TH3 Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 I never mentioned minorities or religion at all, I simply stated and correctly so, that more that vote democrat have abortions or support it. Where do you have this information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) Where do you have this information? Allow me to answer: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx Decline in "Pro-Choice" Views Seen Across Partisan Groups The decline in Americans' self-identification as "pro-choice" is seen across the three U.S. political groups. Since 2001, the majority of Republicans have consistently taken the pro-life position, but by a gradually increasing margin over "pro-choice." That gap expanded further this year, with the percentage of Republicans identifying as pro-life increasing to 72% from 68% last May, and those identifying as pro-choice dropping to 22% from 28%. Still, Republicans' current views are similar to those found in 2009. The percentage of political independents identifying as pro-choice is 10 points lower today than in May 2011, while the percentage pro-life is up by six points. As a result, pro-lifers now outnumber pro-choicers among this important swing political group for only the second time since 2001, with the first occurring in 2009. More broadly, since 2009, independents have been fairly closely divided between the two abortion positions, whereas for most of the 2001-2008 period, significantly more independents were pro-choice than pro-life. Democrats' views on abortion have changed the least over the past 12 years, with roughly 60% calling themselves pro-choice and about a third pro-life. Democrats' identification as pro-choice was above this range in May 2011, but has returned to about 60% in the current poll. The shift in abortion views over the past year is not due to a change in the political composition of the samples. In the May 2-6, 2012, Values and Beliefs poll, 47% of respondents are Democrats or lean Democratic, while 41% are Republican or lean Republican. This is similar to the partisan composition of the May and July 2011 surveys, which showed a close division between pro-life and pro-choice Americans. One would think that a close correlation could be made with people who have abortions to people who believe that it is ok. Edited April 20, 2015 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Would you argue that human clones do or don't have the right to life? I would argue that what was done to Henrietta Lacks was wrong, and that individuals should have 100% control over the rights to their own DNA. I would extend that argument to state that once a human clone was "conceived", it would be considered the owner of it's own life, and it's own DNA (which would likely have to marked legally, rather than genetically, at that point). I'll call it "The Boba Fett Principal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Potential for sapience, yes. Unique DNA, I don't know. You asked for proof that "life" began at an ovum, and I supplied it. No I didn't. I asked for proof of when life begins. I never asked for proof that live begins "at ovum." You provided a definition ("cell theory") that defines an ovum as alive. Then you further qualified that definition as I poked holes in it. Now we're on to "a cell with unique DNA and potential for sentience and independent thought." Notably, none of this defines "when life begins." I presume I can just extend the above definition to "life begins when a cell is created with unique DNA and potential for sentience and independent thought?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) No I didn't. I asked for proof of when life begins. I never asked for proof that live begins "at ovum." You provided a definition ("cell theory") that defines an ovum as alive. Then you further qualified that definition as I poked holes in it. Now we're on to "a cell with unique DNA and potential for sentience and independent thought." Notably, none of this defines "when life begins." I presume I can just extend the above definition to "life begins when a cell is created with unique DNA and potential for sentience and independent thought?" You didn't poke holes in anything. You just conflated the argument. "I'm still waiting for someone to prove that life begins at conception, myself..." I proved that life began at conception, due to cell theory. Point blank. Then you asked, "explain to me why pro-lifers eat...anything, really. Can't think of a human-metabolizable food that isn't cell-derived." Which means, what? It seems to me you tried to make a claim that if cell-theory states that an ovum is considered "life," all cells/all life is created equal. Which is silly. I don't know a rational person who believes that birds aren't alive, or who believes birds' lives are worth as much as human ones. Then we talked about cancer cells, and immortal cell lines, and the lines got fuzzier. So, I attempted to clarify my position, as the scope of the conversation got wider, in order to account for one of the greatest ethical dilemmas of the modern era. Life begins at conception because of cell theory. The human right to live, HeLa cells vs. ovums, sentience vs. lump are all part of an argument past the simple definition of "life." Unless you'd like to have a conversation about the Miller-Urey experiment and the "primordial soup," we should set boundaries on just what the !@#$ we're talking about. Edited April 21, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 You didn't poke holes in anything. You just conflated the argument. "I'm still waiting for someone to prove that life begins at conception, myself..." I proved that life began at conception, due to cell theory. Point blank. Then you asked, "explain to me why pro-lifers eat...anything, really. Can't think of a human-metabolizable food that isn't cell-derived." Which means, what? It seems to me you tried to make a claim that if cell-theory states that an ovum is considered "life," all cells/all life is created equal. Which is silly. I don't know a rational person who believes that birds aren't alive, or who believes birds' lives are worth as much as human ones. Then we talked about cancer cells, and immortal cell lines, and the lines got fuzzier. So, I attempted to clarify my position, as the scope of the conversation got wider, in order to account for one of the greatest ethical dilemmas of the modern era. Life begins at conception because of cell theory. The human right to live, HeLa cells vs. ovums, sentience vs. lump are all part of an argument past the simple definition of "life." Unless you'd like to have a conversation about the Miller-Urey experiment and the "primordial soup," we should set boundaries on just what the !@#$ we're talking about. No, I didn't "conflate" anything. I demonstrated that merely stating "cell theory" doesn't prove a damn thing. It's also wrong. "Life begins at conception because of cell theory" is demonstrable bull ****. For example: an ovum is "life" by the definition of "cell theory." But an ovum, by definition, only exists before conception. So either your reliance on "cell theory" to define life is not just wrong, but asinine. Every point I made "conflating" things since - HeLa cells, for example - demonstrated the fundamental fallacy of your own definition. (And as an aside, I'll mention the fundamental fallacy of "unique DNA" - are identical twins not alive because they share the same chromosomes? Ridiculous assertion.) And then you demonstrate it again, by referencing "sentience vs. lump." HeLa cells aren't sentient, no...but then, neither is a zygote. Of course, that's splitting verbal hairs - the discussion hasn't been about sentience, but the potential for sentience. "Sentience" isn't even your measure of "life" in this context, "potential" is - your argument being that "potential is what defines when life begins." Same problem - show me where an unfertilized ovum has any less potential than a fertilized one. And before you dismiss that on the grounds that an unfertilized ovum isn't a human life because it can't grow and differentiate into biological structures on its own (which, by the way, is a much better definition of "when life begins" than anything the rest of you have brought up), remember that more than a few religions view an unfertilized ovum as just that. It's the basis by which traditional Catholic doctrine is against birth control, as interfering with the potential for human life. And thus, via the negative enchelus and not "conflation," the holes are poked. Not because you're wrong, but because you haven't and can't offer a definitive definition for "when life begins." (Hell, since specificity seems to be an issue - see "cell theory" - let's be specific and say "when human life begins.") You can opine many things - fertilization, "cell theory" (but not for haploids...or undifferentiated human cells, or non-unique DNA patterns, or cells lacking "potential"), but you can't actually prove any of them, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I'm pro-choice. Until a fetus is viable outside of the body, then it's the host's choice what to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I think the pro-life folks should do more to support the babies that are born like adopting them or supporting health care for their families but thats usually opposed by them. Make them have the kids and then starve them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I think the pro-life folks should do more to support the babies that are born like adopting them or supporting health care for their families but thats usually opposed by them. Make them have the kids and then starve them While I agree with the assertion that many families considering abortion are more likely to need government subsidies, which Conservatives are generally against, statistics have shown they are more likely to donate to private charities that provide assistance to certain families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 While I agree with the assertion that many families considering abortion are more likely to need government subsidies, which Conservatives are generally against, statistics have shown they are more likely to donate to private charities that provide assistance to certain families. Do you happen to know how much those statistics are skewed by those that just give to charities simply for tax breaks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Do you happen to know how much those statistics are skewed by those that just give to charities simply for tax breaks? Does it matter the reason they donate, as long as the assistance gets to where it's needed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Does it matter the reason they donate, as long as the assistance gets to where it's needed? Good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 I think the pro-life folks should do more to support the babies that are born like adopting them or supporting health care for their families but thats usually opposed by them. Make them have the kids and then starve them I know plenty of people who have offered women going in to kill their child to adopt the baby from them, and they refused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I know plenty of people who have offered women going in to kill their child to adopt the baby from them, and they refused. First: a correction: 'fetus'. Killing children is illegal. Second: Do you think people considering, and going through with abortions, don't consider carrying pregnancy's to term and giving children up for adoptions? If so, why do you think some random person outside a Planned Parenthood is going to change their mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I know plenty of people who have offered women going in to kill their child to adopt the baby from them, and they refused.Sure you have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 First: a correction: 'fetus'. Killing children is illegal. Second: Do you think people considering, and going through with abortions, don't consider carrying pregnancy's to term and giving children up for adoptions? If so, why do you think some random person outside a Planned Parenthood is going to change their mind? I think a lot of people considering or going through with abortions are uneducated, or stupid, or poor. I mean, it's not hard to not get pregnant. I don't think there are many women seeking abortions who didn't screw up, outside of rape cases and the like. Also, Tom, I'm coming back for your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I think a lot of people considering or going through with abortions are uneducated, or stupid, or poor. I mean, it's not hard to not get pregnant. I don't think there are many women seeking abortions who didn't screw up, outside of rape cases and the like. Also, Tom, I'm coming back for your post. Accidents happen, even to well educated people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) Accidents happen, even to well educated people.Who has more accidents? Dumb and uneducated folks or smart and educated folks? I realize that contraceptives are not 100% effective. Somehow, I doubt the .08% percent who have IUD failure are making up a hefty chunk of the abortion percentage. Do they have numbers on this sort of thing? Like a survey? Do the folks at PP count reusing condoms as an "accident?" Also, "accidents" are an implicit risk of having sex. It's a possible consequence of an action. Don't do it if you refuse to accept the consequences. Edited April 21, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I'm pro-choice. Until a fetus is viable outside of the body, then it's the host's choice what to do with it. So if someone comes to my restaurant in your mind it's ok if I kill my guests? I'm good with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Who has more accidents? Dumb and uneducated folks or smart and educated folks? I realize that contraceptives are not 100% effective. Somehow, I doubt the .08% percent who have IUD failure are making up a hefty chunk of the abortion percentage. Do they have numbers on this sort of thing? Like a survey? Do the folks at PP count reusing condoms as an "accident?" Also, "accidents" are an implicit risk of having sex. It's a possible consequence of an action. Don't do it if you refuse to accept the consequences. One of those consequences is facing the very difficult choice whether or not to abort. As far as uneducated people getting pregnant by accident, sure, that's logical. But don't act like educated people can't have the same sort of accident. **** happens. So if someone comes to my restaurant in your mind it's ok if I kill my guests? I'm good with that. I'm genuinely confused by your jump in logic. Could you expand on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts