Graphic But Real - Page 9

hevusa · 08-24-2005, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabris

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Actually, you're completely wrong. Hev said Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, thus it is the will of the people that it remains that way. The precedents set forth by the Plessy and Dred Scott cases WERE overturned, thus they were overturned because that was the will of the people. Obviously the people didn't just will these decisions to happen, but at some point or another, the collective will of the people influenced Dred Scott and Plessy to be overturned, just as the collective will of the people is keeping Roe v. Wade from being overturned.

Once again, know your history. Brown v Board of Education (1954) which overturned Plessy was not welcomed with open arms, or have you forgotten that great Democratic Governor George Wallace's statement, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Dred Scott took a Civil War and a Constitutional amendment. They were were far from the will of the people. The issue of abortion is just as divisive, except no longer is the division between North and South. The collective will of the people had nothing to do with the overturning of Plessy, read the Brown decision, the court relied upon psychological data. Plessy was overturned in spite of the fact that there was overwhelming pressure by the people to maintain the decision. THe court intrepretted the constitution and decided that under equality, the notion of seperate but equal could not exist. Plessy was overturned despite the will of the people. Hev's own statement was that it shouldn't be overturned because it is the will of the people, a very similiar argument used by southern racists in upholding the Plessy decision.

Know your history, know your facts, my statement is still accurate, and still correct. The notion that the will of the people is what is influencing the Court's decision is fallable. I used a historical demonstration of that argument, it happened to be regarding racism, but the parallels still apply and are accurate. Do I consider hev a racist, no, but I used that issue to show the fallacy of the argument used. Instead of realizing the accuracy of the argument, instead history is adjusted to fit the argument.

dmk

Until Roe v. Wade is overturned, you're still incorrect.

I don't need big fancy words and long explanations for a comeback, it's plain and simple in this case.

Eh, you don't necessarily need the majority of the people to do it. The whole idea being that their representatives *should* vote on their behalf, but often vote on their own behalf (both sides). A direct vote to every American that's eligible would be preferable, but extremely unlikely. Roberts striking down of Roe would free up the issue for each state to put the votes to their citizens. Let the will of the people of each state figure themselves out. While the majority very well may be pro-choice, the majority of a state like Texas would be pro-life.

That would create the most stupid situation. Women travelling to different states to receive care? Or not having enough money to travel so they receive dangerous, unauthorized care. STUPID!

Tabris · 08-24-2005, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

That would create the most stupid situation. Women travelling to different states to receive care? Or not having enough money to travel so they receive dangerous, unauthorized care. STUPID!

No, it wouldn't. People trying to use it as birth control in states where it's not allowed should logically realize "Hey, if I fuck up and get pregnant, it's my fault" and be more careful to begin with. If you have one abortion in your life, great. If you have two, you need to do some thinking. Three or more, you need to re-evaluate your intelligence. Getting that many abortions quickly lowers the likelyhood of a baby surviving to term when you actually do want the kid. People taking precautions when they have sex greatly reduces the risk of getting pregnant in the first place. Or, use the morning-after pill.

It wouldn't really be a stupid situation, people would just be forced to think about what the hell they're doing. I don't care whether or not abortion is fully legalized or completely banned (sans the big 3), as long as it's left to each state.

If you're looking for a federal mandate, what about one abortion every 5 years? No one should be so irresponsible as to actually need one more often than that. Heavily red states would still be forced to tolerate it, but not nearly as much as if they were forced to support abortion on demand. Blue states would get their abortion, but would also not be able to get them on demand and would need to learn to be responsible. Sound like a worthy compromise? There could be database kept, and it could be either a national one or a state-to-state database. I haven't worked out which wuold be better. State-to-State would allow those who really want to go through the trouble to go out-of-state, whereas a national one would level the playing field completely.

aMFliberal · 08-24-2005, 02:43 PM

I don't understand what the need for all that is anyway. If people just realized the difference between legality and morality this wouldn't even be such a big issue in the United States. While it's a good debate, I really see it as a distractor issue for the politicians. No matter what, abortion has to be legal in the United States. I don't think there is one single good argument against the legality of abortion.

Tabris · 08-24-2005, 02:55 PM

The argument against is that they want to protect the life of the child. I personally wouldn't support my girlfriend's decision to get one unless it was absolutely necessary. My thing with abortion is that is that people get careless about abortions and use them as birth control, and just fuck knowing they can get an abortion. I hate protecting people from themselves, but when the time comes to have a kid, they won't be able to. That also translates indirectly into further spread of STDs, and hampers efforts to curb the spread of HIV. I feel HIV should definitely be an option for women, albeit with some restrictions, and the extent of restriction is best left to the states, imho.

aMFliberal · 08-24-2005, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabris

The argument against is that they want to protect the life of the child. I personally wouldn't support my girlfriend's decision to get one unless it was absolutely necessary. My thing with abortion is that is that people get careless about abortions and use them as birth control, and just fuck knowing they can get an abortion. I hate protecting people from themselves, but when the time comes to have a kid, they won't be able to. That also translates indirectly into further spread of STDs, and hampers efforts to curb the spread of HIV. I feel HIV should definitely be an option for women, albeit with some restrictions, and the extent of restriction is best left to the states, imho.

I think you meant to say abortion, not HIV, there at the end, but I see what your saying. I agree with you that abortion should not be used as a means of birth control, but that is part of my morals. It has to be legally allowed for those people who seek abortions for different reasons. Are people still going to seek abortions as birth control? Yes, I'm sure they will and as far as I'm concerned they are not moral people. There are many immoral people in the world, that does not mean they're criminals though. In many cases, what is moral is also the law, it's convenient that way. But it is not true in all cases, and abortion is one of those issues. People screaming for abortion to be outlawed should just come to grips with that fact.

Tabris · 08-24-2005, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabris

The argument against is that they want to protect the life of the child. I personally wouldn't support my girlfriend's decision to get one unless it was absolutely necessary. My thing with abortion is that is that people get careless about abortions and use them as birth control, and just fuck knowing they can get an abortion. I hate protecting people from themselves, but when the time comes to have a kid, they won't be able to. That also translates indirectly into further spread of STDs, and hampers efforts to curb the spread of HIV. I feel HIV should definitely be an option for women, albeit with some restrictions, and the extent of restriction is best left to the states, imho.

I think you meant to say abortion, not HIV, there at the end, but I see what your saying. I agree with you that abortion should not be used as a means of birth control, but that is part of my morals. It has to be legally allowed for those people who seek abortions for different reasons. Are people still going to seek abortions as birth control? Yes, I'm sure they will and as far as I'm concerned they are not moral people. There are many immoral people in the world, that does not mean they're criminals though. In many cases, what is moral is also the law, it's convenient that way. But it is not true in all cases, and abortion is one of those issues. People screaming for abortion to be outlawed should just come to grips with that fact.

Woops. Yeah HIV should always be an option, too.

Tabris · 08-24-2005, 03:41 PM

Can you address the issue of protecting children though? That's a central tenet that often gets ignored. I can esaily say "Screw the kid" and while personally I'm against it, I could easily see myself saying "fuck it" and doing it. As a law I think something like nothing after the first trimester or X abortions in Y years would be sound as a compromise, since you won't get a law in place with an either/or argument. Meh

aMFliberal · 08-24-2005, 04:12 PM

Do you mean the children lost to abortions done simply for birth control?

Tabris · 08-24-2005, 08:40 PM

Yes. I see those as nothing but a pure waste. As I said, I could easily go down the road of just disregarding the thing until point X, but yeah. It's tempting...and for the most part I already adopted that view. But there needs to be some reason to curb the number of abortions in the first place, meaning one's performed as birth control. It's cheaper to take a morning-after pill or go on a BC pill anyway, than shell out $500 and increase the risk of not being able to have a child later on each time one is performed. Know what I'm saying? The practicality of having less abortions is more my concern than necessarily "protecting fetuses" because they wouldn't be there in the first place if people were responsible and didn't need to get an abortion. I'll be able to better explain it tomorrow, I think...I'm exhausted and just ate 3lbs of grilled steak....so good...ugh.

tadpole256 · 08-25-2005, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Actually, you're completely wrong. Hev said Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, thus it is the will of the people that it remains that way. The precedents set forth by the Plessy and Dred Scott cases WERE overturned, thus they were overturned because that was the will of the people. Obviously the people didn't just will these decisions to happen, but at some point or another, the collective will of the people influenced Dred Scott and Plessy to be overturned, just as the collective will of the people is keeping Roe v. Wade from being overturned.

Once again, know your history. Brown v Board of Education (1954) which overturned Plessy was not welcomed with open arms, or have you forgotten that great Democratic Governor George Wallace's statement, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Dred Scott took a Civil War and a Constitutional amendment. They were were far from the will of the people. The issue of abortion is just as divisive, except no longer is the division between North and South. The collective will of the people had nothing to do with the overturning of Plessy, read the Brown decision, the court relied upon psychological data. Plessy was overturned in spite of the fact that there was overwhelming pressure by the people to maintain the decision. THe court intrepretted the constitution and decided that under equality, the notion of seperate but equal could not exist. Plessy was overturned despite the will of the people. Hev's own statement was that it shouldn't be overturned because it is the will of the people, a very similiar argument used by southern racists in upholding the Plessy decision.

Know your history, know your facts, my statement is still accurate, and still correct. The notion that the will of the people is what is influencing the Court's decision is fallable. I used a historical demonstration of that argument, it happened to be regarding racism, but the parallels still apply and are accurate. Do I consider hev a racist, no, but I used that issue to show the fallacy of the argument used. Instead of realizing the accuracy of the argument, instead history is adjusted to fit the argument.

dmk

Until Roe v. Wade is overturned, you're still incorrect.

I don't need big fancy words and long explanations for a comeback, it's plain and simple in this case.

w00t!

Zing! That's awesome. You countered his whole argument very well in under 10 words.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode