Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

Looks like you don't want to be responsible for your actions. There's a lot of that going around these days.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thus deliberate attempt to manipulate people emotionally and psychologically using social community morality as their own tool to undermine the self confidence and independent mind of the person.
this is particularly violent towards young girls going through puberty and attempting to develop sexually, emotionally, intellectually & moraly.

attempting to use science as their own science without the science while undermining real science...

playing the aggrieved victim for being the instigator & psychological manipulator.
"i didn't do nothing. it wasn't me its you"
"oh well if you don't agree with me and what i say everyone says is what you should be thinking then its your own issue of guilt and shame to deal with"

now your trying to hide behind someone else your holding up as a victim.
using her as a human shield for your lack of morality.

you are attempting to use horror and terror tactics to emotionally manipulate young girls during puberty.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what kills and maims tens of thousands of people every year ? personal motor vehicle accidents

the people who teach their children to drive are guilty of 2nd degree homicide now ?

are you trying to make private motor vehicles illegal to save thousands of people ? no ! why ? because your serving your own ego and self interest at the expense of everyone else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There was an interesting experiment run by US News and World Report in 1995 (and reported in the excellent book Moral Tribes.) It asked the following question of readers: “If someone sues you and you win the case, should he pay your legal costs?” Eighty-five percent of respondents said yes. Others got this question: “If you sue someone and lose the case, should you pay his costs?” This time, only 44 percent said yes. As this turnabout illustrates, one’s sense of fairness is easily tainted by self-interest.

We have a perfect example here. SA6 is all for passing laws that tell people what to do with their bodies. But when it comes to what HE wants done with his body, he balks at the same kind of control. Which is fine - everyone exhibits self interest; no one is purely selfless. But it does make it hard to take his sanctimonious claims of "oh the poor poor CHILDREN!" very seriously.

 

Several years ago this point was part of the core of a discussion that ran over the course of two threads and something like sixteen months. And here you can postulate a basic political difference between two sides; in our community, the people who used the language and arguments familiar to our neighbor's position were simply incapable of discussing it. Here we are, over six years after that spectacle started, and the reason you find yourself making the point you do is that these others are not obliged to change their argument, ever. No matter how many times you swat it down, debunk it, wreck it, dissect, vivisect, index, backengineer for validity, or whatever, the advocates don't care; they will simply line up and repeat themselves anew because there is always someone to play the sucker.

Here's the historical reality: Everything about the argument uses custom terminology, such as reference to child or daughter. It is pseudoscience intended to respond to a particular point in the American abortion discussion. I can look back nearly five years↗, for instance, discussing an American legislative question:

The Court refused to establish personhood in Roe. Review section VI of the Opinion of the Court for the Court's historical review, section IX.A for the Court's consideration of Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, and IX.B ¶2 for the Court's refusal to establish personhood:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.​

​

That's from the thread that follows the debacle I mentioned at the outset.

The passage quoted from Roe v. Wade is the point of what becomes our neighbor's anti-abortion argument; that is, it has been the point the whole time.

The first sentence of the Roe quote notes the proposition of "life at conception", which means, as I happened to mention two months ago↗, legal personhood is assigned at the time of cortical reaction, or, at the latest, fusion of the secondary oocyte. And the point of that mention in December was a grim joke about persistence. Because the second and third sentences of the Roe citation answer the life at conception proposition in the first: The Court refused to resolve that question, and explicitly stated it was, compared to history, "not in a position to speculate as to the answer". Over the last forty-six years, the response from anti-abortion advocates has simply been to insist and persist, as loudly as possible.

And as the sixteen-month debacle reminded in its time, the pseudoscientific discussion of "life at conception" wasn't really about what our neighbor↑ describes as the "child … inside the mother's body"; while you, in the present discussion, consider a woman's human rights—("the same protection as the mother")—the pretense you are addressing presupposes to reject such a proposition. At this point, because of our neighbor, I can even haul out the old joke about Bela Lugosi as an overgrown fetus.

In the American discourse, the anti-abortion argument generally never moves past this persistence. Their discursive innovation is the outpouring of fallacies in order to avoid the question. But the Court said it would not speculate as to "when life begins", and the anti-abortion response has been to simply insist on a definition for forty-six years; and as I noted several years ago, even attempted to legislate ontology in order to force their unscientific definitions into law.

It is very difficult, in the American discourse, to compel a different discussion; when it comes to emotionalism in lieu of logic, market dimensions, to speak nothing of dynamics, suggest it nearly impossible to cover every iteration fast enough. Looking at various components of that larger discourse, it seems diverse institutions invested in women's {health access rights, reproductive rights, right to choose, civil rights, human rights, &c.} spend their time covering spot surface outbreaks of what really is more akin to a massive, smoldering peat fire. And whether for particular religious sentiments, or refashioned for other political contexts, rhetorical arsonists, as such, are plentiful. The effect is that, forty-six years later, the only real question for those advocates is how to force their definition.

This thread actually starts in a weirdly scrubbed context that you might recognize as similar to the rebranding of Creationism as Intelligent Design; it may have taken until #102↑ to explicitly introduce religion, but the rhetoric throughout has been to type, and the posts plagiarized from the Family Research Council↱ (#72↑, 80↑, 85↑) only make the point.

In our own small corner of the Universe, though, there really is no reason for these advocates to change°, learn, evolve, or whatever. Quite literally none. A question arises whether or not particular advocacy can occur without fallacy, and, strangely, the answer is only uncertain in the way nothing can be certain; otherwise, the answer is that in forty-six years, a range of political arguments simply do not occur without an accompaniment range of pseudoscience and fallacy a priori.

The question becomes significant in its own context: Does the refusal of inconsistenly-applied pseudoscience necessarily silence the larger issue advocacy? If the answer is somehow affirmative, perhaps the problem is in the construction of the issue. If one cannot argue the point without fallacy, why?

And the reason none ever answer for this is because they have no reason to. It's not that I disagree with your tutting admonition in #222—("You can't just repeat your claims while ignoring the specific questions I put to you above"). Nor is it an unfamiliar refrain; what I've learned over time runs, approximately: Okay, sure, he can't, but why not? Who says? There are answers to those questions, sure, but they do not seem to apply around here; our neighbor has precisely no reason to not simply repeat himself while ignoring the specific questions you put to him. Not only is that how this particular issue advocacy behaves in the world at large, here at Sciforums, the practical reality is that nobody will actually stop him from just repeating his claims while ignoring the specific questions you put to him.

The discussion doesn't move because one general side either cannot or simply will not move on from pseudoscience and fallacy. Here is a conundrum: To what degree is it yours, mine, or anyone else's, who happens to disagree with these people, to write their argument for them? That is, the issue isn't entirely fallacious, is it? Perhaps I might be able to write their argument, for them, and better than they can, but I still don't believe it, and they will simply complain when I take it apart at the predictable points.

The other thing I can't do, in such a case, is contain the argument to just one issue; there is a lot of concomitant peripheral and collateral damage that must eventually be accounted for. Furthermore, the whole thing gets really complicated, so it's not like the advocates would use the argument, or be capable of adjusting it to the moment. In the end, writing their argument for them would be wasted effort at best, likely setting the discussion back for giving them yet another excuse for the sloth of repeating their insistent pseudoscientific fallacies.
____________________

Notes:

° On the point of plagiarism, it should be noted the FRC probably either doesn't care, or might even condone this sort of use; the document is, after all, titled, "The Best Pro-Life Arguments for Secular Audiences"; ironically, the byline omits the woman described as one of the authors. However, another aspect that stands out, here, is that despite being called out on the paste job (#73↑, 83↑), SetiAlpha6 continues, attempting only slight revisions to the text, because the purpose of hiding its origin is to hide its origin; not to steal it, but to present it in a superficially modified context, separate from its nefarious and religious history, as if this Christianist lexicon and syntax would occur without the religious impetus, much akin in this aspect to the purported difference 'twixt Creationism and Intelligent design.​

Schwarzwalder, Rob. "The Best Pro-Life Arguments for Secular Audiences". Family Research Council. (n.d.) FRC.org. 17 February 2019. http://bit.ly/2V10irf

 

At one month gestation, there is no actual heart or completely differentiated tissue that will become a heart. At six weeks gestation, the tissues that will - later, as they grow - form the human heart are differentiated, and the electrical impulses that will become a heartbeat have begun. That is important for the development of the actual heart - but not an indication that the development has taken place.

Both those numbers depend on the wording of the question. Pro-life people commonly use deceptive wording and assumptions when polling, and when reporting on polls.

 

Let someone who does not enjoy having sex cast the first stone.

Youtube videos of bullshitters "destroying" this and that are troll posts.

 

Often here on Sciforums when people get argued into a corner, and cannot make any further intelligent posts, they start posting links to Youtube videos. It's sort of admitting defeat.

 

[#danceparty]​

Well, that, or it's time for a dance party.

Strangely, I don't have a good dance party banner. I'll have to go get the monkey dance frame from .hack//Sign. Never mind. Something about an overgrown fetus goes here.

Spoiler

​

 

If only there was some way to make that kind of rule.

 

You already enforce some such rule like that over in the Fringe section, where fear of Youtube videos kinda runs rampant.

 

Mod Action - Image removed

Mother Theresa of Calcutta — 'It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.'

Our Society severely fails Women and their children when Planned Parenthood and many others, falsely present the lie that abortion is the best option for them.

Other life affirming options are available and have been available for years, and the wealth of the United States means there is no excuse for the ignorant rape of the child from the mother.

These women are often kept ignorant and uninformed of the realities of what these doctors will be doing to them and what they will be doing to their baby. Ignorance equals Rape.

Full disclosure and knowledge is needed not the suppression of knowledge.

Every woman who is considering an abortion should be shown a video from the point of view of the camera inside the womb, showing the baby being torn apart, literally each limb torn off one by one, showing the baby recoiling in pain, and then showing the babies head deliberately being crushed with forceps for removal.

Abortion is the act of the murder of an innocent child by the doctor, hired by the mother to dismember, kill, and remove her own baby.

A baby is murdered inside the mother’s womb, where he or she is being protected and nourished by the woman’s own body, just so she may live as she wishes.

 

If it is against the mother's will, the baby has no moral right to live. You can't ignore the rights of the mother as a living being.


Also, Mother Theresa was a horrible person.

 

Of course!

And I can’t also ignore the rights of the baby daughter inside her, which her own body is protecting from harm.

The mother has to actually, with the help of a doctor, injure herself, her own body, to stop her body from protecting her baby.

She has to inflict self harm on here own body.

This is a mental breakdown, a moral breakdown, and a self inflicted wound on multiple levels.