View Poll Results: Vote:

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, there probably are more abortion doctors like Gosnell

    24 80.00%
  • No, Gosnell is an anomaly

    6 20.00%
Page 18 of 27 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 268

Thread: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

  1. #171
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,999

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Wanting people to use words correctly is a prerequisite for communication. You're not a demon if you can't use words correctly, you're just demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the thing you apparently want to talk about, and that doesn't help you make an argument very well.



    No, that would be another inaccurate term. I would not use it. To use it would suggest that I agree with you that abortion is a right at all. Never was, isn't, will never be.
    Well you've got a bit of a conundrum there, don't you? To use "pro-abortion" is inaccurate because it assumes that everyone heretofore labeled "pro-choice" advocates abortion (obviously and demonstrably wrong), and pro-abortion-rights is accurate because it is a position in favor of its right, and just because you don't agree with a position is no basis for the naming of that position being inaccurate. But since it's still wrong for you what would you prefer as an alternative? [/I].
    Last edited by Cardinal; 04-16-13 at 01:21 AM.

  2. #172
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Well you've got a bit of a conundrum there, don't you?
    Nope. I have the accurate terms already laid out, which I will continue to use: pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

  3. #173
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,999

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Nope. I have the accurate terms already laid out, which I will continue to use: pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
    You do realize though that if someone is pro in choice of abortion rights that "pro abortion" can't apply, since that position would automatically demand that someone would be in favor of abortion over any other choice?

    Tell me you can see that.

  4. #174
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    And I will continue to treat you as inherently dishonest. So it goes.
    Shamelessly and appropriate of nothing.

  5. #175
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,999

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Shamelessly and appropriate of nothing.
    Yeah, that was a little snarky, I admit it. See edit.

  6. #176
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,143

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by Josie View Post
    Say what?
    Can you be more specific about your query so I might attempt to answer it?

  7. #177
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,143

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    It's like when you outlaw rape, and therefore the rapist ends up killing the woman to avoid prosecution. We should legalize rape, just like abortion for this reason.

    Sure, rape is unfortunate, but it's more important to be practical than to be ethical.
    Incidentally, you're missing the point.

    Outlawing rape doesn't stop rape. All it does is provide us a standard method for dealing with rapists after the fact.

    What reduces rape is changing our culture in such a way that people don't feel compelled to rape, and survivors are more likely to hold them accountable if they do.

    And hey, guess what reduces abortion? Changing our culture in such a way that people feel both informed and compelled to either dictate when they won't have sex, or use birth control correctly when they do.

    But rather unlike rape, abortion preserves rights rather than taking them away.

  8. #178
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Incidentally, you're missing the point.

    Outlawing rape doesn't stop rape. All it does is provide us a standard method for dealing with rapists after the fact.
    Thanks, I see you got my point. Outlawing stuff doesn't make it go away, so arguing "We can't make abortion illegal because that won't stop it!" is silly.

    What reduces rape is changing our culture in such a way that people don't feel compelled to rape, and survivors are more likely to hold them accountable if they do.
    And the people who don't survive?

    And hey, guess what reduces abortion? Changing our culture in such a way that people feel both informed and compelled to either dictate when they won't have sex, or use birth control correctly when they do.
    That's good.

    But rather unlike rape, abortion preserves rights rather than taking them away.
    That right to murder.

    Okay. What about the right to rape? Hey, if the victim is dead afterwords, they ain't complaining anymore than that ZEF (or alien parasite) would. They don't need justice anymore than they would. Come on, dead people don't have rights, remember?

    What I don't get is how pro-choice people can be disgusted by this doctor's actions. The only difference between his actions and all abortions is his unsanitary conditions (which I can see why you'd be upset about) and the fact that he killed them after they were already out. So, a few seconds after they come out of the womb, they're suddenly worth protecting.

    Well, he had those jars of feet too, but at least they weren't human feet. Just cells.
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

  9. #179
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,143

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    Thanks, I see you got my point. Outlawing stuff doesn't make it go away, so arguing "We can't make abortion illegal because that won't stop it!" is silly.
    No, but one can certainly argue that it's stupid, futile, and harmful to women.

    And the people who don't survive?
    See the former part of changing culture. Ultimately, the burden falls on would-be rapists to not rape. And cultural change has been shown to effectively reduce that.

    That right to murder.

    Okay. What about the right to rape? Hey, if the victim is dead afterwords, they ain't complaining anymore than that ZEF (or alien parasite) would. They don't need justice anymore than they would. Come on, dead people don't have rights, remember?

    What I don't get is how pro-choice people can be disgusted by this doctor's actions. The only difference between his actions and all abortions is his unsanitary conditions (which I can see why you'd be upset about) and the fact that he killed them after they were already out. So, a few seconds after they come out of the womb, they're suddenly worth protecting.

    Well, he had those jars of feet too, but at least they weren't human feet. Just cells.
    When someone is raped, another person is coming at them to claim their right to personal sovereignty and bodily integrity.

    Abortion is a completely different scenario. In fact, it's very nearly a complete reversal. There's two ways to look at it, and either way, I am ultimately lead to the same conclusion.

    1. A ZEF is not a person. In this case, aborting it is no different from removing a tumor. In this case, there is no ethical dilemma at all.

    2. A ZEF is a person. In this case, it is a "person" who has is sucking sustenance out of the woman's body at the risk of her health and life, and without her consent. In this case, there is a profound ethical dilemma, but that dilemma only concerns the woman. There is no moral justification for prohibiting her from removing it.

  10. #180
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    No, but one can certainly argue that it's stupid, futile, and harmful to women.
    And so, the solution to the known outcome of an action these women choose to engage in is to kill an innocent bystander instead. Brilliant!
    See the former part of changing culture. Ultimately, the burden falls on would-be rapists to not rape. And cultural change has been shown to effectively reduce that.
    And it falls on women to take responsibility for the sexual acts they choose to engage in. In the meantime, we need to protect those who are defenseless.


    When someone is raped, another person is coming at them to claim their right to personal sovereignty and bodily integrity.
    True.

    Abortion is a completely different scenario. In fact, it's very nearly a complete reversal. There's two ways to look at it, and either way, I am ultimately lead to the same conclusion.
    Jeez, what about the baby? Nah, it has no right to bodily integrity at all. Flush the little turd outta there.

    I don't understand why nobody on the pro-choice side even bothers considering the child.

    1. A ZEF is not a person. In this case, aborting it is no different from removing a tumor. In this case, there is no ethical dilemma at all.
    Then why is this doctors act so wrong? He was just waiting a few extra minutes before he killed them, those things, and playing with the sacks of random flesh a bit. It's not different playing with a scab. Hell, we should give him a medal for his enlightened ethical views.

    Also, comparing a baby to a tumor? You're so enlightened yourself. We have all these tumors walking around that we, for some reason, feel the need to protect.

    2. A ZEF is a person. In this case, it is a "person" who has is sucking sustenance out of the woman's body at the risk of her health and life, and without her consent. There is no moral justification for prohibiting her from removing it.
    The women consented when she engaged in an act in which that was a known outcome. Having to pay on your debts is not non-consensual when you agree to the terms. The risk of sex is pregnancy. To act as though a woman entered the act without that knowledge is absurd.
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

Page 18 of 27 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •