Irony of RNC platform - abortion and choice

ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Irony of RNC platform - abortion and choice

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
This kind of doublethink is

This kind of doublethink is rivaled only by the religious in my experience.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, this video is

Sorry, this video is unavailable from your location


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Life of the mother. 287,000

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4623
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I don't see a huge

 I don't see a huge inconsistency. If you believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a 4 year old child then the logical stand is to be against abortion with no exceptions. I always thought that the position of outlawing all abortion except rape/incest was rather untenable because on one hand you are arguing that the fetus is equivalent to a child and on the other saying kill the child just because mom got raped.  

As far as the big deal they were making about Romney not believing in the plank on the platform, it doesn't really matter. The party platform has never been faithfully followed by elected officials and has about as much weight as a mission statement. Mostly it is a way to make a bunch of delegates feel like they are doing something important and it provides some measure of the beliefs held by the delegates. It is not uncommon at all for a candidate to disagree with several planks in the parties official platform. About the only thing a platform is good for is drawing the attention of a few headlines- which this one seems to have done quite a bit, not sure if that is helpful for the republicans.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
The inconsistency is that

The inconsistency is that they were invoking choice and the idea that the individual should be the sole arbiter in the matter while their political position is that they elevate human life above individual choice and specifically the choices of legislators.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I don't see a huge inconsistency. If you believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a 4 year old child then the logical stand is to be against abortion with no exceptions. I always thought that the position of outlawing all abortion except rape/incest was rather untenable because on one hand you are arguing that the fetus is equivalent to a child and on the other saying kill the child just because mom got raped.  

As far as the big deal they were making about Romney not believing in the plank on the platform, it doesn't really matter. The party platform has never been faithfully followed by elected officials and has about as much weight as a mission statement. Mostly it is a way to make a bunch of delegates feel like they are doing something important and it provides some measure of the beliefs held by the delegates. It is not uncommon at all for a candidate to disagree with several planks in the parties official platform. About the only thing a platform is good for is drawing the attention of a few headlines- which this one seems to have done quite a bit, not sure if that is helpful for the republicans.

 

But a fetus is not a 4 year old child, that is the point.

The child is not going to be bothered by not getting to exist. I don't like abortion, but I believe it is an very important part of women's healthcare. Feelings about abortion is completely irrelevant. Only education and more women's healthcare is going to lower the number of abortions. Banning it only makes more happen, and with much greater risk to the mothers.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4623
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:But a

ThunderJones wrote:

But a fetus is not a 4 year old child, that is the point.

The child is not going to be bothered by not getting to exist. I don't like abortion, but I believe it is an very important part of women's healthcare. Feelings about abortion is completely irrelevant. Only education and more women's healthcare is going to lower the number of abortions. Banning it only makes more happen, and with much greater risk to the mothers.

I understand that and I agree. I am 100% pro-choice, abort in any situation I don't care (I would rather not pay for it). But the pro-lifers consider a fetus to be morally equivalent to a 4 year old. Sure, they are wrong, but their radical position is a logical one considering the underlying assumption that a fetus is in every way the moral equivalent of a young child. To them, abortion is the equivalent of murder and a murder where it is absolutely known that the fetus is innocent. If I believed that, I would be against it in all situations as well, no exceptions. Since I reject the premise, I am pro-choice.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

But a fetus is not a 4 year old child, that is the point.

The child is not going to be bothered by not getting to exist. I don't like abortion, but I believe it is an very important part of women's healthcare. Feelings about abortion is completely irrelevant. Only education and more women's healthcare is going to lower the number of abortions. Banning it only makes more happen, and with much greater risk to the mothers.

I understand that and I agree. I am 100% pro-choice, abort in any situation I don't care (I would rather not pay for it). But the pro-lifers consider a fetus to be morally equivalent to a 4 year old. Sure, they are wrong, but their radical position is a logical one considering the underlying assumption that a fetus is in every way the moral equivalent of a young child. To them, abortion is the equivalent of murder and a murder where it is absolutely known that the fetus is innocent. If I believed that, I would be against it in all situations as well, no exceptions. Since I reject the premise, I am pro-choice.  

Yeah, this is the same as how it is reasonable for a religious person who really believes others will burn forever if they don't believe spreads the word. I dont agree with it, but it isn't logically incorrect.

 

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Not quite the same. There

Not quite the same. There are valid arguments supporting the fact a fetus is human and vice versa. In the end it comes down to opinion.

There are no valid arguments supporting hell.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There are valid

Vastet wrote:
There are valid arguments supporting the fact a fetus is human and vice versa. In the end it comes down to opinion.

No, it will be a human if we don't interfere, just like all the eggs that would grow into a human if we didn't interfere and stop the sperm from reaching them with condoms. Explain to me how those actions are ethically different given the pro-life premise that preventing a potential human from coming into existence is murder.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No, it IS human, regardless

No, a human fetus IS human, regardless of interference. There is NOTHING else to define it as. Period.

edit:
The common bs about eggs and sperm is quite literally the dumbest thing anyone could possibly compare a fetus to. Neither an egg nor a sperm will ever grow into anything if left to its own devices.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No, a human

Vastet wrote:
No, a human fetus IS human, regardless of interference. There is NOTHING else to define it as. Period.

If we're asked about its species then yes, it's obviously human. That's not solely how we decide what rights creatures have though. A brain dead person is just as much human as we are but we don't consider pulling the plug of the machine keeping him alive to be the same thing ethically as murdering a random person on the street. Unless you disagree with the previous sentence then it's your job to provide an argument why a fetus's destruction is as wrong as a "regular" murder.

Quote:
edit: The common bs about eggs and sperm is quite literally the dumbest thing anyone could possibly compare a fetus to. Neither an egg nor a sperm will ever grow into anything if left to its own devices.

So what, it's still our actions keeping a potential person from being born. Are you saying that there's a meaningful ethical difference between taking something vital away from someone and preventing them from getting it? If I take a bowl of porridge away from a starving person then how am I being more of an asshole than if I had prevented the porridge from reaching him? Either way he starves, just like in cases of abortion and contraception both, a potential person is prevented from being born.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Wordplay aside, the problem

Wordplay aside, the problem I see in the pro-life position is that no matter how you feel about actual abortions, the only way to decrease them and keep more women safe is to make them safely and legally attainable, educate all parties involved, and supply plenty of contraception to stop such a measure from being nessecary.

Like I have said many times, banning them only causes more to happen, and more mothers to be killed from bad operations.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Wordplay

ThunderJones wrote:

Wordplay aside, the problem I see in the pro-life position is that no matter how you feel about actual abortions, the only way to decrease them and keep more women safe is to make them safely and legally attainable, educate all parties involved, and supply plenty of contraception to stop such a measure from being nessecary.

Like I have said many times, banning them only causes more to happen, and more mothers to be killed from bad operations.

I agree.

Not to change the subject but look at the war on drugs.

I am not a drug user by any means, but it seems stupid to me to keep the gangs and drug lords a huge cash flow coming in (much like Prohibition made the Mafia rich) and to have people in jail for minor possession charges, overcrowded prisons, and billions of tax dollars to end a product that people are ultimately going to end up using anyway.

I feel the same way about abortions. I don't like them personally, but I feel a woman should have a right to choose and the last thing I want to see is the era of coat-hangers and black market doctors return.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"If we're asked about its

"If we're asked about its species then yes, it's obviously human. That's not solely how we decide what rights creatures have though. "

And yet as times change so do opinions on who deserves rights. IT'S A FUCKING OPINION.

"So what, it's still our actions keeping a potential person from being born. "

So your argument is irrational and stupid, that's what.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So your

Vastet wrote:
So your argument is irrational and stupid, that's what.

Great counter argument.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1: That wasn't an argument,

1: That wasn't an argument, it was a statement of fact in the light of you failing to provide an argument and just saying "so what".

2: It certainly was better than your original argument, which you completely failed to defend.

You can try trolling, but I'm better at it than you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:1: That wasn't

Vastet wrote:
1: That wasn't an argument, it was a statement of fact in the light of you failing to provide an argument and just saying "so what". 2: It certainly was better than your original argument, which you completely failed to defend. You can try trolling, but I'm better at it than you.

I thought I found an unbeatable 'Weasel of the Year' nominee in another thread but you just might grab the title yet.

How fucking pathetic can you be? I write like a hundred word response and all you do with it is take the first two words, which are entirely irrelevant btw, and pretend that was the whole argument. Yeah, you really are better at being a trolling cunt than me, gz.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
None of the rest of those

None of the rest of those words had any substance to address the fact that all opinions on abortion are directly tied to opinions on who deserves rights and those opinions have always been subject to change.

I shouldn't have to spell out the idiotic fallacy that 99%+ of pro choicers use in their bs arguments, but the fact is you are victim to the fallacy of popularity. Just because 6 billion people or 5 people believe something doesn't make it true.

Not one person in all of history has given a remotely credible argument to suggest a fetus isn't human just because it is a fetus.

The reason I'm better than all these pro choice crackheads is two-fold:
1: I'm fully aware that any position on abortion is an opinion based on an opinion, whereas they generally all pretend they are dealing with facts set in stone.
2: I'm not going to force my opinion on anyone, though I'll sure as hell express and defend it.

Take a look in the mirror for your weasel award.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:None of the

Vastet wrote:
None of the rest of those words had any substance to address the fact that all opinions on abortion are directly tied to opinions on who deserves rights and those opinions have always been subject to change.

I didn't argue any of that isn't true, though I can understand you'd get confused since you refused to address the argument I did make.

Quote:
I shouldn't have to spell out the idiotic fallacy that 99%+ of pro choicers use in their bs arguments, but the fact is you are victim to the fallacy of popularity. Just because 6 billion people or 5 people believe something doesn't make it true.

I didn't invoke the majority or popularity as proof for anything so fuck your strawman.

Quote:
Not one person in all of history has given a remotely credible argument to suggest a fetus isn't human just because it is a fetus.

I already said I don't give a shit if we label it human and I made a whole argument explaining why that's not the most relevant piece of information. Too bad you're a weasely little pussy so you had to run from the argument.

Quote:
The reason I'm better than all these pro choice crackheads is two-fold: 1: I'm fully aware that any position on abortion is an opinion based on an opinion, whereas they generally all pretend they are dealing with facts set in stone.

This is nothing but spineless mush, I can make the exact same argument about raping babies and call the anti-baby fuckers crackheads who think their "facts are set in stone". Grow some balls and make an actual argument as to why something is either wrong or right instead of this pathetic "well everyone's got an opinion" cop-out.

Quote:
2: I'm not going to force my opinion on anyone, though I'll sure as hell express and defend it. Take a look in the mirror for your weasel award.

If you think you're right then you should force it. I'm not the least bit hesitant to enforce my opinion on assholes like rapists. I don't give a shit whether they think rape is just fine, I'm gonna lock them the fuck up if I can. What's your argument against enforcing your opinion on abortion that wouldn't also apply to rape?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1: Not only did I address

1: Not only did I address it, I obliterated it.

2: No strawman, but a great demonstration of cognitive dissonance by yourself.
The majority choose what is ethical, and your entire argument is based on current day ethics in some portions of the world.
In other words you're a fucking moron who doesn't have a clue how stupid he is.
So, NO U, is the proper response.

3: Too bad you're failing to address my actual argument, which is that the definition of human is only ONE of two opinions one must hold in order to justify the drivel you're spouting. The other is an opinion on who has the right to have rights.
BOTH of these opinions of the majority are subject to change, as demonstrated thousands of times throughout history.
Therefore appealing to them is fallacious, dumb ass.

4: Your trolling is as pathetic as your logic. You fail to address points, break out ad hominems (I attacked your argument, you attacked me, there's a dif), and demonstrate irrational thinking. You should be a theist, you'd fit right in.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"If you think you're right

"If you think you're right then you should force it. "

I'm not a fascist, go fuck yourself.

"What's your argument against enforcing your opinion on abortion that wouldn't also apply to rape?"

How are they even remotely similar? One ends a life, the other subjugates one through violence or threat thereof.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:1: Not only did

Vastet wrote:
1: Not only did I address it, I obliterated it.

Hilarious, you do realize it takes people like two rolls of the mouse wheel to see what a gigantic lie this is?

Quote:
2: No strawman, but a great demonstration of cognitive dissonance by yourself. The majority choose what is ethical

This is idiotic, the majority agreeing with raping babies does not make it ethical. This is so retarded I can barely find motivation to continue talking to the mongoloid who wrote it.

Quote:
and your entire argument is based on current day ethics in some portions of the world. In other words you're a fucking moron who doesn't have a clue how stupid he is. So, NO U, is the proper response.

I don't give a shit what the majority thinks, and the only thing that remotely implies such a thing is YOUR idiotic notion that the majority decides what's ethical, which is a view I don't share as I'm not a complete retard.

Quote:
3: Too bad you're failing to address my actual argument, which is that the definition of human is only ONE of two opinions one must hold in order to justify the drivel you're spouting. The other is an opinion on who has the right to have rights.

LOL, you're talking about people not addressing arguments? Hahahaha

Quote:
BOTH of these opinions of the majority are subject to change, as demonstrated thousands of times throughout history. Therefore appealing to them is fallacious, dumb ass.

Good thing I didn't then, aint it?

Quote:
4: Your trolling is as pathetic as your logic. You fail to address points, break out ad hominems (I attacked your argument, you attacked me, there's a dif), and demonstrate irrational thinking. You should be a theist, you'd fit right in.

Attacking you isn't an ad hominem, fucktard, implying that you're automatically wrong just because you're a fucktard would be.

Vastet wrote:
"If you think you're right then you should force it. "

I'm not a fascist, go fuck yourself.

So you're against all laws then, brilliant.

Quote:
"What's your argument against enforcing your opinion on abortion that wouldn't also apply to rape?"

How are they even remotely similar? One ends a life, the other subjugates one through violence or threat thereof.

So you think punishing rapists is fine but punishing murderers is, as you say, "fascist"? This is fucking hilarious.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1: It takes that much to

1: It takes that much to prove you a liar, yes.

2: You obviously don't know how ethics work. Come back when you do, and I'll accept your apology.

3: I don't give a shit that you claim to not give a shit yet argue as if you give a shit.

4: Yep, because you haven't and can't. It's sad how easy this is.

5: And yet you do. Making you a liar as well as a dumb ass. Grats!

6: Actually, it is, fucktard. But then you know shit about logic, so I'm not surprised you don't get it.

7: A lot of them, not all.

8: lol @ strawman.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.