Abortion hypocrisy

Trancendental

Trancendental

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it." (Physician, Texas)
Click to expand...

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Alot of other good ones in the link too.
 
Quick, let me make a website site using stories from unnamed sources to support my position on an issue. That article is written like a high school freshman's first term paper.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Quick, let me make a website site using stories from unnamed sources to support my position on an issue. That article is written like a high school freshman's first term paper.[/QUOTE]

Well what do you want them to do. They can't violate the doctor patient priveledge.
 
This is something you can't measure the prevalence of with any degree of accuracy unless you break a few confidentiality laws. I think it happens, the extent of which is unknown.
 
This has to be way common. I mean, I have always been a believer that people should be allowed to choose whatever they want to do but personally I would never ever consider an abortion as an option (well, to the extent that it is even up to me to begin with). However, after going through this current pregnancy (20 weeks) at 37 and with 2 awesome and healthy kids we have had talks about what to do if we were to find out something was wrong with the baby... something I never in a million years would have thought we would do 10 years ago.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well what do you want them to do. They can't violate the doctor patient priveledge.[/QUOTE]

I actually somewhat wonder if this doesn't violate any HIPPA Laws to begin with.
 
Didn't Sarah Palin mention that when she found out that she was pregnant at 40 with her DS kid she had considered an abortion while on some governor tour?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']No, actually she said it was never an option.[/QUOTE]

She said she chose it.

That implies there was a choice. Because, you know, if the anti-abortion folks get their way then there is no choice (that's why pro-choice is called pro-fucking-choice)
 
I dont know if i believe much of what a politican says anyway

As far as hypocrisy sure it happens everybodys situation is different
 
[quote name='camoor']She said she chose it.

That implies there was a choice. Because, you know, if the anti-abortion folks get their way then there is no choice (that's why pro-choice is called pro-fucking-choice)[/QUOTE]

She implied it was an option for her daughter. Also supposedly santorums wife had an abortion.
 
I don't know about using one specific situation as the model for hypocrisy. Uh, is it hypocritical? Sure. ...So?

My boss bitched about a business expense while he bought another expensive car to lower our tax liability. Not sure I'd make a thread about it.

Abortion is one of those hot issues that I side with whoever I talk to last about it. Compelling arguments from both sides, and I feel like since I don't have a uterus, it's probably not my place to preach to everybody about what they should do with theirs.
 
Well, that's the problem with the abortion debate.

One side is trying to preach to others about what they should/can do. The other side is just saying that it should be an individual choice.

But it's really a pointless topic to debate as no one that feels strongly about it one way or the other (which is the majority of people) is ever going to change their mind anyway.
 
They could. In high school I was anti-abortion. Ten years later and I'm not pro-abortion by any means, but I don't support any laws against abortion, I'd rather the option be out there for those that feel it is the best thing for them.
 
I meant with in the context of an argument in a thread no ones going to change their minds.

But hell, if that was the standard then this forum area should be closes as I've never seen anyone here change their stance on anything. :D It's always the same people arguing over the same things with no one ever giving an inch.
 
[quote name='Msut77']She implied it was an option for her daughter. Also supposedly santorums wife had an abortion.[/QUOTE]

Santorum's wife had an abortion because otherwise both her and the baby would have died. The baby was not viable- it had a fatal defect- and wouldn't have survived anyway. Then the wife got extremely ill and was going to die if the baby- who again had a fatal defect- wasn't aborted. So her choice makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is that her dickless husband then supported a bill that banned the procedure that saved her life, saying it had no medical purpose.
 
[quote name='dead of knight']what doesn't make sense is that her dickless husband then supported a bill that banned the procedure that saved her life, saying it had no medical purpose.[/quote]

lol.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Got a source on that, DoK? That sounds too insipid for even Santorum.[/QUOTE]

His wife had a partial-birth abortion. Partial-birth abortions are banned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2011/06/19/santorums-wifes-abortion-was-different-you-see/
In 1996, Senator Santorum led the debate on a bill that attempted to ban late-term abortions, and refused to make an exception even in the case of “grievous bodily injury” to the woman.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='camoor']She said she chose it.

That implies there was a choice. Because, you know, if the anti-abortion folks get their way then there is no choice (that's why pro-choice is called pro-fucking-choice)[/QUOTE]

Even if it was to be outlawed, there'd still be a choice.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I meant with in the context of an argument in a thread no ones going to change their minds.

But hell, if that was the standard then this forum area should be closes as I've never seen anyone here change their stance on anything. :D It's always the same people arguing over the same things with no one ever giving an inch.[/QUOTE]

The thing is that the abortion "argument" is like a proxy war for other issues, particularly contraception and womens rights.

It gets really removed at times and quite frankly for many it is about control and not life.
 
[quote name='camoor']Never pegged you as an anarchist.[/QUOTE]

Just saying, the choice is there. Period. Even someone who wants to outlaw something still makes a choice about doing/not doing it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Just saying, the choice is there. Period. Even someone who wants to outlaw something still makes a choice about doing/not doing it.[/QUOTE]

Not the way people use it every day.

Let me put it this way - if you were correct the position wouldn't be pro-choice it would be "pro-commonsense" or "pro-women" or something like that. But we say pro-choice because in America the presumption is that we are a nation of laws.

Civil disobedience has it's place but I've never heard you advocate any civil disobedience movement from the civil rights movement all the way through to occupy. So forgive me if I find your post disingenuous.

And to anyone wondering - yes I know responding to UB is a waste of time but it's my thread and I'm just having fun
 
A) Speaking of common sense, would anyone really classify having an abortion (presumably, in a world where abortion was outlawed) as "civil disobedience"? Because that's a reach.

B) I have, actually, advocated Civil Disobedience in the occupy thread (and elsewhere).

C) It's still a choice, even if it were outlawed. Which it's not. Which, even by your limited view point, defiantly makes it a choice.
 
No one is ever going to outlaw it, so I don't see why it's such a strong issue for debate. You can't just outlaw abortion tomorrow -- that's a huge step to take, and probably with seriously negative ramifications as well. Why even discuss something your society isn't prepared to handle, and then vote based on individual stances?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A) Speaking of common sense, would anyone really classify having an abortion (presumably, in a world where abortion was outlawed) as "civil disobedience"? Because that's a reach.

B) I have, actually, advocated Civil Disobedience in the occupy thread (and elsewhere).

C) It's still a choice, even if it were outlawed. Which it's not. Which, even by your limited view point, defiantly makes it a choice.[/QUOTE]
Philosophical choice? Yes.
Choice within the law? No.

I realize you're arguing philosophical choice (in that it's something a human being has to make a conscious choice about), but if it were outlawed you'd have no choice within the context of the law. It's disingenuous for you to say "youy still have a choice" because you're trying to argue from a different viewpoint, and you know it too. You know we're talking about choice within the law, but you won't argue form that point because you can't argue with it, if it's illegal you have no choice within the law, period. Basically either step into the ring we're in, or shut up about it.
 
[quote name='Clak']Philosophical choice? Yes.
Choice within the law? No.

I realize you're arguing philosophical choice (in that it's something a human being has to make a conscious choice about), but if it were outlawed you'd have no choice within the context of the law. It's disingenuous for you to say "youy still have a choice" because you're trying to argue from a different viewpoint, and you know it too. You know we're talking about choice within the law, but you won't argue form that point because you can't argue with it, if it's illegal you have no choice within the law, period. Basically either step into the ring we're in, or shut up about it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah UB is the last guy who I thought would go on a Clintonesque 'meaning of is is' semantic-metaphysical bender.
 
Dang, don't really see why you guys are ganging up on Uncle Bob. Thought he made a couple of decent points, and put thought into them. It's been a sad trend in these forums to attack the person as much or more than the point, when disagreeing. Seems like a weak debate position and dramatically cheapens the rebuttal. I think two people have gotten under my skin personally when disagreeing with them here. Knoell, and, hell I can't even remember the other person. I don't mind if you disagree with my points, heck, it's kinda fun, but how quickly it goes from disagree with the point, to mock the poster, has really gotten out of control and lame IMO.

"YOU ARE A fuckING IDIOT, QUIT STRAWMANNING ME YOU RACIST MORON-oh, and I disagree with your point a little too."

I think I just effectively rebutted 99.9% of arguments here, according to history. :wall:

And just to keep it on topic, how do you guys think the so-called "morning after pill" will be impacted? I rarely hear the strongly anti-abortion crowd talk about it, but admittedly, I don't spend a lot of time on the issue. Is this a big deal to them as well?
 
[quote name='berzirk']And just to keep it on topic, how do you guys think the so-called "morning after pill" will be impacted? I rarely hear the strongly anti-abortion crowd talk about it, but admittedly, I don't spend a lot of time on the issue. Is this a big deal to them as well?[/QUOTE]

Knoell said it was. Once the sperm hits the egg it counts as much as a walking talking human being in his book.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Dang, don't really see why you guys are ganging up on Uncle Bob. Thought he made a couple of decent points, and put thought into them. It's been a sad trend in these forums to attack the person as much or more than the point, when disagreeing. Seems like a weak debate position and dramatically cheapens the rebuttal. I think two people have gotten under my skin personally when disagreeing with them here. Knoell, and, hell I can't even remember the other person. I don't mind if you disagree with my points, heck, it's kinda fun, but how quickly it goes from disagree with the point, to mock the poster, has really gotten out of control and lame IMO.

"YOU ARE A fuckING IDIOT, QUIT STRAWMANNING ME YOU RACIST MORON-oh, and I disagree with your point a little too."

I think I just effectively rebutted 99.9% of arguments here, according to history. :wall:

And just to keep it on topic, how do you guys think the so-called "morning after pill" will be impacted? I rarely hear the strongly anti-abortion crowd talk about it, but admittedly, I don't spend a lot of time on the issue. Is this a big deal to them as well?[/QUOTE]
Most consider it to be abortion, no different than aborting a fetus.

edit- As far as bob goes, I call 'em like I see 'em. In the post I replied to he's just being completely ridiculous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']Knoell said it was. Once the sperm hits the egg it counts as much as a walking talking human being in his book.[/QUOTE]

Hard to believe people still think like this.
 
In a thread where someone is trying to seriously make the argument that some else who says "I made the choice to have a baby" should be pro-choice simply because they made a "choice", then all bets are off as far as how we're going to frame things from here out.

Everyone here makes "choices" every single day. Some ordinary, some extraordinary. And yes, the choice of "do this legal thing" or "break the law" is *still* a choice.

[quote name='Clak']edit- As far as bob goes, I call 'em like I see 'em. [/QUOTE]

Probably the most truthful statement you've ever made on VS. :D
 
[quote name='UncleBob']In a thread where someone is trying to seriously make the argument that some else who says "I made the choice to have a baby" should be pro-choice simply because they made a "choice", then all bets are off as far as how we're going to frame things from here out.[/QUOTE]

Not someone - a politician. Talking about policy. As in law.

For example when a DA says he you don't have a choice and you have to testify, he doesn't mean that he is an omnipotent being that can force the words out of your mouth. He means he is going to use the law to force you into a position where you either testify or you goto jail.

Likewise when a politician who is talking about a policy issue says that they have a choice it means that the law affords them one of two or more options.
 
[quote name='camoor']Likewise when a politician who is talking about a policy issue says that they have a choice it means that the law affords them one of two or more options.[/QUOTE]

So, even by your definition of choice, which apparently means no one can make the choice to break the law, Palin still had a choice.

And, in your opinion, the fact that she acknowledges that there was a choice for her to make renders her entire viewpoint invalid. As opposed to someone, whom, I guess, ignores the fact that abortion is possible legal and just pretends it doesn't exist. Because people who ignore reality make better decisions... or something.

Seriously, if you want to attack someone's pro-life/anti-choice stance, the fact that they acknowledge reality (at least the legal aspect of it) seems like a really stupid basis to do so. Even more so when there are so many other valid reasons to discredit it.

Regardless, the only reason Palin was even brought up was an attempt to bring some actual relevancy to a thread that was created to feature a random link to a site featuring a bunch of anecdotal "evidence" that, at best, is likely a HIPPA violation, at worst is just some dude spinning stories trying to nudge people to his point of view.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, even by your definition of choice, which apparently means no one can make the choice to break the law, Palin still had a choice.

And, in your opinion, the fact that she acknowledges that there was a choice for her to make renders her entire viewpoint invalid. As opposed to someone, whom, I guess, ignores the fact that abortion is possible legal and just pretends it doesn't exist. Because people who ignore reality make better decisions... or something.

Seriously, if you want to attack someone's pro-life/anti-choice stance, the fact that they acknowledge reality (at least the legal aspect of it) seems like a really stupid basis to do so. Even more so when there are so many other valid reasons to discredit it.

Regardless, the only reason Palin was even brought up was an attempt to bring some actual relevancy to a thread that was created to feature a random link to a site featuring a bunch of anecdotal "evidence" that, at best, is likely a HIPPA violation, at worst is just some dude spinning stories trying to nudge people to his point of view.[/QUOTE]

Don't get it twisted - this is just one example of why her viewpoint is invalid - it's invalid for several reasons as is yours.

If someone believes that abortion is so horrible that it should be outlawed, why turn around frame it as a choice? If she wanted to be consistent she should have said "As you know fellow xian zealots, my daughter had no choice but to have this baby. Morally it was the only course of action she could take and that is why I firmly believe in an anti-abortion law" See - I just came up with that in 30 seconds, easy, and if she had said that then I could at least say she was consistent.

But no, it was a choice for her.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Regardless, the only reason Palin was even brought up was an attempt to bring some actual relevancy to a thread that was created to feature a random link to a site featuring a bunch of anecdotal "evidence" that, at best, is likely a HIPPA violation, at worst is just some dude spinning stories trying to nudge people to his point of view.[/QUOTE]

It is in the realm of possibility but I probably score the odds of every story being fake lower then you.

Call me cynical but I think there are alot of god warrior hypocrites out there, reading this board methinks I'm not alone.
 
[quote name='camoor']If someone believes that abortion is so horrible that it should be outlawed, why turn around frame it as a choice? If she wanted to be consistent she should have said "As you know fellow xian zealots, my daughter had no choice but to have this baby. Morally it was the only course of action she could take and that is why I firmly believe in an anti-abortion law" See - I just came up with that in 30 seconds, easy, and if she had said that then I could at least say she was consistent.[/QUOTE]

Consistent - if she exists in her own little world where there actually is no other choice.

You're dogging on her because she recognizes that a medical procedure exists and she had a choice to have it, as she qualified for it.

You're dogging on her because she recognizes the fact that an immoral choice (per her supposed set of beliefs) is still a choice.

Hell, even your statement recognizes that she had a choice. "Morally, it was the only course of action..." - clearly, this recognizes that she has (per her set of beliefs) immoral choices open to her.

Here's a better statement: "I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent's life."

Man, I never, in my life, thought I'd be standing up for Palin...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Consistent - if she exists in her own little world where there actually is no other choice.[/QUOTE]

That is the policy she advocates.
 
[quote name='camoor']That is the policy she advocates.[/QUOTE]

Remember, if someone demands something of you and threatens your life and that of your entire family (and for the example has the power to make it happen). You still have a choice.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Remember, if someone demands something of you and threatens your life and that of your entire family (and for the example has the power to make it happen). You still have a choice.[/QUOTE]

Yeah you have to wonder about a guy who views our system of law as a matter of choice.

UB, try "choosing" to break the law in front of a cop and see how far it gets you...
 
[quote name='camoor']
UB, try "choosing" to break the law in front of a cop and see how far it gets you...[/QUOTE]

New hobby: Find incredibly obscure laws in a state's/town's/district's law books and proceed to break them in front of police officers.

I'll be using curling irons on Sunday morning on baby pandas in Omaha, BREAKIN' THE LAW.
 
[quote name='camoor']That is the policy she advocates.[/QUOTE]

The policy she advocates is not in play. Likewise, Vermin Supreme can announce that all individuals should ride their government-provided free ponies to work tomorrow. It's a plan that ignores the facts of the situation and is rooted in ignorance.

[quote name='camoor']Yeah you have to wonder about a guy who views our system of law as a matter of choice.[/quote]

Are they not? Do people who break the law have no choice in doing so?

UB, try "choosing" to break the law in front of a cop and see how far it gets you...
Click to expand...
Did this today - just for you. Was driving down the highway, when I saw a state cop up ahead. I was going 55 in a 55 and, in honor of your post, I pushed my speed up to 60 as I whizzed past him.

It got me pretty far - and about 9% faster than I would have before.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Did this today - just for you. Was driving down the highway, when I saw a state cop up ahead. I was going 55 in a 55 and, in honor of your post, I pushed my speed up to 60 as I whizzed past him.

It got me pretty far - and about 9% faster than I would have before.[/QUOTE]

Haha you are one weak-willed son of a bitch. I really don't want you to break the law, I was just making a point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top