Final Fantasy Hacktics

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/01/21 ... -question/ (http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/01/21/how-to-stump-anti-abortionists-with-one-question/)

I find this article pretentious and presumptuous.

I ifnd it funny. And a bit strange. Isn't the goal to keep it legal. Then why attack the other side if your side has it right. The same goes for any firery blind supporter of "pro-life"  My heart to those pro-lifer and choicers who would actually be practical and find a middle ground.

Quote from: "Kuraudo Sutoraifu"I find this article pretentious and presumptuous.

Seconded.

I found this sad rather than funny.

I'm not sure why these people hesitate in their answer.  Perhaps what they really want is for everyone to be intimidated into doing what is right if abortions are made illegal.  If I were a pro-lifer, I'd set a heavy fine on anyone caught aborting their child.  Heavy fines seem to set people straight without taking away life.

I'm heavily pro-choice though, especially since we're seeing an overpopulation coming, and thus have difficulty supporting the anti-abortionists.  I'm guessing almost everyone else here is pro-choice as well?

These people aren't required to have an opinion about what should happen to woman who has an abortion to have a moral position the issue of abortion itself. All this video proves is that people who are anti-abortion are inconsistent; it does not establish a case against abortion as a moral issue itself. If your response to this is that it was only the video's intention to establish that inconsistency, then what on Earth is the point of it? In that sense, perhaps it's to encourage anti-abortion activists to solidify their case.

Lol they all looked quite stumped.

But..

What should happen if the women was raped?

That should have also been a question.

I wonder what their answers would have been?

This is quite an interesting video I must say.

Give ANY protest group a series of questions vaguely related to their subject matter, and after you ask enough people you can string together a clip of the idiots and edit out the people who know a damn.  

Also, here's this.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/4154/saturday ... den-camera (http://www.hulu.com/watch/4154/saturday-night-live-schillervision-hidden-camera)

Good question. I, for one, am against abortion. The key in having abortion be illegal is not punishment for the woman but punishment for the doctor who performs the abortion. Much like how government agencies prefer to go after drug dealers rather than buyers because the consumers are much more difficult to weed out, the same would apply to abortion.

As for what punishment, removal of the doctor's license to practice and a hefty fine with a few years jail time would probably do well as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: "philsov"Give ANY protest group a series of questions vaguely related to their subject matter, and after you ask enough people you can string together a clip of the idiots and edit out the people who know a damn.

This.  And even if you didn't edit out any intelligent responses, your control group is more specific than just pro-life people in general.

Quote from: "Dokurider"To Stump An Anti-Abortionist

You give a mouse a cookie.

The real answer is:

The woman should be in jail. they did something against the law, regardless of taking a life, they did something illegal and need to pay. if abortion was not illegal then there is no punishment. and then the woman would not need punishing.

Pro-choice and that's all I have to say.

lol... hey u guys know FF6?

well one time i replaced Ultros with this ho character. and so i had to change his skill "tentacle" to something. I used the baby sprite and created a skill

"Abortion" and she shot babies randomly at 1 or all targets

I've never looked at the issue as black or white, and pay little attention to anyone who does(regardless if they are life/choice)

1)  Jane has unprotected sex with her boyfriend and becomes pregnant.  Should she be allowed an abortion?
My answer: No.  "But pro-choice!", you say.  She did have a choice.  She "CHOSE" to have unprotected sex.  There are consequences for every action.  In this case, it's not about pro-choice, it's about "sans consequence", which I find morally repugnant.

2)  Jane has protected sex with her boyfriend and becomes pregnant.  Should she be allowed an abortion?
My answer: No.  "But she used protection!", you say.  Protection isn't 100%, and unless she is naive enough to believe it is 100%, she was aware of the potential outcome of intercourse, no matter how small the chance could be.

3)  Jane is raped and becomes pregnant.  Should she be allowed an abortion?
My answer(based on religious convictions): No.  My answer(based on moral implications): Yes.  Religiously, I'm opposed to most types of abortion.  However, one doesn't generally "choose" to be raped, so unless it's some rare circumstance, the choice is now hers to make.

4)  Jane want's to have a baby, but it is killing her.  Should she be allowed an abortion?
My answer: Yes.  It's her choice to terminate the pregnancy, or risk bringing it to full term.

To sum up:
My problem with most pro-choicers is that they don't want pro-choice, they want a life without consequences.  Sorry, that's now how the world works.  It's morally wrong and it abhorrent to the universe.  
My problem with most pro-lifers is that they can't get past their own beliefs long enough to see if it's what they actually believe, or just what they've been told to believe their entire life.  
My problem with both is that they treat the issue as either black or white.  For every scenario I presented, I'm sure someone could come up with hundreds of circumstances for each one, some of which may even change my outlook on the scenario.  It's a complicated issue.  A "yay" or "nay" is not going to be the answer.

Quote from: "Zozma"lol... hey u guys know FF6?

well one time i replaced Ultros with this ho character. and so i had to change his skill "tentacle" to something. I used the baby sprite and created a skill

"Abortion" and she shot babies randomly at 1 or all targets

That's awesome, funny and disturbing at the same time.  Auto-WIN!

QuoteMy problem with most pro-choicers is that they don't want pro-choice, they want a life without consequences. Sorry, that's now how the world works. It's morally wrong and it abhorrent to the universe.
My problem with most pro-lifers is that they can't get past their own beliefs long enough to see if it's what they actually believe, or just what they've been told to believe their entire life.
My problem with both is that they treat the issue as either black or white. For every scenario I presented, I'm sure someone could come up with hundreds of circumstances for each one, some of which may even change my outlook on the scenario. It's a complicated issue. A "yay" or "nay" is not going to be the answer.

And even beyond that is the looming fact of government controlling something with that action its moral impositions on others.  Least, that's always been my take on it.  Jane is pregnant.  Should she have a choice?  Yes.  Should she choose abortion?  I'd rather not, but its her body and I'm not self-righteous enough.  (And, no, I don't feel like arguing if a first-trimester fetus is really a person or not, so if that's your take on it, great.)

It's a lot like politics -- there's two major parties but there's polarity on two fronts between both social policy and economic policy.

The law isn't based on anyone group's version of it. The law isn't moral, nice, or sometimes fair. The law is just. That unborn fetus won't live. Not after an abortion. And whether its illegal or not just determines who is preforming the abortion. Medical professionals, or a drop-out from med school in a back alley. They willl still happen. so when deciding the law leave your own beliefs and convictions covered please. Anyone who injects their own morals into the law are very offensive to me. Its the mental equivalent of flashing peopel in a public place. No wants to see it, you don't care, and its quite gross.

Heh.  I for one was one of the fools who assumed the study was being somewhat fair in their representation, showing the general opinion of pro-lifers.

Helbrax, having an abortion isn't exactly a "get out of jail free" card.  From what I've read, it's similar to surgery and has all the complications included with such a procedure, including what is essentially a fine in and of itself.

Wow, I take back what I said about having a fine imposed for aborting as a good punishment. It would definitely need to be more than that.

As far as making it illegal goes, if having an abortion was illegal, and/or no one would provide such a service to unwilling mothers-to-be, wouldn't many of those women put their child up for adoption?

Great, here I start wailing off on an issue that is going nowhere.  I must just be really itching for a discussion.

It's just a plot from people who have control issues and want to create a substandard group of people with no marketable skills that live in poverty so that they can feel better about themselves. These people don't bust off checks for the homeless or the poverty stricken, so it's obvious why they campaign so much against it. What's the big deal if some woman gets an abortion? People die every day.


I'd rather some fetus getting stuck with a coat hanger than to have to deal with a bunch of hooligans that have no skills, no brains and drain the hell out of the earth's resources and the already overburdened education system and economy. Besides, the only way for someone that lives in such a desperate situation to survive is to commit crimes. Law of averages says that sooner or later I'd have to deal with it. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone breaking into my house, or trying to steal my car, or rape my family, but then there's the issue of cleanup. You have to pay someone to get the blood out of your carpet, for the bullets you used in your gun, AND for the therapy for whoever you were protecting, since some people are just total bleeding hearts. Wimps.



So, in conclusion, destroy unwanted people when you have the chance, and it's fast, easy and SAFE, rather than later when it's just a huge damn mess that costs a lot of money. Nobody wants to have to deal with a bunch of angry people who's parents didn't raise them and the only way for them to survive was to join a gang, sell drugs or rob people. Or all of the above.

As far as I'm concerned, men have no right to even have an opinion on the matter. It should be up to women, and women alone to decide. ^_^

Quote from: "Vanya"As far as I'm concerned, men have no right to even have an opinion on the matter. It should be up to women, and women alone to decide. ^_^

This person. Its a great point and normally what i say.

But it would really inconvenience ME since I'd be the one having to pay child support in the event that she gets pregnant and the laws force her to actually deliver this kid.

QuoteI'd rather not, but its her body and I'm not self-righteous enough. (And, no, I don't feel like arguing if a first-trimester fetus is really a person or not, so if that's your take on it, great.)

My main argument about the fetus not being part of her body is that the mother and the fetus have completely different DNA.  The fetus, from its smallest size til birth meets all qualifications of a living being as well: absorbtion, assimilation, circulation, differentiation, digestion, egestion, excretion, growth, ingestion, metabolism, nutrition, respiration, regulation, reproduction, and synthesis.  Try not to view this information not from a pro-life or pro-choice point of view, but from a scientific point of view.  

On a cellular level, this being is alive, albiet by the help of another living being.  If you remove the mother, the fetus will most likely die; this dependence upon the mother does not negate the qualification of life of the fetus but changes it to that of a parasitic lifeform.

Basing a law in America off of religious morals is un-American.  Our laws are designed to stop us from harming each others unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  They are designed so that we do not screw one another over.  Essentially, if what you do inhibits someone else's life unjustly, you are in the wrong.  If we view a fetus as a living being that is not the same cellular makeup as the mother, an abortion would be inhibiting the being's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  As such, it would be considered wrong.

QuoteIt's just a plot from people who have control issues and want to create a substandard group of people with no marketable skills that live in poverty so that they can feel better about themselves. These people don't bust off checks for the homeless or the poverty stricken, so it's obvious why they campaign so much against it.

I hope you are trolling because this is absurd.  Both statements are unfounded and are merely opinions.

QuoteMy main argument about the fetus not being part of her body is that the mother and the fetus have completely different DNA. The fetus, from its smallest size til birth meets all qualifications of a living being as well: absorbtion, assimilation, circulation, differentiation, digestion, egestion, excretion, growth, ingestion, metabolism, nutrition, respiration, regulation, reproduction, and synthesis. Try not to view this information not from a pro-life or pro-choice point of view, but from a scientific point of view.

On a cellular level, this being is alive, albiet by the help of another living being. If you remove the mother, the fetus will most likely die; this dependence upon the mother does not negate the qualification of life of the fetus but changes it to that of a parasitic lifeform.

Basing a law in America off of religious morals is un-American. Our laws are designed to stop us from harming each others unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are designed so that we do not screw one another over. Essentially, if what you do inhibits someone else's life unjustly, you are in the wrong. If we view a fetus as a living being that is not the same cellular makeup as the mother, an abortion would be inhibiting the being's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As such, it would be considered wrong.

[/size]
k

Quotek

I lol'd.

I completely understand your point on this K-Suto, but step into my point of view for one minute. With your explanation the birth of the child alienates the mothers right to the pursuit of happiness unless the child was planned or the mother wanted it. Do I totally agree with that, not exactly, I think the mother should give birth and put the child up for adoption(that's why we have the option after all). Even so I think abortion should be an option mostly in cases where the female in questions body is not ready for giving birth, like say an underdeveloped teen.

QuoteWith your explanation the birth of the child alienates the mothers right to the pursuit of happiness unless the child was planned or the mother wanted it.

I agree to certain extent.  But I think that if a woman has had sex (excepting rape), she has consented to the idea that she might get pregnant.  And there are plenty of options for a pregnant mother aside from abortion, and I don't just mean adoption.  Well, actually I do mean adoption, but there are plenty of agencies that will assist women who don't want thier child: pregnancy resource centers, foster-based children's homes, some churchs, foster birth parents (think Juno) and even Planned Parenthood.  Some of these places will pay for full-term housing and food.

QuoteEven so I think abortion should be an option mostly in cases where the female in questions body is not ready for giving birth, like say an underdeveloped teen.

If it would kill or severely injure the mother, abortion should be an option, but, medically speaking, if a woman's body is capable conception, it is capable of birthing.

Helbrax's & KSuto's responses FTW x9000+


As for the link, selectively interviewing protestors (or any crowd of people, for that matter) is one of the oldest shams in biased journalism. For every 50 faces you stick a camera in front of, 10-20 of them will draw blanks for whatever reason. It's a crude form of propaganda/political allure that's used so often it's pathetic. Not the kind of thing I'd use to support an opinion, let alone change someone else's. Regardless, though, it's still amusing to watch.

I agree with you K-Suto except on the last part. Medically speaking you make a sound argument but there is a problem some younger women are capable of conception but carrying the child to term and birthing it would unrepairable damage their body. In those cases the chance of the child surviving is limited to 50-60 percent because of certain issues that arise in utero. As far as damage to the mother it has a capability of rendering the mother infertile or worse.

I'm not going to get into this philosophical debate. I'm just going to make a comment on the video.

When I was in debate, we all had this same topic, and during cross-examination nearly everyone asked this question to the "pro-life" side. And, mostly everyone had a reply.

The fact is, anyone who truly believes in something and has well thought about it and researched it, is going to have a reply to nearly any question you ask them.

This video just shows what most of us already know, some people do what they think is right without knowing really anything about it, and some people just protest for the sake of protest.

I think Cid said it best without getting into the debate. Good job.

Quote from: "darthpaul"I think Cid said it best without getting into the debate. Good job.

Agreed.

Quote from: "CidIII"I'm not going to get into this philosophical debate. I'm just going to make a comment on the video.

When I was in debate, we all had this same topic, and during cross-examination nearly everyone asked this question to the "pro-life" side. And, mostly everyone had a reply.

The fact is, anyone who truly believes in something and has well thought about it and researched it, is going to have a reply to nearly any question you ask them.

This video just shows what most of us already know, some people do what they think is right without knowing really anything about it, and some people just protest for the sake of protest.

This X infinity.

QuoteMuch like how government agencies prefer to go after drug dealers rather than buyers

Once I read this, I knew you had no clue what you were talking about.

Drug laws have been abused by the police to target minorities and the poor countless times. The marijuana laws were damn near specifically created to target the influx of immigrants from Mexico at the beginning for the 20th century. You have little to no knowledge of this subject. Our jails and prisons are filled with people convicted with possession. The agencies, at least at a local level, tend to focus on people they "don't like" for whatever reason, and they're often times users, not dealers.

Rather then ask pro-lifers dumb ass questions like that, I instead turn to a different one that none of them can answer and not leave an opening big enough to drive a dump truck through.

Pro-choicers do not believe it's murder, yet pro-lifers do. Why are the pro-lifers right and the pro-choicers wrong? More specifically, what gives the pro-lifers the right and authority to make morality decisions for someone else who disagrees with them?

Be careful, that's a slippery slope. Any attempts to relate abortion to murder or theft, or any other firmly established crime that we can all agree is wrong, is completely missing the point of what makes this subject controversial and a blatant straw man.