Arguments for Slavery/Abortion (4448 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -0.47 on 67 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Alberto Frenrardo <alberto.at.nathanralph.com> (View user info) at 2003-10-06 18:57:09 EDT
The following is just something I found interesting when comparing people's arguments for slavery and abortion.
Before you respond, I ask that you don't twist the words and/or take them out of context. I'm interested in hearing responses in a civilized manner.
User Reviews
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2004-05-18 00:13:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
[QUOTE]Life starts at the first heartbeat[/QUOTE]
This is your opinion...not a basis for an argument. Nice try though.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-05-02 15:59:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
that was supposed to say "...85% of the time the abuse was caused..."
I have a tendancy to think faster than I type and words get left out sometimes. Whoops.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-05-02 15:57:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have commented on a couple of these abortion posts, so I am not going to repeat myself.
This analogy was interesting.
I wanted to make a comment on this "it is statistically shown that mothers who go through unwanted childbearing are more likely to abuse their children, who are in turn more likely to commit homicides in the future. STATISTICALLY PROVEN."
I don't see the point there, and I am being serious here, not argumentitive. I would like to talk about this a little. Someone who was abused as a child, is far more likely to abuse their own children. Does this mean that they shouldn't be allowed to have children? I work with mentally retarded children and in cases where the child was not born that way, 85% of the brain damage was caused by the mother's boyfriend abusing/shaking/hurting the baby. Does this mean that unwed mothers with boyfriends shouldn't have children?
I think what really needs to happen is more education about abuse and have more counseling resources available to people in stressful situations so that this abuse doesn't occur. I just don't like the idea of abortion being thought of as a way to prevent abuse.
Maybe that's not what you meant, and if it's not please tell me.
Again, I am not being snotty. I am really curious.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-05-02 15:41:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I just read through the replies to this post, and I'm terribly disappointed. There are people on this post spamming -2s. I swear I have seen the same people complaining and whining and begging for a ban for people who do such things. Maybe you should be banned, Death_Metal_Dude, you Spike Goddess, and the rest of you who spammed this post and attacked the author, rather than his argument.
Uberlow.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-05-02 15:35:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You made a damn fine point, but that won't win you any points around here - there are more than enough people who will -2, simply because they don't agree. I'm not one of them.
Submitted by gabby (user info) at 2004-05-02 15:11:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
24 DAYS - Heart begins to beat.
A beating heart means the fetus is alive, if you abort after this point, you are killing a living person. Life starts at the first heartbeat.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2004-04-07 22:16:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"The south's one-crop-economy, cotton, lay on the back of slaves, and the north depended on cotton. Therefore, the nroth depended on slaves. The whole country was riding on the slave system. "
This sounds good. However, as history pointed out, you're wrong. The country did not perish nor did the North fall because the slave trade was ended.
"Just a few things to think about before you bluntly consider slavery a positive institution... "
This is odd, considering I do not support slavery.
Submitted by Dead_0hi0_Sky (user info) at 2004-03-30 23:29:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-03-23 21:16:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This is pretty interesting considering, but you have one error...the north had PLENTY to lose with the abolition of slavery. The south provided raw material for northern factories. The south's one-crop-economy, cotton, lay on the back of slaves, and the north depended on cotton. Therefore, the nroth depended on slaves. The whole country was riding on the slave system.
The only problem was that slavery wasn't always economically benificial. Slaves were a heavy investment and had to produce a certain amount of cotton to yield profit. Runaways, disease, natural disasters, and other deaths often wiped out a planter's funds because he lost his investment, in human flesh that is...Plus, the living costs (food, clothing, housing) took away more money than it yielded. IT would be much less costly to have an immigrant worker for cheap wages...
Slavery corrupted southern families and fostered brutality, all in all, making the south backwards both morally and economically during a time of progression in the north. All of this owes its root to the slavery system, what you support...
Just a few things to think about before you bluntly consider slavery a positive institution...
Submitted by Snypavat (user info) at 2004-01-07 12:41:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
interesting. I support abortion but not slavery
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-01-07 12:40:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yay...way to argue the point liberals...oh wait I did not see much argument...
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-01-07 12:39:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Shay (user info) at 2004-01-07 12:29:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I can't even finish reading it. It is fucking disgusting to compare the two.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-08 17:58:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "Do you know anything about logic? I assume not, judging by your oblivion when it comes to fallacies. You didn't know what a bifurcation fallacy was. You deny that false analogies even exist. How about YOU start doing some research. "
This isn't bifurcation fallacy.
Analogy: Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
(dictionary.com)
Using big words doesn't impress me.
Quote: "Today, 88 percent of all legal abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and 56 percent take place within the first eight weeks of pregnancy.
An overwhelming majority of abortions are performed when the zygote/embryo/fetus is hardly more than a cluster of cells with between none and very faint resemblence to anything human. "
1st DAY - The first cell divides into two, the two into four, and so on.
5-9 DAYS - New individual burrows into the wall of the womb. Sex can be determined.
14 DAYS - Mother's menstrual cycle is suppressed by a homone produced by the child.
15 DAYS - Heart is forming; eyes develop.
20 DAYS - Foundations of brain, spinal cord and nervous system are laid.
24 DAYS - Heart begins to beat.
28 DAYS - Muscles are developing along the future spine. Arms and legs are budding.
30 DAYS - Child has grown 10,000 times to 6-7 mm. (1/4 inch) long. Brain has human proportions. Blood flows in veins (but stays seperate from mothers blood)
35 DAYS - Pituitary gland in brain is forming. Mouth, ears and nose are taking shape.
40 DAYS - Heart's output is 20% more of adults.
42 DAYS - Skeleton is formed. Brain coordinates movement of muscles and organs. Reflex responses have begun. Penis is foming in boys. (Mother misses second period.)
43 DAYS - Brain waves can be recorded.
45 DAYS - Spontaneous movements have begun. Buds of milk teeth have appeared.
7 WEEKS - Lips are sensitive to touch. Ears may resemble family pattern.
8 WEEKS - Child is well-proportioned, small scale baby, 3 cm. (1 1/8 inches) and a gram (1/30 oz.) in weight. Every organ is present. Heart beats sturdily. Stomach produces digestive juices. Liver makes blood cells. Kidneys begin to function. Tastebuds are forming.
9 WEEKS - Child will bend fingers around object placed in palm. Thumb sucking occurs. Fingernails are forming.
10 WEEKS - Body is sensitive to touch. Child squints, swallows, and frowns.
11 WEEKS - Baby urinates, makes complex facial expressions, even smiles.
12 WEEKS - Child can kick, curl toes, make a fist, move thumbs, bend wrists, turn head, open mouth, and press lips together. Breathing is practiced.
13 WEEKS - Face is prettier, facial expressions resembling parents'. Graceful movements. Vocal cords forming (but without air, baby cannot cry). Sex organs are apparent.
Quote: "Unconfused: Please, state your reasoning for why abortion is wrong. I'll be glad to tear it apart for the unsound, fallacious argument it is bound to be. "
I have no intentions on creating another debate about abortion. The intention of this post was to incite interest, and incite interest it did.
Quote: "For God's sake, pick a new fucking topic or continue using the same thread!"
I am not debating the same topic. This post was a few analogies I considered interesting so I posted them.
Submitted by senseiofmattitudev1 (user info) at 2003-10-08 07:48:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
SpikeGoddess and Death_Metal_Dude, sittin' in a tree... :P
Bart, you rule. If I had to choose between reading your stuff and hot dirty sex, your stuff would be a close second. Very close.
__________________________________
Submitted by SpikeGoddess (user info) at 2003-10-07 03:00:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Even if you feel that abortion is wrong, surely you see the ridiculous nature of the comparison."
__________________________________
I hope that this was supposed to be ridiculous. Hope. But I feel that it wasn't, and I totally agree with you.
If this was supposed to be funny, it wasn't. If you're trying to make a social stand, you didn't do a good job of it. If you were trying to make everyone argue because you wanted to be a hit-whore, you succeeded. If there were other motives... I don't care. Go away.
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2003-10-08 05:39:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why is it that UNconfused + nathan ralph sounds so familiar?
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=106454156514192468
For God's sake, pick a new fucking topic or continue using the same thread!
For the sake of contribution: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba4.htm
I shall play devil's advocate and say we should stop generalizing and start with which types are wrong/right... hmmm wait, isnt that what happened with slavery at first, too?
Yeah. I'm evil. my morals aren't the same as yours. I have a sense of self preservation but very little sense of value on life. An unfortunate side-effect of my upbringing and education, I suppose.
6 Billion people and counting.. How much more before we drown in a sea of humanity and starve ourselves of resources?
People aren't going to stop having sex. That's a fact. Because its more than just a function of breeding. It's an expression of the connection between two people. If a contraceptive fails to work, I'd have to say that it's not the right time to bring someone new into the world. we can always do so again later. They're my genes. That's another arguement altogether though, whether we own our own genetic codes... But I'll pull mine out of the pool if I so desire. The same ones will be combined again later.
An interesting side note, Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" with all the free sex and contraceptives and careful regulation of population by the state.
Now I'll be digging into the roles of sex and contraception/abortion in Utopias/Dystopias all night.
Fuck!
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-10-08 05:15:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If that sucks anyone in i want to die.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2003-10-08 04:58:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Today, 88 percent of all legal abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and 56 percent take place within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2002).
An overwhelming majority of abortions are performed when the zygote/embryo/fetus is hardly more than a cluster of cells with between none and very faint resemblence to anything human. But I digress; appearance is not the point.
Unconfused: Please, state your reasoning for why abortion is wrong. I'll be glad to tear it apart for the unsound, fallacious argument it is bound to be.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2003-10-08 04:48:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"By definition an analogy cannot be phony."
Finally, we get to the bottom of this. Of course it can be phony. 'False' analogies are fallacious. http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/falsean.php
This whole argument is a fallacy.
Do you know anything about logic? I assume not, judging by your oblivion when it comes to fallacies. You didn't know what a bifurcation fallacy was. You deny that false analogies even exist. How about YOU start doing some research.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-07 21:54:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "This was an interesting post. Well done."
Thanks, and thanks for not just slandering me even if you don't agree completely. We need more people on this site willing to act a little civilized.
Quote: "Just because I haven't and you haven't doesn't mean that no one else hasn't."
I never made that argument. Making a rebuttal against something that wasn't said has little value.
Quote: "A human being who is enslaved by another human being is a COMPLETELY different situation from the termination of a pregnancy."
I never claimed that it was the same thing. It was simply an interesting analogy to spark some interest. This goal was achieved.
Quote: "Isn't her free will usurped if she is forced to do so against her will?"
Sure sounds nice, but the same could be said about gun control. If I WILL to carry a gun wherever I want and the government says I can't it's not something against my FREE WILL, it's simply the law.
Quote: "The similarity in phrasing was used to cover up the utter LACK of similarity in the situations. "
For some reason, I don't see this.
Quote: "This whole thing is based on the ridiculous notion that somehow pregnancy can be compared to owning a slave."
Incorrect. It was simply an interesting analogy to spark some interest.
Quote: "This whole argument is based around disinformative religious propaganda,"
Thank you for proving analogy #12.
Quote: "Nobody has ever claimed that the economic impact of outlawing would be "absolutely catastrophic". "
This is where you people fall short. You cannot make the claim that 'nobody does this' or everybody says that', because it is completely untrue. I have seen people make such claims, while not using the exact wording stated.
Quote: "every point attempting to be made here is based on wordplay and phony analogies."
By definition an analogy cannot be phony.
Quote: "When is a person a person or what makes a person a person?"
That's the entire basis of whether abortion is right or wrong. We're not discussing that here. I just made a few analogies.
Quote: "If so, up to a certain point in the fetuses development wouldn't it be noting more then a jumble of cells, a tiny meaty blueprint, potential to one day become a person, but not yet a person (after a certain point they are conscious, as much as any baby can be I guess). If this collection of cells can be called a person even before its brain is developed, then couldn't you say the same about an amputees' arm or leg?"
Do some research. Fetuses are much more developed at the time most abortions occur than you are stating.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2003-10-07 18:48:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
*winks at SpikeGoddess*
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2003-10-07 18:44:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
For some other rebuttals to this terrible non-argument, visit
http://www.prochoicetalk.com/message-board-forum/viewtopic.php?p=9473#9473
Submitted by NotApologizing (user info) at 2003-10-07 17:06:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
A slave is like a fetus when:
1) You make it smoke when you smoke
2) It lives inside a woman, and dies if it comes outside
3) It has small, flipper-like arms
4) It randomly kicks women in the stomach
5) E.T. bears its' closest resemblance
A fetus is like a slave when:
1) You whip the fucker until it works
2) You keep it chained to other feti
3) You store it in a small, dirty wooden shack
4) It refers to you as 'massa'
5) It sings and dances to forget about the hell that is its' existence
Seriously, you are comparing freeing a slave to BIRTH, when you should be comparing OWNING a slave to abortion.
Don't come up in here and get all beasty. Personal insults, as I've learned, are what make this site entertaining. That and KristySwan's ta-tas.
Submitted by TwEE (user info) at 2003-10-07 16:49:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
When is a person a person or what makes a person a person? Dose something have to be self aware before it can be called a person? If so, up to a certain point in the fetuses development wouldn't it be noting more then a jumble of cells, a tiny meaty blueprint, potential to one day become a person, but not yet a person (after a certain point they are conscious, as much as any baby can be I guess). If this collection of cells can be called a person even before its brain is developed, then couldn't you say the same about an amputees' arm or leg? I mean they are both living human tissue, shouldn't it be morally wrong to amputate somebody's limb (cancer or gangrene be damned), or willingly remove any living cells from a human body? And lets not even talk about girls on their period, every month millions and millions of potential babies are lost, oh the horror, baby Jesus should come down and kick some sinner ass.
What about cases of rape, incest, aids, or some genetic defect that will most likely lead the child to have a very short painful life?
For god's sake what if Carrot Top tries to reproduce?
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2003-10-07 03:36:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This whole thing is based on the ridiculous notion that somehow pregnancy can be compared to owning a slave.
Hell, why not compare pregnancy to a chicken coop?
Foundation point:
a. A chicken has a brain and a heart.
b. A fetus has a brain and a heart.
Argument base point:
Society thinks it is ok to kill chickens, deep fry them, and eat them for dinner.
Conclusion:
Society should think it is ok to kill a fetus, deep fry it, and eat it for dinner.
This whole argument is based around disinformative religious propaganda, much like the other bullshit anti-evolution post floating around here. For example, yes there IS doubt that a fetus is biologically human. The courts have never ruled that a fetus has "no rights". Nobody has ever claimed that the economic impact of outlawing would be "absolutely catastrophic".
I'm not even going to bother addressing the rest because every point attempting to be made here is based on wordplay and phony analogies.
Submitted by SpikeGoddess (user info) at 2003-10-07 03:08:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh, and now I have a crush on Death_Metal_Dude. Hooray for smart people! Hooray for you, Death_Metal_Dude!!!!
And RB, love the "game over" comment. I laughed out loud. Hooray for funny people! Hooray for you, ReallyBored!
SpikeGoddess
(Ooh la la....)
Submitted by SpikeGoddess (user info) at 2003-10-07 03:00:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
In a few hours, I will post a civilized response.
For now, I hate this piece of manipulative crap. A human being who is enslaved by another human being is a COMPLETELY different situation from the termination of a pregnancy. Even if you feel that abortion is wrong, surely you see the ridiculous nature of the comparison. Slavery is wrong because no human being has the right to take away another human being's free will. People who are against abortion feel it is wrong because every zygote has the right to develop into a human being. HUGELY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, my friends. One would think that the statement SLAVERY DOES NOT EQUAL ABORTION AND ABORTION DOES NOT EQUAL SLAVERY would not need to be said to human beings who understand the definitions of these two words. Well, goes to show that you learn something new every day.
And what about the woman carrying a child? Isn't her free will usurped if she is forced to do so against her will? That sounds more like slavery to me than abortion does, honestly.
Look at the way this was engineered. The similarity in phrasing was used to cover up the utter LACK of similarity in the situations.
Wow, that managed to be civilized even though I'm a complete mess right now. Fuck. That's impressive. *Gives herself a pat on the back*
Maybe I'll skip the response tomorrow. We'll see.
SpikeGoddess
Submitted by ScoutCJustice (user info) at 2003-10-07 01:42:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What say does government have in abortion. Obviously they put a limit on when it can happen during a pregnancy, but you think that would make pro-life people a little more happy, so other than something you would find beneficial, what say does government have in abortion? And I don't consider ruling that it is legal a say in it.
As for the virgin thing here, have a fucking medal. Guess what? I'm a virgin too, but I still know that the majority of kids out there my age are having sex. Just because I haven't and you haven't doesn't mean that no one else hasn't. When I say you can't stop kids from having sex, I don't mean all kids. I mean those that are having sex. You can't stop all or even anywhere near most kids from having sex.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2003-10-07 01:07:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This was an interesting post. Well done.
I'm a wee bit conflicted on this actually. On the one hand, I believe abortion to be wrong. On the other hand, I think that rational adults should be able to make their own choices and that governmental intrusion into any facet of people's lives should be kept to a bare minimum.
I think abortion is too firmly embedded in our society to ever be made illegal again. I think that at this point people who are opposed to it should shift their strategy to offering alternatives. However, if you disagree/dislike/abhor the procedure, there are better ways to get your point across or offer those alternatives than hanging giant pictures of aborted babies from freeway overpasses and screaming 'whore' at frightened 15 yr. olds on their way to the clinic.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 23:05:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "It's great that you believe what you're saying, but when you behave as if everyone else's opinion is trite and yours is the only one based in 'fact' few care to take you seriously."
You are correct, and this is very unfortunate.
Quote: "I do apologize for thread-jacking. Sort of. "
You sort of apologize or you sort of thread jacked? Oh, who cares.
Submitted by Natophelia (user info) at 2003-10-06 22:57:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
SEE?? hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa
It's great that you believe what you're saying, but when you behave as if everyone else's opinion is trite and yours is the only one based in 'fact' few care to take you seriously. Eh- you'll just have some counter as to why that's wrong too. Who cares. I'm just bored.
GodChicken forgive me, for I am being a troll.
RB, can this be considered as being mean? I never get to be mean to anyone :( grrrrrrrr grrrrrrrrrrrr *picture a very small chihuahua tearing the shit out of a tiny stuffed animal*
Oh well, I'll go to bed in a minute and never see this post again.
I do apologize for thread-jacking. Sort of.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 22:45:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "hehe... the way you respond to things is funny! So argumentative as if everything you say is fact. You're like a little robot. I want to see some personality."
Perhaps it's because I believe what I am saying. What a sad day it is when nobody really believes their claims.
Quote: "Are you that kid who was stirring things up to write a paper for some speech class?"
I have no paper to write for a speech class.
Quote: "Goddamit man, the first post is a customary funny story. Get with the times. "
Sorry i'm not up-to-date with Ubersite etiquette. As for having a funny story, i'm not very creative.
Quote: "GAME OVER! Time to move to a new post."
Wow. You automatically throw my argument out based on the sole fact that I am a moral person. This is sad, indeed.
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2003-10-06 22:29:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I just realized that this was your first post. Goddamit man, the first post is a customary funny story. Get with the times.
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2003-10-06 22:28:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Technically you can. I am a virgin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
GAME OVER! Time to move to a new post.
Submitted by Natophelia (user info) at 2003-10-06 22:28:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not talking about 'America' I'm talking about this board and that one goofy boy... And just randomness. Uber's a strange place like that...randomness...
I don't care about polls. For one that states one point, there's always another that states the opposite. Yeah yeah, look for it yourself. I'm being flighty and not addressing the issue on purpose.
hehe... the way you respond to things is funny! So argumentative as if everything you say is fact. You're like a little robot. I want to see some personality. Uber isn't all about the issues, the issues, the issues so it's okay ya know ;) Are you that kid who was stirring things up to write a paper for some speech class?
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 22:15:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "I don't think abortion is a good thing, but I also don't think that the government should have a say in it. "
How unfortunate. The government DOES have a say in it.
Quote: "you can't stop kids from having sex"
Technically you can. I am a virgin.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 22:13:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "No one says "the law says it's ok, so it's ok." "
Yes, they do. I saw it many times in a recent debate on abortion....next...
Quote: "The social consequences of legalizing slavery had never been seen before by those who supported it, so they made things up to try and justify it."
That was the point...
Quote: " back alley abortions with coathangers, etc.; "
You just made true point #7
Quote: "Bifurcation fallacy"
Separated fallacy? That doesn't even make sense.
Quote: "Based on false premise in argument 1. "
Your opinion.
Quote: "Dissimilarly, abortion is about the unborn; those who lack personhood"
Once again, your opinion. YOU believe they lack personhood. I do not.
Quote: "The conceptus is a biological part of the female's body, and thus her property."
You just proved the point. Years ago, they considered slaves a man's property.
Quote: "This author is really stretchin' it now. He completely fabricated a pro slavery argument for the sole purpose of trying to make it look similar to the pro choice argument. As if any slavery supporter actually cares whether or not the slave is abused."
I'd like to see your statistics first of all. Second, you cannot tell me it's a stretch. I've seen the argument countless times.
Quote: "As if any slavery supporter actually cares whether or not the slave is abused."
Whether they believed it or not, it was used as an argument...do the research.
Quote: "Not just blind conjecture, as in the slavery argument."
Unfortunately, you are incorrect. I've read the entire supreme court decision about slavery. Do solme research.
Quote: "9th argument: Ridiculous. No one has ever made that argument. This author is just making things up!"
Actually, the argument has been made. You simply haven't seen it. This was more often used years ago than now, however.
Quote: "8th argument: "Outlawing the slave trade" means making it illegal to trade/buy/sell slaves. It does not mean illegalizing the practice of slavery. Thus one cannot draw a parallel here. More misleading language by this tard of an author. "
Taken out of context.
Quote: "Those who support slavery aren't pro-slavery? WTF? What the hell does Pro-liberty mean? Nonsense. "
Once again, DO THE RESEARCH. They used those terms.
Quote: "Most pro-choicers do not support abortion past a certain point in pregnancy."
Why? Where's the justification?
Quote: " The northerners had nothing to lose? What about their economy? They depended heavily on slave labor for food, clothing, etc."
Actually, the south depended on this. Whether you agree or not, it was an argument used and discussed in this as an analogy.
Quote: "How was the abolition movement anti-democratic? "
It wasn't. This was just one of the arguments people made!!!
Quote: "The pro-life movement is, in fact, anti-democratic, because it denies women their inherent bodily autonomy. "
You just proved the analogy.
Quote: "No one claims that fetuses are not persons based on physical appearance."
You speak for everyone, and that's your problem. I've seen people make this claim myself, so you cannot convince me that 'no one makes this claim'.
Quote: " One cannot argue that a private slave owner is more abusive than a regular slave owner."
It was an analogy. I wasn't trying to use it as a debate for making slavery OK.
Quote: "Maybe a privateer doesn't use a whip. Maybe a privateer takes the slave in as a member of his family."
Maybe.
Quote: "On the other hand, it is obvious that sterile medical equipment used by a licensed professional is more humane than some degenerate in an alley who uses his fist and/or an old rusty coathanger."
I love it when you people use the coathanger argument. Anyway, the idea is that abortion in general is wrong, not that people should go ahead and to it barbarically.
At least you argued halfway civilized.
Submitted by ScoutCJustice (user info) at 2003-10-06 22:02:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"A recent poll stated that the majority of Americans consider abortion wrong."
If you were to ask me on the stree if I thought abortion was wrong, I would say yes. If you were to ask me if it should be made illegal, I would say no. I don't think abortion is a good thing, but I also don't think that the government should have a say in it. One argument from the religous folk that so often speak out against abortion is well the kids just shouldn't have sex if they can't face the consequences (I'm not saying that is one of your arguments, you seem to be reasonably intelligent). While it would be great if that were true, you can't stop kids from having sex. You can educate them, which helps, but it's going to happen. It would be great if we could live in a world without the need for abortion, but that's not going to happen.
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2003-10-06 21:57:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 For Death_Metal_Dude. Kickass.
Submitted by FullOfShit (user info) at 2003-10-06 21:54:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
+2 For trying to bring a touchy issue up.
-2 For the addressing it that way.
-2 For the hell of it.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 21:51:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "When you get to the very bottom of the abortion issue, it still hinges on personal opinion. On both sides."
Goes along the lines of pretty much everything stated. Nothing that hasn't been said before.
Quote: "I find it incredibly funny that the pro-lifers (sorry I'm generalizing, but I can't remember names nor do I care to sift through the same stuff over again to find them.) throw an opinion around as if it were the ultimate fact that proves all, then talk about how the pro-choicers can't back things up with fact."
I've seen many facts provided by pro-lifers and am yet to see unbiased fact from a pro-choice person.
Quote: "Actually it's probably just that one silly arrogant little boy that I can't, for the life of me, take seriously."
A recent poll stated that the majority of Americans consider abortion wrong.
Quote: "That doesn't PROVE anything; it merely stimulates some thought."
It wasn't intended to PROVE anything. The intention was to stimulate some thought. Apparently, it's working.
Quote: "Come back to me in 50 years, 100, whatever when the majority of the world has become enlightened either way on the subject."
I'd love to.
Quote: "For now it's just a mildy interesting analogy."
That's what it was supposed to be, thank you.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2003-10-06 21:46:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This may look like a good argument on a superficial level, but it avoids the real issues by overgeneralization and blatant equivocal language.
1st argument for abortion: This is never used as an argument for abortion. No one says "the law says it's ok, so it's ok." The author is making a parallel with a nonexistent point. Since this nonexistent argument is used as a prerequisite for many of the following points, those points are based on a false premise.
2nd argument: I'll give you that one.
3rd argument: The social consequences of legalizing slavery had never been seen before by those who supported it, so they made things up to try and justify it. This is a 'slippery slope' fallacy. The difference between the slavery argument and the abortion argument is that we HAVE seen what happens when abortion is illegal or restricted: back alley abortions with coathangers, etc.; all kinds of medically unsafe things that killed women regularly. These consequences are very reasonably foreseeable if abortion were illegalized, because it has already happened once before. Would illegalizing alcohol produce similar societal ills as it did the last time we tried it? Reasonably, yes.
4th argument: Bifurcation fallacy, ambiguous language.
5th argument: Based on false premise in argument 1.
6th argument: Those who opposed slavery certainly did have a right to impose their morality, since they saw that a born human being was a born human being, not just property. Dissimilarly, abortion is about the unborn; those who lack personhood (not because the law says so, but because it's true). The conceptus is a biological part of the female's body, and thus her property.
7th argument: This author is really stretchin' it now. He completely fabricated a pro slavery argument for the sole purpose of trying to make it look similar to the pro choice argument. As if any slavery supporter actually cares whether or not the slave is abused. On the other hand, with abortion, it is statistically shown that mothers who go through unwanted childbearing are more likely to abuse their children, who are in turn more likely to commit homicides in the future. STATISTICALLY PROVEN. Not just blind conjecture, as in the slavery argument.
8th argument: "Outlawing the slave trade" means making it illegal to trade/buy/sell slaves. It does not mean illegalizing the practice of slavery. Thus one cannot draw a parallel here. More misleading language by this tard of an author.
9th argument: Ridiculous. No one has ever made that argument. This author is just making things up!
10th argument: Those who support slavery aren't pro-slavery? WTF? What the hell does Pro-liberty mean? Nonsense. You could call a pro-choicer 'pro-abortion,' but pro-choice is a more accurate term. Most pro-choicers do not support abortion past a certain point in pregnancy. But they still support a woman's right to choose what is best for her and her situation and her body. Thus, pro-choice.
11th argument: The northerners had nothing to lose? What about their economy? They depended heavily on slave labor for food, clothing, etc. On the other hand, pro-life men actually don't have anything to lose.
12th argument: How was the abolition movement anti-democratic? Supporting equality is anti-democratic? Stupid. The pro-life movement is, in fact, anti-democratic, because it denies women their inherent bodily autonomy. It isn't made to break down separation of church and state, rather it is meant to further a religious and elitist moral agenda.
13th argument: No one claims that fetuses are not persons based on physical appearance. They are not persons because they lack sentience and independence.
In conclusion, this author's flagrant equivocation fallacies (i.e. deliberate misuse of words) nullify his argument. Take, for example, the use of the word 'barbaric' in the 8th argument. One cannot argue that a private slave owner is more abusive than a regular slave owner. The situations vary too much. Maybe a privateer doesn't use a whip. Maybe a privateer takes the slave in as a member of his family. On the other hand, it is obvious that sterile medical equipment used by a licensed professional is more humane than some degenerate in an alley who uses his fist and/or an old rusty coathanger. The first situation cannot be said to be barbaric, while the second one is most definitely so, and this author knows damn well that he's equivocating. His entire argument was a misleading piece of garbage.
Submitted by Natophelia (user info) at 2003-10-06 21:41:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
The parrallels are intersting, but that's it.
When you get to the very bottom of the abortion issue, it still hinges on personal opinion. On both sides. I find it incredibly funny that the pro-lifers (sorry I'm generalizing, but I can't remember names nor do I care to sift through the same stuff over again to find them.) throw an opinion around as if it were the ultimate fact that proves all, then talk about how the pro-choicers can't back things up with fact. Actually it's probably just that one silly arrogant little boy that I can't, for the life of me, take seriously. I honestly laugh too hard at that to get into an abortion debate! Not that I would anyway. Everything's already been said.
Oh I know, "But condoning slavery was once considered an acceptable opinion, too." That doesn't PROVE anything; it merely stimulates some thought. Come back to me in 50 years, 100, whatever when the majority of the world has become enlightened either way on the subject. For now it's just a mildy interesting analogy.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 21:33:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "These two things are completely different. Having control over something growing, attached, inside your body is alittle different then a guy running around the cotton fields."
They are different. However, the arguments the people made are the same. It was an analogy. I knew before I posted this that someone would take this stuff and say "those things are completely different." Take it for what it's worth.
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2003-10-06 21:17:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I havent read all the posts so if this was already said, tought shit.
Your say the slavery is the mans property and therefore he can do what he will. Your abortion side states that its the womens boyd and therefore she can do what she will.
These two things are completely different. Having control over something growing, attached, inside your body is alittle different then a guy running around the cotton fields.
But then again i cant get an abortion or a slave, so what do i know.
Submitted by Lady_Emily_03 (user info) at 2003-10-06 20:35:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Very interesting indeed.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 20:20:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "When abortions aren't allowed, the government will have to foot the bill most of the time. These people are detracting from the benefit to society. Society as a whole is worse."
This is another issue entirely. The problem here is not the abortion. The problem is that the government is ready and willing to give its money to people on welfare etc. The purpose of the government should be our protection, not our financial welfare.
Submitted by ScoutCJustice (user info) at 2003-10-06 20:14:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The cost benefit argument was used by slavery proponents, but they used it wrong. To benefit society all you have to do is earn enough money to survive (you have to earn it, not get it handed to you). When the slaves were freed there were more people earning enough money to survive, more beneficial members of society = better society. When abortions aren't allowed, the government will have to foot the bill most of the time. These people are detracting from the benefit to society. Society as a whole is worse.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:33:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "I wish that my ancestors had made your's slaves and murdered them, effectively aborting you 150 years early."
Right.....OK
Quote: "It's the woman's choice (with some input from her significant other) if she wants to have the baby or not. Who are you to tell her that she HAS to give birth if she doesn't want to? "
Right after having read this. you try the same thing. I pity you.
Quote: "There are disturbing parallels brought to our attention, with plenty of support for the person's ideas. Yet you still attack it. Why?? "
Because they have no *real* argument.
Oh, and ScoutCJustice, while I don't agree with you, thanks for being civiized.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:26:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
OKAY. I understand that this is a very sensitive topic, but I have a question for all the pro-choicers. The first few of these posts were not well thought out, and had little facts or evidence to back up their claims, which is what you attacked them for. This one, while sahring the same political view of these other posts, is completely opposite. There are disturbing parallels brought to our attention, with plenty of support for the person's ideas. Yet you still attack it. Why??
+2 for delivering something I never even considered before.
Submitted by Maleficus (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:25:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
It's the woman's choice (with some input from her significant other) if she wants to have the baby or not. Who are you to tell her that she HAS to give birth if she doesn't want to?
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:23:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I wish that my ancestors had made your's slaves and murdered them, effectively aborting you 150 years early.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:23:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "To say that the freedom from slavery is where someone finally becomes a person is ridiculous."
You are correct. However, this was an argument used by the 'pro-liberty' people of the time.
Quote: "As is usualy the case with the abortion debate, the question comes down to, when does life start? Are fetuses alive? I don't know."
For this, I have an interesting quote. "If we don't know, then shouldn't we morally opt on the side that is life? If you came upon an immobile body and you yourself could not determine whether it was dead or alive, I think that you would decide to consider it alive until someone could prove it was dead. You wouldn't get a shovel and start covering it up. And I think we should do the same thing with regard to abortion."
Quote: "All I know is that you have to weigh the costs versus benefits. It costs society and the mother a lot more to have a child in a bad situation for raising children, than it does to have an abortion."
As was said above, the same thing was was about slavery.
Submitted by Manfre (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:22:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Make all the abortions into slaves. Fuck we need small children! You think that coal gets mined on its own?
Submitted by Hadooken (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:18:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:07:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
Because personally attacking you is OODLES more fun than your stupid post.
thank you murphy for handling that. saved me the trouble.
Submitted by ScoutCJustice (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:14:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry man, you will have to ignore these people on Uber today, they are all pissy.
To give a civilized response: Basically, my position on the matter is, that, if it doesn't affect me, and it isn't hurting anyone else, then I don't really care what you do. There is no doubt that slavery is hurting someone else. To say that the freedom from slavery is where someone finally becomes a person is ridiculous. As is usualy the case with the abortion debate, the question comes down to, when does life start? Are fetuses alive? I don't know. All I know is that you have to weigh the costs versus benefits. It costs society and the mother a lot more to have a child in a bad situation for raising children, than it does to have an abortion. Sure there are stories of triumph against the odds, and while heartwarming, those are rare. Society is better off, in the long run, with abortion. It may be preventing the birth of a child, but it is helping society and even more so the mother. It seems harsh to look at it from such a practical view, but the arguments over when life begins never get anywhere so I'm approaching this from another angle.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:08:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "Because personally attacking you is OODLES more fun than your stupid post."
Yeah. I guess you're right.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:07:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "I know Professor Derr, I've taken classes with him and he is an asshole."
Maybe he is. I don't know. However, that doesn't mean that this information is irrelevant. I'm sure there are people who think you're an asshole, too.
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:07:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Because personally attacking you is OODLES more fun than your stupid post.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:04:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I know Professor Derr, I've taken classes with him and he is an asshole.
Submitted by sam_el (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:03:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I saw a man today who looked like Ringo Star. But you know what, it was just some man.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:02:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote: "are your parents smart enough to know that you are an embarassment? "
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. What's the point of personally attacking me? It doesn't make me look any worse.
Submitted by Hadooken (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:00:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
are your parents smart enough to know that you are an embarassment?
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2003-10-06 19:00:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fine and well until you plugged yourself.
OOooooo, I'm impressed.
F-f-fuckoff.
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 18:59:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Hadooken (user info) at 2003-10-06 18:57:53 (#)
Ranking: -2
minus 2 without even having to read it.
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=1063903053153331679
Wow. You really are civilized. [sic]
Submitted by UNconfused (user info) at 2003-10-06 18:58:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
One more thing, I forgot to add it to the post... I didn't think all of this up. It's the work of Dr. Patrick Derr of Clark University, Massachusetts.
Submitted by Hadooken (user info) at 2003-10-06 18:57:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
minus 2 without even having to read it.
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=1063903053153331679