europe.

Writer - I guess your afraid to answer the question - nice dodge once again. Is it a life?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 16, 2018, 03:00:49 PM
So Rb - are you taking a life or not?  It's really pretty simple?
Went down this road before. Not taking a life.
[/quote]

Try this road Rb - ok - it's not a life:

Rb's wife:   Hi Rb, I have news for you - I'm pregnant!

Rb:  Great honey, how's the fetus?

Wife:  Rb! It's our baby!

Rb:  No it's not - we're progressive. It's a fetus.

Wife:  Really? wow Rb, I thought it was a baby.

Rb: Nope honey, it's a fetus and the great thing is, if I lose my job you can have a abortion because it has no rights and it's not really a life!

Wife:  Wow - that's great honey. But what if you and your parents want the baby and I don't?

Rb:  Well, we're progressive and we have no say in the matter - don't worry honey, it's not a real life anyway.

Is that how it's gonna go Rb?
[/quote]
That's why it's important to choose wisely when you marry. In my case a pro-lifer would probably be a deal breaker.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 03:04:35 PM
Nice dodge Rb - resort to insults when you have nothing worthwhile to say.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 16, 2018, 03:05:13 PM
How was that an insult?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 03:06:36 PM
Ok, I take it back - not an insult, but a nice dodge.

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: writser on August 16, 2018, 03:14:08 PM
Writer - I guess your afraid to answer the question - nice dodge once again. Is it a life?
As I tried to explain before: it’s not such a simple yes/no question. But that answer will not satisfy you because you righteously ignore all nuance. So I’ll phrase something digestible for you: I’m perfectly fine with women murdering their own unborn babies. Also, if you care more about those babies than their own mothers do you are such a snowflake :) .
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 16, 2018, 03:28:15 PM
Regardless of what side people are on it at least seems clear we can all agree that a woman going through with an abortion is either irresponsible, or massively self consumed, or in many cases, both.

The types that typically seem to do this are the irresponsible ones who can't keep their legs closed and in many cases are back out on the pogo stick days after the abortion(and in many cases have multiple abortions), or the "obsessed with their career" types who don't want to be "burdened" with the responsibility of a child. Certainly not traits I would want in my significant other...
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 16, 2018, 03:38:43 PM
Sorry cubsfan but you haven;'t answered your own question - when does life begin?

LC - I don't need to answer this question, you need to - you are the one that wants abortion.
So you want to regulate what someone else can do with their body without providing any reason to justify it.

LC - is it ok with you if I kill and torture my dogs in front of you?

My response:  They are my property and YOU have no say in the matter. You can't turn me in for animal cruelty because it
does not affect you.

We know when a dog becomes a life. And we have social rules about what animal cruelty is. After all, we put down tons of strays every year.


But now you're the one dodging the question. I'm still waiting for you to let me know when a fertilized egg becomes a human life. You claim abortion is murder. Prove it.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 16, 2018, 03:40:27 PM
Regardless of what side people are on it at least seems clear we can all agree that a woman going through with an abortion is either irresponsible, or massively self consumed, or in many cases, both.

The types that typically seem to do this are the irresponsible ones who can't keep their legs closed and in many cases are back out on the pogo stick days after the abortion(and in many cases have multiple abortions), or the "obsessed with their career" types who don't want to be "burdened" with the responsibility of a child. Certainly not traits I would want in my significant other...
No, "we don't all" agree with your stereotypes and judgements.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 16, 2018, 03:43:25 PM
Ok, I take it back - not an insult, but a nice dodge.
:-\ I'm not entirely sure what I'm dodging either. You've posted a hypothetical conversation between me and my wife. I wasn't quite sure sure where you were going with it to be honest. My best guess was that it was trying to point out how I would run into some uncomfortable situation because of my position on abortion.

I just pointed out that in my case a conversation like that is unlikely to happen because of the way i structure my life. However I am fully confident that I will run into uncomfortable situations in life. And I'm pretty sure that whenver anyone is considering an abourtion it's a pretty uncomfortable situation for them. But hey, sometimes life is uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 16, 2018, 03:49:09 PM
Regardless of what side people are on it at least seems clear we can all agree that a woman going through with an abortion is either irresponsible, or massively self consumed, or in many cases, both.

The types that typically seem to do this are the irresponsible ones who can't keep their legs closed and in many cases are back out on the pogo stick days after the abortion(and in many cases have multiple abortions), or the "obsessed with their career" types who don't want to be "burdened" with the responsibility of a child. Certainly not traits I would want in my significant other...
No, "we don't all" agree with your stereotypes and judgements.

What don't you agree with?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't often hear anyone high fiving their girlfriend for "doing a great job" with that abortion. Or saying things like "damn, isn't she responsible". I certainly wouldn't be proud of my daughter for getting into that situation. In fact, an indisputable fact is that people have abortions because the pregnancy was a mistake. Well, if you made a mistake, even ignoring the part about being irresponsible, that is just another way of saying you f*cked up. I like people who are responsible and do the right thing. Not people who f*ck up.

I also laugh at how liberals try to attach a stigma to words like stereotype, or judgement as if it's a bad thing. We judge everything.It's part of survival. It's how we determine good and bad, safe and unsafe. It's how we evaluate investments. We judge them. Nothing wrong with. Stereotypes often have some basis or element of truth to them, although it is not a one size fits all shoe. It's silly how these words get thrown around negatively.

Exhibit A

Company A has an entire management team that is related to the founders of the company. Judgement? There is nepotism at this company

Company B is a reverse merger based out of Boca Raton. Stereotype? Company B is a higher risk investment

It's not a stretch to say woman who have abortions are loose, selfish, and irresponsible, for the most part. Sure there are possibly exceptions.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 16, 2018, 04:10:41 PM
Regardless of what side people are on it at least seems clear we can all agree that a woman going through with an abortion is either irresponsible, or massively self consumed, or in many cases, both.

The types that typically seem to do this are the irresponsible ones who can't keep their legs closed and in many cases are back out on the pogo stick days after the abortion(and in many cases have multiple abortions), or the "obsessed with their career" types who don't want to be "burdened" with the responsibility of a child. Certainly not traits I would want in my significant other...
What about a woman in her 40s that has 3 children and is married for 15 years. And she spread her legs and was riding her husband's pogo stick because  she likes fucking her husband. And this was one of those times when the contraceptive didn't work and one got past the goalie. Now this woman thinks that 3 is enough and doesn't want 4 kids. Furthermore she's not sure that she can do a good job and really doesn't wanna go though shepherding a kid at puberty in her 60s.

Does she go in the irresponsible who can't keep her legs crossed category or in the massively self consumed category? Or is it both?

As LC said. "We don't all" agree with your stereotypes and judgements. From my point of view women can work as hard as they like and spread their legs as far and as often as hey like. That's the thing about freedom. It involves individuals being free and that includes women as well.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 16, 2018, 04:13:12 PM
Couple of things
-getting an abortion is not inherently irresponsible
-being in a position where you have to decide to get an abortion is not inherently irresponsible
-your claims about the behavior of people who have gotten an abortion (can't keep their legs closed, jump back on the pogo stick) are not only unfounded but also pretty damn offensive
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 16, 2018, 04:14:39 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I don't often hear anyone high fiving their girlfriend for "doing a great job" with that abortion. Or saying things like "damn, isn't she responsible". I certainly wouldn't be proud of my daughter for getting into that situation. In fact, an indisputable fact is that people have abortions because the pregnancy was a mistake. Well, if you made a mistake, even ignoring the part about being irresponsible, that is just another way of saying you f*cked up. I like people who are responsible and do the right thing. Not people who f*ck up.
I think if you're pregnant and you're not ready or able to raise a child properly having an abortion is an incredibly responsible thing to do.

I see people every day that choose to do the irresponsible thing and not get an abortion.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 16, 2018, 04:22:44 PM
Regardless of what side people are on it at least seems clear we can all agree that a woman going through with an abortion is either irresponsible, or massively self consumed, or in many cases, both.

The types that typically seem to do this are the irresponsible ones who can't keep their legs closed and in many cases are back out on the pogo stick days after the abortion(and in many cases have multiple abortions), or the "obsessed with their career" types who don't want to be "burdened" with the responsibility of a child. Certainly not traits I would want in my significant other...
What about a woman in her 40s that has 3 children and is married for 15 years. And she spread her legs and was riding her husband's pogo stick because  she likes fucking her husband. And this was one of those times when the contraceptive didn't work and one got past the goalie. Now this woman thinks that 3 is enough and doesn't want 4 kids. Furthermore she's not sure that she can do a good job and really doesn't wanna go though shepherding a kid at puberty in her 60s.

Does she go in the irresponsible who can't keep her legs crossed category or in the massively self consumed category? Or is it both?

As LC said. "We don't all" agree with your stereotypes and judgements. From my point of view women can work as hard as they like and spread their legs as far and as often as hey like. That's the thing about freedom. It involves individuals being free and that includes women as well.

As I said, not every situation is the same, but there's plenty of people in that situation who take measures to avoid this. The husband getting snipped is probably the easiest.

And the great thing about freedom is that with it comes responsibility. Well, at least for some...
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 16, 2018, 04:29:39 PM
I mean something like 40-50% of woman who have had an abortion, have multiple abortions. Not only did they f*ck up, but half of them learned nothing and f*cked up again! That's where the learned nothing and jump back on the pogo stick comment comes from. Very responsible, right?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 04:41:36 PM
Writer - I guess your afraid to answer the question - nice dodge once again. Is it a life?
As I tried to explain before: it’s not such a simple yes/no question. But that answer will not satisfy you because you righteously ignore all nuance. So I’ll phrase something digestible for you: I’m perfectly fine with women murdering their own unborn babies. Also, if you care more about those babies than their own mothers do you are such a snowflake :) .

You show your true colors writer. You're fine with mothers killing their own babies. What a douche bag you are.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 04:44:11 PM
Sorry cubsfan but you haven;'t answered your own question - when does life begin?

LC - I don't need to answer this question, you need to - you are the one that wants abortion.
So you want to regulate what someone else can do with their body without providing any reason to justify it.

LC - is it ok with you if I kill and torture my dogs in front of you?

My response:  They are my property and YOU have no say in the matter. You can't turn me in for animal cruelty because it
does not affect you.

We know when a dog becomes a life. And we have social rules about what animal cruelty is. After all, we put down tons of strays every year.


But now you're the one dodging the question. I'm still waiting for you to let me know when a fertilized egg becomes a human life. You claim abortion is murder. Prove it.

I'm not dodging the question. I'm not advocating abortion. You are. I'm pretty damn sure that well before 21 weeks you're murdering a baby - and that's immoral, while legal.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Cigarbutt on August 16, 2018, 05:10:35 PM
I certainly wouldn't be proud of my daughter for getting into that situation. In fact, an indisputable fact is that people have abortions because the pregnancy was a mistake. Well, if you made a mistake, even ignoring the part about being irresponsible, that is just another way of saying you f*cked up. I like people who are responsible and do the right thing. Not people who f*ck up.

I also laugh at how liberals try to attach a stigma to words like stereotype, or judgement as if it's a bad thing. We judge everything.It's part of survival. It's how we determine good and bad, safe and unsafe. It's how we evaluate investments. We judge them. Nothing wrong with. Stereotypes often have some basis or element of truth to them, although it is not a one size fits all shoe. It's silly how these words get thrown around negatively.

Gregmal,

Based on studies and my take on your comments above, you have to take into account the possibility that, in the hypothetical scenario that your daughter considers an abortion, you may not know about it. Does that change anything?

@cubsfan,

Your position appears to be very strict (a position you are allowed to have) and, based on previous discussions I've had about this topic, my experience has been that those who support an absolutist position on abortion tend to support strongly capital punishment, a situation that is difficult to reconcile if your basic argument is the sanctity of life. Can you help me understand?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 16, 2018, 05:18:28 PM
Parsed

Not all wars are immoral.  Your opinion is contrary to centuries of ethical and religious thought. Similarly self defense isn't immoral.

Others

You guys are really all over the place.  It might help if you actually think along these terms.  What you're really talking about is when a human life begins.  A human cell as in a kidney cell or sperm cell isn't what you should be discussing. Those cells don't have the ability to form a human life.  You need a sperm cell and an egg to form a zygote, which does have the ability to create a fully formed human  - human life begins then. What most of you on the left are really talking about is personhood - when legal rights attach to a person.

I have mixed feelings about the subject. But I'm very uncomfortable with the shear number of abortions - 50  to 60 million abortions performed worldwide each year. That just feels wrong.

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 05:31:12 PM
I certainly wouldn't be proud of my daughter for getting into that situation. In fact, an indisputable fact is that people have abortions because the pregnancy was a mistake. Well, if you made a mistake, even ignoring the part about being irresponsible, that is just another way of saying you f*cked up. I like people who are responsible and do the right thing. Not people who f*ck up.

I also laugh at how liberals try to attach a stigma to words like stereotype, or judgement as if it's a bad thing. We judge everything.It's part of survival. It's how we determine good and bad, safe and unsafe. It's how we evaluate investments. We judge them. Nothing wrong with. Stereotypes often have some basis or element of truth to them, although it is not a one size fits all shoe. It's silly how these words get thrown around negatively.

Gregmal,

Based on studies and my take on your comments above, you have to take into account the possibility that, in the hypothetical scenario that your daughter considers an abortion, you may not know about it. Does that change anything?

@cubsfan,

Your position appears to be very strict (a position you are allowed to have) and, based on previous discussions I've had about this topic, my experience has been that those who support an absolutist position on abortion tend to support strongly capital punishment, a situation that is difficult to reconcile if your basic argument is the sanctity of life. Can you help me understand?

Cigar - excellent point. Let me make my position clear. Abortion is immoral, while legal. However, I am strongly in favor of
capital punishment. If someone murders your daughter, I'm perfect happy to see them be executed. I am strongly in favor
of defending our country - so people that fly planes into buildings deserve to die.

So, I will apologize to Parsad for saying he is playing god. I find it reprehensible that all these "great" arguments for abortion
include so many reasons other than the MOST important reason - you are taking a life. There is a very cavalier attitude
among some posters about this. It's no big deal, it's none of my business, it's a burden, etc.

If you think it's a life, just say we as a society are perfectly ok with killing the innocent out of convience.

Things get heated here Cigar - thanks for forcing me to clarify.

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: SharperDingaan on August 16, 2018, 05:46:19 PM
Like it or not abortions happen, it's part of 'life'.
You can either legalize it and make the procedure as safe as possible, or keep it in the back streets; most 1st world nations have chosen to at least partially legalize it.
Most also recognize that you cannot legislate morality, and that all it does is create a black market.

Example: US prohibition was an attempt to legislate 'morals', and millions disagreed with it.
We all know what happened next.

SD

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 16, 2018, 05:50:45 PM
Cubsfan, so the best you have is you're "pretty damn sure" that a fetus pre-21 weeks is a human life? Is there any  scientific rationale or evidence to support this? Can you be more specific in terms of a timeframe? For example, one week after an  egg is inseminated, is that human life?

Because otherwise, if that's the best you have, then that's the best you have.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 16, 2018, 06:02:52 PM
Here is an answer to your question, LC.

"The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created."
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 06:05:10 PM
Cubsfan, so the best you have is you're "pretty damn sure" that a fetus pre-21 weeks is a human life? Is there any  scientific rationale or evidence to support this? Can you be more specific in terms of a timeframe? For example, one week after an  egg is inseminated, is that human life?

Because otherwise, if that's the best you have, then that's the best you have.

LC - that's the best I got for you. I'm not the one trying to justify abortions. I'm against them at any time. You have heart beats and lungs, etc around 10 weeks. That's very scientific evidence for me.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 16, 2018, 06:14:09 PM
Like it or not abortions happen, it's part of 'life'.
You can either legalize it and make the procedure as safe as possible, or keep it in the back streets; most 1st world nations have chosen to at least partially legalize it.
Most also recognize that you cannot legislate morality, and that all it does is create a black market.

Example: US prohibition was an attempt to legislate 'morals', and millions disagreed with it.
We all know what happened next.

SD

We legislated against slavery - it was immoral, but legal. However, an enlightened nation legislated morality, as it should have.

Slaves were viewed as "property" by the South. The nation moved forward as it should do on abortion.

There is no reason for a rich county like the United States or Canada to not take care of the unborn or confer rights onto the unborn.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 16, 2018, 06:16:29 PM
Cubsfan, so the best you have is you're "pretty damn sure" that a fetus pre-21 weeks is a human life? Is there any  scientific rationale or evidence to support this? Can you be more specific in terms of a timeframe? For example, one week after an  egg is inseminated, is that human life?

Because otherwise, if that's the best you have, then that's the best you have.

LC - that's the best I got for you. I'm not the one trying to justify abortions. I'm against them at any time. You have heart beats and lungs, etc around 10 weeks. That's very scientific evidence for me.

They don't touch the real questions. They just dodge and shift attention like a poorly orchestrated part time magician's illusion.

It's legal, so it's not wrong. We won't say when life begins, but you should. It's tough on people, so let's not say they are irresponsible. People should be free to lustfully impale themselves on whatever and whomever, as frequently and as carelessly as they want, they're not sluts and insinuating so is offensive. Because we can't put a face (or for the liberals, a skin color or socio-economic status) on an embryo, let's treat it like a mouse in your pantry. Being accountable for your actions is hard. It's tough to walk the walk, so let's just disregard it. If all else fails, this is just white privilege...
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 16, 2018, 07:54:03 PM
I mean something like 40-50% of woman who have had an abortion, have multiple abortions. Not only did they f*ck up, but half of them learned nothing and f*cked up again! That's where the learned nothing and jump back on the pogo stick comment comes from. Very responsible, right?
And these are the people that you want raising kids?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: doc75 on August 16, 2018, 08:01:31 PM
"The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created."

Not so much an answer as an opinion -- and not a surprising one, given the source.

From Wikipedia:  The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group  of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States. The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples. The group's membership as of 2016 is estimated at 500 members.   

In contrast, the American Academy of Pediatrics has about 64000 members.  They don't mind gay folks adopting kids, and they have quite liberal views on access to abortion.

 
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 16, 2018, 08:43:08 PM
I certainly wouldn't be proud of my daughter for getting into that situation. In fact, an indisputable fact is that people have abortions because the pregnancy was a mistake. Well, if you made a mistake, even ignoring the part about being irresponsible, that is just another way of saying you f*cked up. I like people who are responsible and do the right thing. Not people who f*ck up.

I also laugh at how liberals try to attach a stigma to words like stereotype, or judgement as if it's a bad thing. We judge everything.It's part of survival. It's how we determine good and bad, safe and unsafe. It's how we evaluate investments. We judge them. Nothing wrong with. Stereotypes often have some basis or element of truth to them, although it is not a one size fits all shoe. It's silly how these words get thrown around negatively.

Gregmal,

Based on studies and my take on your comments above, you have to take into account the possibility that, in the hypothetical scenario that your daughter considers an abortion, you may not know about it. Does that change anything?

@cubsfan,

Your position appears to be very strict (a position you are allowed to have) and, based on previous discussions I've had about this topic, my experience has been that those who support an absolutist position on abortion tend to support strongly capital punishment, a situation that is difficult to reconcile if your basic argument is the sanctity of life. Can you help me understand?

Cigar - excellent point. Let me make my position clear. Abortion is immoral, while legal. However, I am strongly in favor of
capital punishment. If someone murders your daughter, I'm perfect happy to see them be executed. I am strongly in favor
of defending our country - so people that fly planes into buildings deserve to die.

So, I will apologize to Parsad for saying he is playing god. I find it reprehensible that all these "great" arguments for abortion
include so many reasons other than the MOST important reason - you are taking a life. There is a very cavalier attitude
among some posters about this. It's no big deal, it's none of my business, it's a burden, etc.

If you think it's a life, just say we as a society are perfectly ok with killing the innocent out of convience.

Things get heated here Cigar - thanks for forcing me to clarify.
Here's the thing about the dignity of human life.

The 19 terrorists hijacked the planes. They were dead by mid day September 11. Then you've attached Afghanistan. Understandable since the guy who ordered the attack was chilling with that government. But you've done a piss poor job at planning it and more US soldiers died than they've had to.

After that you went and attacked Iraq for no reason. The reason was we don't like these dudes so let's smoke the fools. And a whole lot of Iraqis died. Now these guys had nothing to do with 9/11. Some guy who's house got shelled while him and his family were inside had nothing to do with 9/11. Never met, never known any terrorist him and his whole family is dead. Then you got a bunch of these guys who are trying to defend their land cause you guys just showed up kill a bunch of Americans cause such is war. Where is the respect for the morality of life in all of this? Btw, the people that put all of this in motion were big pro life people.

Of the 19 people that attacked the US that fateful day 15 were from Saudi Arabia, 2 were from UAE, 1 from Egypt, 1 from Lebanon, none were from Iraq. Yet the US decided to execute a full invasion of Iraq. Never did they bring up any action against the 4 countries from which the attackers were from.

As to whether societies are perfectly ok killing the innocent out of convenience.... In North America I thought it was bloody obvious that it's true. I didn't even know it was subject to debate. Happens every day!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 16, 2018, 08:49:53 PM
"The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created."

Not so much an answer as an opinion -- and not a surprising one, given the source.

From Wikipedia:  The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group  of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States. The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples. The group's membership as of 2016 is estimated at 500 members.   

In contrast, the American Academy of Pediatrics has about 64000 members.  They don't mind gay folks adopting kids, and they have quite liberal views on access to abortion.
OUCH! That burns!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: doc75 on August 16, 2018, 09:42:08 PM
We legislated against slavery - it was immoral, but legal. However, an enlightened nation legislated morality, as it should have.

Slaves were viewed as "property" by the South. The nation moved forward as it should do on abortion.

There is no reason for a rich county like the United States or Canada to not take care of the unborn or confer rights onto the unborn.

Slavery is not a good comparison.  You can't really skirt an anti-slavery law.  Even if I really wanted a slave, I couldn't readily have one in some clandestine manner.   SDs point is that clandestine abortions will still occur, just at greater risk to the mothers. 

Isn't the reason various countries don't confer rights onto the unborn simply that they come at a cost to the rights of the born, and most people feel the cost is too high?   

I'm generally pro-choice,  but I must admit that some of the abortion statistics strike me as unsettlingly high.  The following site indicates that in the US (2014 data)  45% of pregnancies were unintended, and approx 19% of all pregnancies ended in abortion, with approx 30% of these via "the pill".   I just looked it up and haven't fact-checked.  But 19% is much higher than I would have guessed.  Also:  Just over half of women having an abortion were using contraception. 

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 16, 2018, 09:47:36 PM
Also:  Just over half of women having an abortion were using contraception. 
How does that happen? Just asking on the off chance that your screen name may indicate that you may be a doctor.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: doc75 on August 16, 2018, 09:51:10 PM
Quote
OUCH! That burns!

Not meant to burn, just to point out that it's a fool's errand to claim scientific authority on this issue.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: doc75 on August 16, 2018, 10:17:02 PM
Also:  Just over half of women having an abortion were using contraception. 
How does that happen? Just asking on the off chance that your screen name may indicate that you may be a doctor.

I'm not a doctor.  The screen name goes back to my early years in the BBS world. Here's a guess:

You have millions of people screwing every day.  (Some more than others, lucky bastards.)    I presume a large percentage are using contraception.  IUDs are 99+% effective, but the pill is only around 91% effective and condoms are only around 82% effective in practice, so a lot of unintentional pregnancies are going to come from protected sex.  Moreover condoms are cheap and are likely quite prevalent amongst those more likely to seek abortions -- which I believe are well-correlated with lower socioeconomic status. 
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 17, 2018, 05:23:09 AM
What's up Doc, 😀

In all fairness to me, LC asked for scientific proof of when a human life begins.   I did not say the answer:I said an answer.

However,  I feel confident that a unique human life begins at that moment.

As I've posted previously you guys really want to talk about personhood - the point that legal rights attach - which is a different question. 
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 17, 2018, 06:04:18 AM
Instead of silly comparisons like comparing abortions to war, how about discussing what happens to someone who murders a pregnant woman? 
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 17, 2018, 06:29:34 AM
Doc

Here is what the Academy of Pediatrics actually said.   https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins
I've looked at American Academy of Pediatrics website.  They appear to avoid discussing the issue of when human life begins and instead focuses more on personhood.   
My point is this:  Does being conservative automatically mean your wrong?  Why can't the Academy of Pediatrics be conservative and right. I can understand you bringing up the issue of possible bias - that's fair.  But that doesn't mean they are wrong.  They can be both biased and right.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Ross812 on August 17, 2018, 07:01:20 AM
True, but this is why main stream media deserves to be shit on and attacked. These are the headline stories and it highlights how full of it THEY are. How they are blatantly hypocritical and have no interest other than dividing the country to generate clicks. While left and right folks can have differing opinions as you said, you can tell where the media lies(pun intended) by what the headlines are. One day it's anyone can play anyone. The next day its outrage a gay actor isn't playing a gay character.
WTF are you talking about main stream media? What would be considered main stream media isn't overly concerned about who's playing who in movies.

And what about chasing clicks? You turn news into a profit centre and they'll go for clicks. What does that have to do with main stream media? Last time I've checked Breitbart doesn't charge a subscription. How do you think they pay their 20 year old reporters? Oh yeah, they go for clicks. So give me a break. It seems that whenever your read something you don't like it becomes written by the main stream media. And subsequently main stream media is bad and must be shit on because they're dividers. Whereas the media outlets you enjoy are the great national unifiers right?

Both stories were front page news on Yahoo on consecutive days...but yea...

Whereas I've never actually stated which outlets I enjoy. I read a lot. NY Post is the closest I've come to enjoyable, but even that's debatable and more than 50% of the time rubbish, but a good mix of stuff across a fairly wide spectrum of topics. I don't read Fox, it's too political. I've actually never viewed Breitbart. I like a nice mix of everything. Way to try to manufacture and then run with a self serving narrative that never existed though.

You do realize your "front page" on Yahoo is targeted at you based on your yahoo browsing history right? Yahoo's algorithm serves you what you are likely to click on so the company makes money. This is not MSM news that everyone in the country is fired up about; it is news tailored to you to fire you up. It appears to be working!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 17, 2018, 07:26:58 AM
True, but this is why main stream media deserves to be shit on and attacked. These are the headline stories and it highlights how full of it THEY are. How they are blatantly hypocritical and have no interest other than dividing the country to generate clicks. While left and right folks can have differing opinions as you said, you can tell where the media lies(pun intended) by what the headlines are. One day it's anyone can play anyone. The next day its outrage a gay actor isn't playing a gay character.
WTF are you talking about main stream media? What would be considered main stream media isn't overly concerned about who's playing who in movies.

And what about chasing clicks? You turn news into a profit centre and they'll go for clicks. What does that have to do with main stream media? Last time I've checked Breitbart doesn't charge a subscription. How do you think they pay their 20 year old reporters? Oh yeah, they go for clicks. So give me a break. It seems that whenever your read something you don't like it becomes written by the main stream media. And subsequently main stream media is bad and must be shit on because they're dividers. Whereas the media outlets you enjoy are the great national unifiers right?

Both stories were front page news on Yahoo on consecutive days...but yea...

Whereas I've never actually stated which outlets I enjoy. I read a lot. NY Post is the closest I've come to enjoyable, but even that's debatable and more than 50% of the time rubbish, but a good mix of stuff across a fairly wide spectrum of topics. I don't read Fox, it's too political. I've actually never viewed Breitbart. I like a nice mix of everything. Way to try to manufacture and then run with a self serving narrative that never existed though.

You do realize your "front page" on Yahoo is targeted at you based on your yahoo browsing history right? Yahoo's algorithm serves you what you are likely to click on so the company makes money. This is not MSM news that everyone in the country is fired up about; it is news tailored to you to fire you up. It appears to be working!

Except for when there is not a browsing history or an entirely different computer... Just to be sure, I've confirmed that today on 3 separate computers, in 3 different states, all have Aretha Franklin as headline news on Yahoo. I've never spoke of, read, searched, or listened to Aretha Franklin in my life.


And in terms of content of the news feed, it is the same stories as well.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: doc75 on August 17, 2018, 11:10:12 AM
Doc

Here is what the Academy of Pediatrics actually said.   https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins
I've looked at American Academy of Pediatrics website.  They appear to avoid discussing the issue of when human life begins and instead focuses more on personhood.   
My point is this:  Does being conservative automatically mean your wrong?  Why can't the Academy of Pediatrics be conservative and right. I can understand you bringing up the issue of possible bias - that's fair.  But that doesn't mean they are wrong.  They can be both biased and right.

Hi Mark. I read the full article from AcPeds before posting my response.  I felt it was an opinion piece presenting itself as scientific proof, so I looked up the organization.

To ask when life begins is tantamount to asking for a definition of "human life". Science does not define things for us. What we know, scientifically, is that a zygote, under the right conditions (e.g. the nurturing womb of a woman), will develop into a unique human being.  This is hardly controversial.  Given this fact, it is certainly sensible to define human life as beginning at the zygotic stage.  But this isn't an answer to anything.   It's simply a definition, sensible in a scientific sense but ultimately arbitrary and in no way authoritative with regards to the abortion debate.   It's circular to define X and then say that this authoritatively answers the question "what is X".

I personally don't understand how anyone's opinion on this issue could be swayed by quibbling about a definition.  If 99.8% of the world's embryologists define human life as beginning at the zygotic stage, then I'll happily accept that a zygote is a human life by the broadly accepted definition.  I still feel very differently about the death of a zygote than the death of an infant.   If developmental biologists were instead to agree that human life really begins when there is some certain measurable level of brain activity, which would occur much later, then I wouldn't expect the new definition to change your opinion on abortion.

In short:  You're looking for "right" and "wrong".  I'm saying it's not that simple.


Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: bookie71 on August 17, 2018, 11:55:35 AM
It seems to me that an effective way to cut the rate of abortions without outlawing it would be to require each participant to have an ultrasound at least 48 hours prior to the abortion.  I think that it would change a few minds.
jmho
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 17, 2018, 12:36:32 PM
Hey Doc,

I haven't been explaining my point particularly well.  So here is another attempt.

Unlike you I don't believe the Academy position is opinion disguised as science.  (As an aside, I'm not sure what you really meant by that because you offered no support for that proposition.) Princeton University seems to back up the Academy of Pediatricians.  https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

 I keep mentioning personhood without much effect.  So here is a very small snippet of a definition:

"Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.

Personhood continues to be a topic of international debate and has been questioned critically during the abolition of human and nonhuman slavery, in theology, in debates about abortion and in fetal rights and/or reproductive rights, in animal rights activism, in theology and ontology, in ethical theory, and in debates about corporate personhood and the beginning of human personhood. .....

The beginning of human personhood is a concept long debated by religion and philosophy. With respect to abortion, 'personhood' is the status of a human being having individual human rights. The term was used by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

So what is my point? 
1) A unique human life begins at or near conception.
2) The controversial part is where do we attach legal rights and remedies - this was also pointed out by the Academy of Pediatricians.
3) Why is it controversial?
3A)  The government could say personhood attaches at the beginning of human life; at viability - a moving target because of scientific advances; or since I've seen studies from developmental psychologist stating the mind is not fully formed until about one years old, you could build an argument that personhood begins at that point; or anywhere across that spectrum.
3B) Why? Because the Supreme Court is unelected and unanswerable to no one.  They're right only because there is no one above them to say that they wrong.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Otsog on August 17, 2018, 01:24:26 PM
This thread is wild. 

Women are so lucky to have men around to make decisions for them.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 17, 2018, 01:40:13 PM
This thread is wild. 

Women are so lucky to have men around to make decisions for them.

LOL, totally.

Man: You must take the penis, you have no choice.

Women: Yes, thank you.

Somehow I'm not sure it works like that. Two consenting adults should be responsible for their actions. Everything we do has consequences. When two lustful individuals get their rocks off it doesn't just end there. No respectful man just claps his hands and declares "I'm done; I'm not helping financially or emotionally with the baby". No respectful woman goes "I'll just kill it"...
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Otsog on August 17, 2018, 02:40:02 PM
No respectful human limits access to birth control.

No true scotsman fucks goats.

No respectful discourse uses pointless logical fallacies.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: doc75 on August 17, 2018, 02:43:12 PM
Quote
Unlike you I don't believe the Academy position is opinion disguised as science.  (As an aside, I'm not sure what you really meant by that because you offered no support for that proposition.) Princeton University seems to back up the Academy of Pediatricians.  https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

No.  You are referencing a webpage from the Princeton Pro-Life organization. I would be surprised if Princeton University itself took a stance on the question of when life begins.  Here is the blurb about Princeton Pro-Life:

"Princeton Pro-Life is a student-run organization devoted to promoting a culture of life on campus and in the world beyond. We host speakers, sponsor conferences, write editorials, and coordinate with other campus organizations to raise awareness of the pro-life message. We also organize a trip to the annual March for Life in Washington D.C. in January.

Our motto, “Condiscipulorum Absentium Gratia“, summarizes why we do what we do. Translated “for the sake of our missing classmates“, the motto is a reminder of the thousands pre-born people aborted every day, some of whom would have been here at Princeton with us now, had they been allowed to live."


I find these misattributions of authority very strange. 

Regardless:  As I said in my previous post, there is nothing at all controversial about scientists defining human life to begin at fertilization.  Again, these are definitions, not scientific findings. In fact, some of the quotes are from dictionaries. 

The controversy comes with what meaning is attached to the definition.  It is disingenuous to quote a scientist's definition and then stand on it as proof that abortion is homicide, or any such related claim.

I'll respond further when I find some time.

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 17, 2018, 02:47:13 PM
No respectful human limits access to birth control.

No true scotsman fucks goats.

No respectful discourse uses pointless logical fallacies.

So, abortionists=goat fuckers!

Kidding of course.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 17, 2018, 03:54:50 PM
Doc,

I wasn't paying attention that's why I cited the Princeton pro life page. My bad!  But the quotes within it are still valid.  in many ways I'm agreeing with you.  A valid argument can be made about personhood along a pretty long continuum. Here are just a handful of other authorities  on when human life begins from a biological standpoint. But they don't settle the personhood problem.



Dr. Sean O’Reilly, Director of the Neurobiology Research Training Program at George Washington University:

“[T]here is nothing in the entire phenomenon of the transmission of life that deserves more to be called an event, scientifically speaking, that does fertilization. It is the natural and scientific boundary at which a new and genetically unique human individual can be said to begin his existence. We conclude, therefore, that by objective and scientific criteria the individual human being is a person throughout his [or her] entire biological development from conception, which is synonymous with fertilization, to natural death… Any other conclusion would be arbitrary, unsupportable by scientific fact or rational argument, divorced from objective reality, and based on a particular ideology, philosophy or creed.”

-------

Although life is a continuous process, fertilization…is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte (female egg).

– Human Embryology & Teratology (Ronan R. O’Rahilly and Fabiola Muller [3rd edition, New York: Wiley-Liss 2001], p. 8).

----------
Although life is a continuous process, fertilization…is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte (female egg).

– Human Embryology & Teratology (Ronan R. O’Rahilly and Fabiola Muller [3rd edition, New York: Wiley-Liss 2001], p. 8).

------------
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded:

“I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being. … I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”










Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Spekulatius on August 17, 2018, 05:05:13 PM
This is a thread that should be aborted.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 17, 2018, 05:50:52 PM
Great idea spekulatius
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 17, 2018, 06:28:10 PM
I mean something like 40-50% of woman who have had an abortion, have multiple abortions. Not only did they f*ck up, but half of them learned nothing and f*cked up again! That's where the learned nothing and jump back on the pogo stick comment comes from. Very responsible, right?

It's nice when you are the only perfect human being around since Jesus Christ walked the Earth!  The good thing is when you die, you can ask your Father to forgive the sins of all these nutjob women who like to f**k and are irresponsible.  Not all women can be Mary Magdalene and find Jesus.  Most will probably end up in Hell!  Cheers! 
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 17, 2018, 06:33:59 PM
"The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created."

Not so much an answer as an opinion -- and not a surprising one, given the source.

From Wikipedia:  The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group  of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States. The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples. The group's membership as of 2016 is estimated at 500 members.   

In contrast, the American Academy of Pediatrics has about 64000 members.  They don't mind gay folks adopting kids, and they have quite liberal views on access to abortion.

 

Thanks Doc75!

Cubsfan, do you have anything against gay couples adopting babies?  If not, perhaps we can reduce the number of abortions by increasing the number of gay adoptions.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 17, 2018, 06:49:52 PM
Instead of silly comparisons like comparing abortions to war, how about discussing what happens to someone who murders a pregnant woman?

How can you arbitrarily decide what is murder and what isn't.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but did the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq officially declare war against the U.S. or did the U.S. declare war against them and invaded them.  And if the target was Al Qaida terrorists, then how did so many children die?  Murder is murder...killing someone is killing someone.

But things aren't so clear cut, are they?  If a human being or an animal is suffering and in pain, we do and can alleviate their pain through assisted suicide.  The argument around abortion is like many other arguments...the answers aren't as simple as some of you are making it.  In some circumstances, the welfare of the mother (be it physical or mental) is at risk.  Yes, some people aren't responsible and probably end up having an abortion when it was preventable.  If abortion wasn't available at public clinics, then some of these "irresponsible" people might jeopardize their own life by going to back-door clinics.  Is that better?  One life for another?

It's just not as simple as you guys are trying to make it.  As much as I admire Cubfans determined stance, absolutism on this subject matter is naive and the complexity of the issue is similar to prostitution.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Parsad on August 17, 2018, 06:54:59 PM
This thread is wild. 

Women are so lucky to have men around to make decisions for them.

LOL!  So true!  What the heck is going to happen when they are eventually allowed to go to college or vote?  It will be utter chaos!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 17, 2018, 07:09:50 PM
I mean something like 40-50% of woman who have had an abortion, have multiple abortions. Not only did they f*ck up, but half of them learned nothing and f*cked up again! That's where the learned nothing and jump back on the pogo stick comment comes from. Very responsible, right?

It's nice when you are the only perfect human being around since Jesus Christ walked the Earth!  The good thing is when you die, you can ask your Father to forgive the sins of all these nutjob women who like to f**k and are irresponsible.  Not all women can be Mary Magdalene and find Jesus.  Most will probably end up in Hell!  Cheers!
Man, heaven must be such a sausage fest!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 17, 2018, 07:11:38 PM
Parsed
You have a very bad habit of putting words in my mouth.  I said nothing about war. I said nothing about defining murder.  I simply asked what should be done with someone who murders a pregnant woman.  If a woman 11 weeks pregnant is shot  and killed.  Did the killer kill two people?  Should he or she face a heightened penalty?  If opens up a host of issues.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: Gregmal on August 17, 2018, 07:28:06 PM
I mean something like 40-50% of woman who have had an abortion, have multiple abortions. Not only did they f*ck up, but half of them learned nothing and f*cked up again! That's where the learned nothing and jump back on the pogo stick comment comes from. Very responsible, right?

It's nice when you are the only perfect human being around since Jesus Christ walked the Earth!  The good thing is when you die, you can ask your Father to forgive the sins of all these nutjob women who like to f**k and are irresponsible.  Not all women can be Mary Magdalene and find Jesus.  Most will probably end up in Hell!  Cheers!
Man, heaven must be such a sausage fest!

Actually there 's supposedly 72 virgins per person or something...

Funny how you guys always go to the religion angle to justify this. Having morals and being accountable aren't specific to religion.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: rb on August 17, 2018, 07:57:42 PM
I mean something like 40-50% of woman who have had an abortion, have multiple abortions. Not only did they f*ck up, but half of them learned nothing and f*cked up again! That's where the learned nothing and jump back on the pogo stick comment comes from. Very responsible, right?

It's nice when you are the only perfect human being around since Jesus Christ walked the Earth!  The good thing is when you die, you can ask your Father to forgive the sins of all these nutjob women who like to f**k and are irresponsible.  Not all women can be Mary Magdalene and find Jesus.  Most will probably end up in Hell!  Cheers!
Man, heaven must be such a sausage fest!

Actually there 's supposedly 72 virgins per person or something...

Funny how you guys always go to the religion angle to justify this. Having morals and being accountable aren't specific to religion.
Nah man... I prefer a woman with some experience. Some of the irresponsible ones would be nice. Virgins are boring.

Anyway, way to ruin an above average joke. About morality, here's the thing: free societies don't legislate morality. I am free to be as immoral as I feel like and you're free to judge me to your hear's content. But none of it is any business of the state.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 18, 2018, 06:35:27 AM


Cubsfan, do you have anything against gay couples adopting babies?  If not, perhaps we can reduce the number of abortions by increasing the number of gay adoptions.  Cheers!

Nothing against gays Parsad. Two of my cousins are gay, and I am actually quite happy they weren't aborted, cause I like them a lot.  Good to see you found your sense of humor!

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: no_free_lunch on August 18, 2018, 06:40:49 AM
This is for the canadians, what I am hearing is abortions are okay because we cant really tell if the fetus is a human.  So we may or may not be allowing mass murder.  Then i am told thats still okay because we are not really concerned with protecting human life but rather we just protect our citizens. If that is the case then what basis do you have for criticizing saudi arabia for what they do to their citizens?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 18, 2018, 06:52:44 AM

It's just not as simple as you guys are trying to make it.  As much as I admire Cubfans determined stance, absolutism on this subject matter is naive and the complexity of the issue is similar to prostitution.  Cheers!

Ok, fine dude - how about you get your abortions for your rape and incest (1%), and your desperate poverty in other countries?
Just not here in the US. Do what you like in Canada and elsewhere.
I'm actually fine with abortion when the mother's life is in danger. I've never really been an absolutist.

You ok with those conditions?

Outlaw the abortions of convenience  - cause life is not as simple as you say...   or is it really that rich white men deserve NO voice in the debate about "a woman's body"? or that the unborn has absolutely no rights?
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 18, 2018, 09:17:31 AM
Are still births a case of manslaughter? Should we start limiting what pregnant women can do considering we now must protect the "human life" inside of them? If the baby is born with some illness, should we jail the mother?

As others have mentioned it's hilarious that a group of men can sit around and make such absolute claims.

At the end of the day, nobody can agree when personhood or human life or whatever you want to call it begins. So we have a compromise solution. It seems to be  working.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 18, 2018, 10:12:23 AM
You're hilarious LC - congratulations, you're now up to about 30 different reasons for abortion, and continue to twist your stupid arguments.

So you agree, old rich white males have absolutely no moral say in this debate. Much as the North had no moral say in a decision
to free slaves in the South. Talk about "progressive" ideals - you're regressive! With your logic, we should bring the slaves back!
Let's move society backward!
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 18, 2018, 12:17:42 PM
Why the insults and ad hominems? I won't stoop to that level - my mother decided not to abort me, so I'll continue acting to confirm she may the right choice.

Regarding morality - I have not mentioned morality once. You keep injecting it into the discussion.

My argument has not shifted - you are ignoring all other factors except the timeline of when the personhood/human life component of the fetus/baby begins. Which, I might add, you still cannot say with confidence when that occurs.

Therefore, your main argument is flawed because you haven't proven when the fetus becomes a person.

Then there are all the other arguments surrounding the issue, such as :
-Women will do it anyways regardless of what the law says
-Does the law even have the right to legislate this matter?
-Where is the mother's input in all of this?

Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 18, 2018, 12:46:29 PM
Why the insults and ad hominems? I won't stoop to that level

You injected plenty of comments regarding our position being ridiculous. You dish it out, you get it back LC.

Your argument is ridiculous because science has firmly established there is a life in there. You can't see it with your own
eyes, because you need a reason to justify abortion morally.

The legal standard (political) is not at all the scientific standard. The legal standard is a line drawn due to politics.
The life in there can't live without the mother (assisted), therefore the unborn is the property of the mother and she can abort for any reason she desires.
It is not a moral standard, it is a legal standard drawn due to convenience.

Your argument is very simple:  The unborn have NO rights.  Slaves had NO rights. The unborn is property of mom. Slaves are property of the slave owner.   Rich, white Northern males have NO say in either matter.

So much for your ridiculous progressive ideals LC.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 18, 2018, 02:26:46 PM
We're talking past each other.

Quote
Your argument is ridiculous because science has firmly established there is a life in there.

doc75 has already provided the response to this argument, which has gone unaddressed:

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/politics/snowflake-fabrications/msg342373/#msg342373


Quote
Your argument is very simple:  The unborn have NO rights.  Slaves had NO rights. The unborn is property of mom. Slaves are property of the slave owner.   Rich, white Northern males have NO say in either matter.

So much for your ridiculous progressive ideals LC.
Sensationalism won't work here, none of this has any relevance to the previous point.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: cubsfan on August 18, 2018, 09:06:54 PM

Sensationalism won't work here, none of this has any relevance to the previous point.

The only thing that doesn't work with you LC is cold hard logic.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 18, 2018, 09:20:18 PM
Still not addressing doc75's point. Still not providing evidence to claim when a zygote becomes a "person".
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 19, 2018, 05:02:45 AM
LC

Here are a bunch of state legislatures that seem to support Cubsfan.
 -----
"Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*"

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 19, 2018, 01:51:50 PM
I forgot to post the federal version.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 19, 2018, 03:41:38 PM
As you correctly point out, the majority of the states you cite define a person as a human embryo in any stage of development, which is essentially the second fertilization occurs.

However, these states almost all allow provisions for abortions.

To me this is not a scientific or "humanistic" authority, but a political stance.

In my mind, the question comes down to: Do you consider two cells as a person?

And then you must ask one further question to address doc75's question: is it the same thing to abort 2 cells vs. abort a 15-week old fetus?

Personally, I answer "no" to both questions.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 19, 2018, 03:52:12 PM
I would just add one clarification.  The states "allow" for abortion because it's mandated under Roe v Wade. I feel confident that the statutes would be considered unconstitutional without the abortion exception.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 19, 2018, 04:18:00 PM
Which is all fine and good, but I'm curious what your response to those two questions are.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: MarkS on August 19, 2018, 05:04:01 PM
It would appear that the bulk of the states along with the federal government - at least when it comes to the taking of the life of an unborn by someone other than the mother and her doctor - would answer you questions in the affirmative.
Title: Re: Snowflake Fabrications
Post by: LC on August 19, 2018, 05:36:44 PM
Yes and they also allow abortions. Hence my comment about the states having a political stance and not a scientific one or a humanistic one. Which is why I asked what you think