The Abortion (that is this) Thread

[AllShallFall]

Why are so many people incapable of grasping that anecdotes don't mean shit? Statistics get misused all the time but they're still generally far better than the dumb 'this isn't what I've experienced, must be lies!!!' responses that always seem to follow any claim.

What I said was not a dumb response, and I did not make a 'this isn't what I've experienced, must be lies!!!' point.

The point I made was that it's total bullshit to say that every child of a single mother will become a criminal. Even if a large amount do, you cannot say that all will.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

And do you agree with that? Do you believe the people that deal Jack Daniels should be charged with murder when people overdose on alcohol?

EDIT: In your link they're talking about homicide, not murder, btw.

I think a case can be made that it's manslaughter.

As for booze companies, there's a reason warnings and alcohol percentage labels are required. They're giving you a fair warning.

Now please stop avoiding my question explain once and for all how a man is not responsible for a consequence he is fully aware of before he has sex.

 

[rms]

How can you be such a staunch supporter of personal responsibility and then have that position on warning labels?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

How can you be such a staunch supporter of personal responsibility and then have that position on warning labels?

What do you mean? One has the right to be informed. If I want to be a responsible drinker, I need to know if my shot is 35% or 45%. A labbel doesn't contradict the responsibility of the company or the individual.

 

[rms]

Why is the onus of informing on the government/companies and not the individual?

Ingredients or Proof is not a warning label, saying that alcohol can harm babies in the womb or cause liver cancer or something is a warning label

 

[crimsonfloyd]

That's why I said "warnings and alcohol percentage labels."

As for why require warnings? Consumers have the right to be informed.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I think a case can be made that it's manslaughter.

As for booze companies, there's a reason warnings and alcohol percentage labels are required. They're giving you a fair warning.

Now please stop avoiding my question explain once and for all how a man is not responsible for a consequence he is fully aware of before he has sex.

Women have "fair warning" when they realize an unprotected dick is going inside them.

I'm not avoiding your question, I've answered you several times and you just keep repeating yourself. He can't be responsible for something he has no control over (fetus developing into a baby and subsequent parenthood over the baby).

 

[rms]

That's why I said "warnings and alcohol percentage labels."

As for why require warnings? Consumers have the right to be informed.

Well just because you repeat yourself doesnt mean you explained it.

But great, let's run with this. Men have a right to be informed if the woman they are having sex with intends on keeping the child in case of pregnancy.

Glad the case is over.

 

[Dak]

How can you be such a staunch supporter of personal responsibility and then have that position on warning labels?

He's not big on personal responsibility outside of this context, hence my Loki grin gif.

 

[rms]

I asked that earlier but he chose to ignore it, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt

 

[arg]

Corporations have taken away far more jobs then they've brought over the past few decades. Research the effects of outsourcing on the US economy. Research the number of jobs lost since NAFTA took effect. Then research the profits these companies have made and all the tax breaks they've been given. What exactly are they doing that we would be fucked without, other than helping out themselves?

you can't blame a corporation for outsourcing when it's more cost-effective. what would you do, shut down Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Google? what would America have to offer the world then?

Cut the bullshit. You have no respect for the people-many of whom are children- who are drained of their life force in oppressive, abusive and inhumane conditions that you couldn't fathom working in for even a single day. You "respect" teenagers that are worked into the ground for 12-23 hour shifts without water or bathroom breaks? They're objects to you and don't pretend like its otherwise.

i think they're fantastic. such tenacity, determination and work ethic. id buy them a beer. and China's one child policy... brilliant. why can't that be implemented here?

Ugh, fucking ignorant rhetoric that an idiot like you would buy into. "Vast majority"? According to the US Department of Health and Human Services 53% of welfare recipients are off welfare within two years. Only 19.6% are on welfare for more than five years. So shut the fuck up with your blind rhetoric, unless you feel like being exposed as a propaganda consuming clown over and over again.

sounds like bogus data fabricated by the welfare office itself to justify stealing money from the real hardworking americans.

More idiocy from you. There's no such thing as "devolution" within biology. Its a psuedoscience term that uneducated idiots use. You clearly don't understand the theory of evolution, so let me explain it to you. One is "evolved" if they are fit for their environment. One is defined as "fit for their environment" if they produce offspring that are capable of reproducing. Someone on welfare who has 5 children is far more fit than a billionaire who has no children.

stupid genes are passed on. ugly genes are passed on. these are irrefutable facts. reproduction for the sake of reproduction is bad because resources are not infinite, they are limited. more offspring consumes more resources. and if the demographic consuming those resources are pieces of shit with 0% productivity it will fuck over the entire population dependent on, and more deserving of, those resources.

also it's hilarious that you're so riled up

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Well just because you repeat yourself doesnt mean you explained it.

But great, let's run with this. Men have a right to be informed if the woman they are having sex with intends on keeping the child in case of pregnancy.

Glad the case is over.

Actually, I agree with you. If the man asks, the woman needs to answer honestly and visa versa. However, if niether partner initates the conversation, both are responsible. And if the woman changes her mind the man is still responsible (though he has a right to be frustrated). That's why it's important to know who you're fucking before you fuck them, at least if you want to avoid these kinds of situations.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

you can't blame a corporation for outsourcing when it's more cost-effective. what would you do, shut down Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Google? what would America have to offer the world then?

I'd argue that it's possible to find a healthy balance between profit and social responsibility.

sounds like bogus data fabricated by the welfare office itself to justify stealing money from the real hardworking americans.

No counter, as expected. Nothing will stop you from believing your hate-filled bullshit.

stupid genes are passed on. ugly genes are passed on. these are irrefutable facts. reproduction for the sake of reproduction is bad because resources are not infinite, they are limited. more offspring consumes more resources. and if the demographic consuming those resources are pieces of shit with 0% productivity it will fuck over the entire population dependent on, and more deserving of, those resources.

God you are so fucking uneducated on so many subjects. Referring to statements that contradict modern science as "facts". Get your time machine and come back from the 1800s. Neuroplasticity demonstrates that intelligence is malleable and one can change one's intelligence through changes in behavior. Furthermore, there are multiple intelligences and it's possible to be strong in one while weak in another, so there is no singular measure of intelligence.

Beauty is a subjective measure, so that you refer to it as a "fact" just goes to show how underdeveloped your critical thinking skills are.

 

[rms]

Actually, I agree with you. If the man asks, the woman needs to answer honestly and visa versa. However, if niether partner initates the conversation, both are responsible. And if the woman changes her mind the man is still responsible (though he has a right to be frustrated). That's why it's important to know who you're fucking before you fuck them, at least if you want to avoid these kinds of situations.

Jesus christ. It's impossible for you to blame a woman, isn't it?

"If the man asks" -- That's not what you just said. You said alcohol companies, in this analogy, women, have the right to inform their customers. And if they do not do it, then a higher power will force them to (federal regulations). Now there is no federal agency able to enforce women to do this, but the exact opposite works in this scenario where the higher power backs the women (alcohol) company versus the man (the common, less educated men).

You are arguing practicality vs. what should be, and that is not what any of us are saying.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

it's not an analogy at all nor should anyone try and make it into one. HBB asked me a question and I responded, but no analogy was intendes. In one case were talking about an entire industry vs. an induvidual. In the other case we're looking at an individual to individual interaction. I see no parallel.

It's relatively doable for the government to make major industries disclose information. If you want there to be a government institution people need to check in with prior to hooking up, go ahead and fight for it. However, it's evidently impractical and I feel absurd even saying it. So why try and compare apples and oranges?

 

[rms]

Again, we are not talking about practicality. That is a different discussion entirely.

How you are twisting this into a commodity vs. human aspect is mind boggling as that means nothing to this. The comparison of the scenarios shows a hole in your logic. In the alcohol scenario, you are for protection of the individual, as he can be manipulated by the market into not knowing the repercussions of his actions.

But when it comes to sex, you somehow differentiate your logic and go in another direction. With scenario A (alcohol) you would, by your logic, expect the woman to have "warning labels" about her interest in having a baby or STD and a man having labels as well about any STD's he would have. But, in your head, the man must tell the women he is STD-free/isn't, but the woman does not have to nor is not responsible for withholding her ideas about having a baby.

 

[Dak]

"Intelligence is malleable". Yes, but very limitedly. You aren't going to get a world class scientist out of someone with an 80 IQ. While there may be more than one type of intelligence, the one that IQ tests measure correlates significantly enough with an enormous range of outcomes such that the general contribution to society in terms of productivity, relational success, etc. can be very reasonably predicted. Clinging to the outliers or talking about the "contributions that aren't captured" are not going to win this argument, as those things do not matter for this argument.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

But when it comes to sex, you somehow differentiate your logic and go in another direction. With scenario A (alcohol) you would, by your logic, expect the woman to have "warning labels" about her interest in having a baby or STD and a man having labels as well about any STD's he would have. But, in your head, the man must tell the women he is STD-free/isn't, but the woman does not have to nor is not responsible for withholding her ideas about having a baby.

This is where you keep misunderstanding me over and over. From a moral perspective, I think both parties should be open about their reproductive desires, romantic desires and any risk of STDs. That responsibility falls equally on both partners. However, if neither party brings the topic up (which often people don't because it isn't sexy forepaly) then both parties have to live with the consequences of their "ignorance is bliss" attitude, whether that's a broken heart, a STD, or baby.

 

[rms]

This is where it makes no sense. You are talking as if abortion or Plan B does not exist. A woman has to make a conscious and deliberate choice to keep a child. The man has little to no part in that decision, but is financially responsible and arguably socially. You have never given an answer to that outside of "Women make decisions, men don't. Sorry bros, but wrap your dick up and deal with the consequences. Except women don't have to, because they have a financial safety net."

 

[crimsonfloyd]

"Intelligence is malleable". Yes, but very limitedly. You aren't going to get a world class scientist out of someone with an 80 IQ. While there may be more than one type of intelligence, the one that IQ tests measure correlates significantly enough with an enormous range of outcomes such that the general contribution to society in terms of productivity, relational success, etc. can be very reasonably predicted. Clinging to the outliers or talking about the "contributions that aren't captured" are not going to win this argument, as those things do not matter for this argument.

IQ can change a lot at a young age, which I would hypothisize demonstrates the importance of early education. It can vary to a lesser degree (around 5 points) in adulthood. And no, someone with an 80 IQ (borderline retardation) isn't gonna become a rocket scientist, but that doesn't mean they can't make a contribution to society.

Anyway, as far as I know, people with high IQs do not have more children on average, in which case high intelligence might not be an adaptable trait from a purely biological perspective while from an economic perspective it probably is. We need to be careful to distinguish the two domains. From a biological person who considers all the factors and makes extremely careful and calculated decisions might not be as well adapted to his/her environment as someone who is a little more impulsive, while the opposite is probably true from an economic perspective.