Miscarriage: Murder!

[Kuya]

Anybody want to be the devil's advocate and argue anti-abortion? Otherwise this topic will just get boring.

[Uzor]

I assumed it was understood I meant that there should be no law that says it is illegal for women to get an abortion.

If abortion were widely accepted and not illegal, there wouldn't be as many "back-alley abortions".

And you didn't specifically argue for multi-cellular organisms. Your exact words were.

The human body is not comprised of millions of single-cellular organisms - it is one organism comprised of millions of cells. The cells themselves reproduce, but no single cell of a grown human is an organism in and of itself.

Which is what I responded to. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I read it as you stating cells aren't organisms.

[Colenzo]

SURE IS FETUS AROUND HERE

[archibaldcrane]

I want to applaud Utah though, this is a delightfully mischievous end-around route to give fetuses more rights, which has been the strategy of anti-abortion activists for decades.

Game recognize game, very sneaky.

[zoobernut]

SURE IS FETUS AROUND HERE

You should shop your sig so he is waving fetuses around instead of chicken.

(too much?)

[Cadsuane]

Anybody want to be the devil's advocate and argue anti-abortion? Otherwise this topic will just get boring.

I'll do it tomorrow when I'm at work.

[Benihana]

Anybody want to be the devil's advocate and argue anti-abortion? Otherwise this topic will just get boring.

We should have anti-abortion laws to teach people to have responsibility. Maybe people wouldn't sleep around as much or at least use some protection. There would probably be less stds going around. No one cares about the women who die from back-alley abortions because they were whores anyway.

Am I doing it right?

[archibaldcrane]

No, you have to focus on how the fetus is human life, like I did for the first 4 pages of this thread.

[zoobernut]

We should have anti-abortion laws to teach people to have responsibility. Maybe people wouldn't sleep around as much or at least use some protection. There would probably be less stds going around. No one cares about the women who die from back-alley abortions because they were whores anyway.

Am I doing it right?

Throw around the word liberal a bunch and say something about children being our future, or "won't someone think of the children" oh and say anyone who is pro-baby killing is a terrorist and hates america. Always replace the word fetus or any technical term with the word baby. And call everyone baby killers a lot.

[Colenzo]

You should shop your sig so he is waving fetuses around instead of chicken.

(too much?)

too much effort and nigras dont eat fetuses anyways

[archibaldcrane]

This thread needs some miscarried fetuses with little hats on them.

That's what it needs.

[zoobernut]

too much effort and nigras dont eat fetuses anyways

Oh right only Christopher Reeve feeds on fetuses.

[Colenzo]

deep fried

[Colenzo]

Oh right only Christopher Reeve feeds on fetuses.

exactly

[Benihana]

Time for burn notice. bye bye

[Ivve]

I agree with whoever said that it should probably be some kind of offense to drink while pregnant, but I don't personally know any bartenders or any establishment that would serve jello shots to an obviously pregnant woman anyway. And then, there are women who probably drink before ever discovering that they are pregnant. Can those women be prosecuted? Do we really want to have court battles with women over whether or not they had those 3 beers before or after their first positive pregnancy test? (Yes, of course there are people who are egregious offenders, but where do we draw that line?) Will we all have to take pregnancy tests monthly to determine it's okay to go on living our lives? Maybe we can start printing information about our menstrual cycles and sexual activity right on our driver's licenses so that bartenders and cashiers can make the most informed decision about when to sell women alcohol. How about just never serving alcohol to women, because they might be pregnant and not know it!

What about other things women do that might harm fetuses without killing them? Are those things somehow less important? It's okay if your baby lives, as long as its growth and development are only threatened and not ended. Are we going to draw up some kind of legislation that makes it illegal not to take prenatal vitamins, illegal not to get a healthy amount of exercise daily, illegal to drink coffee or teas containing caffeine, illegal to smoke while pregnant? And then, does it only matter while they're in the womb? What about prosecuting women who smoke around their children -- isn't that also harmful? Are fetuses valued more than children?

It would be great if everyone adhered to a particular set of healthy guidelines while pregnant, but how exactly could that be enforced? It's just not realistic. Some shit seems like it should be common sense and it's really unfortunate when pregnant women (and parents of infants) make shitty decisions that will harm their babies, but this kind of legislation a) makes me uneasy and b) just isn't enforceable. You can't police everyone every minute of their lives to make sure they're doing everything according to some set of guidelines for well-being. It's unfortunate but it's true.

Spoiler: show

I am not actually suggesting we do any of the things mentioned in this post.

Also, is anyone else concerned by people who seem to care more about fetuses than they do about babies that have made it as far as being born? I don't see a big movement from these pro-life people forcing parents to quit smoking or give their kids vitamins every day. AS LONG AS THEY GET BORN, WHO GIVES A SHIT WHAT HAPPENS NEXT, AMIRITE

[Plow]

Instantly you say "I have no real argument or valid opinion so I am going to poison the well so no argument can be made."

Oh, you mean like picking an article that claims falling = murder in a new law where you'd have to be downright retarded to actually believe it to make the op with?

[zoobernut]

Oh, you mean like picking an article that claims falling = murder in a new law where you'd have to be downright retarded to actually believe it to make the op with?

I have no idea what that has to do with anything I said. I didn't start the thread and I never made any claims in the thread anywhere as to what my feelings on the law are.

Edit: Yeah I reread your post and I don't even think that is a complete sentence. There is something off there.

[Rhinox]

Oh, you mean like picking an article that claims falling = murder in a new law where you'd have to be downright retarded to actually believe it to make the op with?

I tried reading the last part a few times. I don't even...

[Plow]

Not sure how I can make it more clear.

The article chosen for the OP "poisons" the argument by bringing up a separate case in a completely different state without actually discussing the reasons behind the event...

In order to make the claim that the new law means falling = murder.


I was simply pointing out that the entire discussion is ruined before it starts, but since he agreed with that "poisoning" it was fine... as soon as it's "poisoned" the other direction, it's not.