Your position on abortion

[Cashcow]

Strongly pro-choice with the serious exception of partial-birth abortions. I am somewhat undecided on that issue, though it should be legal if the mother's life is in danger.

And I honestly can't believe there are those who would ban abortion even in a case of rape because "it's not the child's fault". The woman has MONTHS before it becomes anything more than a clump of cells!

Thank you Arlen Specter.

[Cashcow]

If you then feel that life is started at conception, but still allow abortion

I don't feel that way. Many others don't feel that way. You must take into consideration that the country is split over what exactly a human IS, and therefore a "birth line" cannot and should not be drawn.

[Cashcow]

Against abortion in all cases except life of the mother, although I respect any woman who would sacrifice her life for her child's - so I am on the fence there.

So you've gone completely insane?

[Cashcow]

Against abortion in all cases except life of the mother, although I respect any woman who would sacrifice her life for her child's - so I am on the fence there.

So you've gone completely insane?

Yeah, I really can't repect a view that doesn't include rape as an exception.  It's just insanity to think a mother should be forced to bear a child that she was physically forced into conceiving.

I have to agree with Jake here.  I don't see why it should matter how the child was conceived.

I feel bad for the emotional effect to the mother, but even worse about the child not being brought to term.

I knew you were an idiot and a fascist, but not a rabid misogynist. I thought that was resevered for Dazzleman.

[Cashcow]

This thread is stunning. Even Keystone Phil, the staunchly Republican Santorum supporter, at least exhbits basic sanity.

Denying abortion to a woman who was raped may be the most horrendous idea I've ever heard, and in no way does it constitute a respectable position. As I understand it, Alcon used to be moderately pro-choice, but now that he's drifted into Jake territory on both economic and social issues - over the period of six months I might add - one can conclude that he is changing his positions solely on the basis of peer acceptance.

Edit: If you don't care, then you shouldn't support radical positions!

[Cashcow]

I knew you were an idiot and a fascist, but not a rabid misogynist. I thought that was resevered for Dazzleman.

Pro-life = misogynist? You are a half-baked dunce.

Pro-life in rape cases = misogynist

Pro-life in normal cases doesn't bother me

[Cashcow]

Being that the majority of this board is pro-choice, that doesn't make a lick of sense.  In fact, if I again drifted back to being pro-choice, you probably wouldn't care, even though that's the majority opinion, because you agree with it.

Actually, I would, and once the Republicans stop having wet dreams about your instant metamorphosis into a "libertarian-leaning conservative," I suppose that is what you will do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your new and poorly constucted positions are based more on statistics than logic. Before you form such a radical opinion, you always must take into account how it will affect every single human being. Prioritize. Which do you value more, the well-being of a woman who has just gone through a terrible and life-threatening experience or the continuance of a pregnancy that begins (and usually is terminated) with a small clump of cells?

I don't think you ever stop to think about how your ideal government would affect the average person. Rape has been described as one of the most tragic experiences imaginable. I see no need to psychologically rape the subject again.

You have also failed to mention necessity of education.

Essentially, everything Boss Tweed said. I cannot respect your position and have lost a great deal of respect for you in general (yes, there was some).

[Cashcow]

This thread is stunning. Even Keystone Phil, the staunchly Republican Santorum supporter, at least exhbits basic sanity.

I have struggled, and still do struggle, when it comes to abortion and rape. To be against abortion even when some is rapped is not insane.

Perhaps not insane, but in my opinion, unacceptable. I am glad that you have the guts to let it slide for the greater good - yet another reason why I like you.

Being that the majority of this board is pro-choice, that doesn't make a lick of sense.  In fact, if I again drifted back to being pro-choice, you probably wouldn't care, even though that's the majority opinion, because you agree with it.

Actually, I would, and once the Republicans stop having wet dreams about your instant metamorphosis into a "libertarian-leaning conservative," I suppose that is what you will do.

I'm not really a libertarian-leaning conservative, and I certainly hope that my politics haven't been any wet dreams.

I will be fair and say that the board did influence a lot of my changes.  But you have to understand that I grew up in a house with two near-socialist parents, near-socialist friends, in a near-socialist neighbourhood.  I never got exposed to the ideas until I came to the Forum.

I'll give you economics. I can understand that. But what is there to learn about social positions? What is so complicated about abortion rights?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not necessarily speaking about abortion here, it includes economics (even though I AGREE with you one that!).

Statistics might prove abolishing welfare to be good for the economy, but what happens to some of the less fortunate impoverished Americans? It might be good to save "lives" in every circumstance, but what is the aftermath? You seem to ignore the second question on most issues, and in that sense I believe your philosophy has regressed significantly. Always think of the consequences.

And it's OK to change your mind on issues, Alcoun, everyone does. Especially on this one - the world is still changing, and with it, these subjects. It's your new attitude that bothers me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is never irrelevant. If you are really pro-life, you should put equal thought into quality of life, and that is when you must weigh the options.

I will invariably have a lot of respect for you. However, this issue makes me so sick that I generally avoid abortion debates altogether.

[Cashcow]

If you are really pro-life, you should put equal thought into quality of life...

I don't see that there is necessarily any particular dilemma here, as you might suggest. If a fetus has the right to life, then it has the right to life--there is no place for equivocation here, in my opinion. It could be argued that the right to life is so fundamental, that even if that life may not be of a good quality, no one else has the right to take it away.

I'm trying to avoid that...

But you're right. I simply believe that it is more practical to explore the aftermath of every single issue, even after one has made up one's mind.

The reason I never bothered to understand abortion issues and think about it is frankly because it was the one thing I felt downright uncomfortable about talking to my parents about, because - well - my dad feels very strongly about this and he feels that nearly any pro-life stance (to any degree!) is disrespectful to women.  So, to be honest, I avoided thinking about it, but recently I've realised that I should not simply do that to avoid awkward conversations.

You must first understand that abortion is a political issue. It is abused for votes and money; few non-feminists actually put a great deal of thought into this, but because of its dominance in social politics, we must take our positions. We must think them over with a great deal of care and caution.

Forget whatever your father is saying. You have long ago reached the age and maturity at which you should be able to either:

a) Ignore his views

or

b) Hold a civilized political discussion, which I still do with my mother from time to time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, research every position. Understand how it affects the common citizen. This is why I'm not a true economic conservative; I support "taxation for the common good" in more circumstances than, say, Philip.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reactionary liberal is technically a contradiction in terms, isn't it?

I am reminded of your enthusiastic support for Democratic presidential candidates. However, it seems like you are ashamed to throw your support behind anyone, just discuss various issues in "safe" positions. Until now, I have yet to see you take an opinionated stance on anything - and today it happens to be something that I sincerely object to.

[Cashcow]

But you're right. I simply believe that it is more practical to explore the aftermath of every single issue, even after one has made up one's mind.

I suppose that this debate could be cast as a part of the larger idealism v. pragmatism debate.

Exactly

I appreciate the advice in regards to discussion with my family, but it was clear from my post that I have already followed it, so there's no need to lecture me on that.

I'm not "lecturing" anyone. And I don't EVER judge on the basis of age, or, unlike a certain member who will remain anonymous, credentials of one's college taken from the Princeton Review.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does that apply to abortion? This has nothing to do with big or small government - in fact, most libertarians are pro-choice to a degree, so you should definitely take that into consideration.

I am not arguing against conservative politics. I am arguing against lack of foresight. They are sometimes one and the same, but so is liberalism, this is just the ideology you have chosen to pursue. Welfare was simply an example. There are probably plenty of things you support based on "discussion," as stated, and this should be avoided.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There exists a difference between having an opinion and being opinionated (on a given issue). I have yet to meet anyone who does not possess opinionated stances, sometimes even flaunt them, especially on a debate forum - which is why your "safe" arguments tend to be confusing.

[Cashcow]

No, you misunderstood.  I was giving an example of where pragmatism is not necessarily entirely desirable.  I do not always believe the government should do what's least/best for a group.  In this case, I support something that is not least.  I do not care whether that's in line with libertarian ideals.

I was not really suggesting that you adhere to the libertarian platform, mostly that your argument in that passage did not even apply to this thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basing your stances and opinions on discussions with Philip.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When reading many of your posts, I get the impression that you are more concerned with "forum justice" than actually presenting an argument or position. In other words, debunking and nitpicking the stupid ideas of others while pointing out various aspects of the subject that everyone can agree on. They are wordy and uninformative. I do not enjoy reading them.

Of course, that's exactly what I'm doing right now, only no one agrees with me

For example:

Hillary Clinton does not hate freedom - she disagrees with a certain freedom that you believe should be legal.  Murder is also a freedom.  It is all a matter of subjectivity.

A prude?  Who cares.  I honestly don't care about her motivation, and I won't make a decision on whether she is prudish or not.  I don't think many people agree that everything in GTA is entirely unobjectionable, but that does not make them prudes.  I don't like the idea behind GTA, but I don't think the government should be enforcing standards of decency anyway.  To me, it is irrelevant whether it is prudish or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have a right to bother the forum mod whenever I want.

[Cashcow]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basing your stances and opinions on discussions with Philip.

Why? One may certainly disagree with Philip's opinions, but surely, if he brings up a good point in the course of a discussion, one ought to take it into account.

I'm kidding, Emsworth. Philip is my pal.

[Cashcow]

I must point out, though, that reading through a few pages of your posts, you pretty much spend your time doing the exact same thing, although your posts are more brief.

And a disturbing number of them contain my name. 

Surely I am not actually trying to be informative with 99% of my posts; however, when I take the time to compose a coherent argument, you'll understand my positions.

"Hillary is an OK gal" is not an argument.

[Cashcow]

Evidently, you're not taking much time for coherency here, because you're not making much sense to me.  Then again, I'm a moderator, so what do I know.

What is there to not understand about having opinions vs expressing them (or being opinionated)?

[Cashcow]

That post does express an opinion, but apparently it's not an opinion that is sufficiently "opinion-y" to you?

Essentially, yes. It's not saying anything, and although it may give the impression that you are consistently just and impartial, posts like that do not interest me. I learn nothing about the issue at hand, I learn nothing about your opinions and I learn nothing about your character.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NO! You are missing the point. These are two separate criticisms.

[Cashcow]

But you're right. I simply believe that it is more practical to explore the aftermath of every single issue, even after one has made up one's mind.

I suppose that this debate could be cast as a part of the larger idealism v. pragmatism debate.

Exactly

Of course (if you care to know my view) there is no such thing as "pragmatism" that is distinct from "idealism." Pragmatism claims to base itself on whatever is "best" for everybody--but this itself is a moral principle. It is accordingly a different form of idealism.

Therefore, the position that "women should be allowed to have abortions in the case of rape" is only a moral position, not (in my opinion) a "pragmatic" one.

Clearly, I agree, and I don't see how one couldn't. Our views are relative; what is pragmatic to me may be idealistic to another, but surely many of our positions are based on common morals, and are considered pragmatic only because they are ordinary.

Alcon's abortion position on rape cases is unacceptable to me. I do realize, however, that I am not necessarily being practical in believing that.

[Cashcow]

I understand this criticism.  Frankly, though, I can apply the same to you - I had to go to page 18 of your posts to find any post longer than a few sentences that wasn't part of a word game.

If you had to do that, you're still missing the point. My posts may be brief, but they are clear and concise; yours generally are drawn out, garrulous, and dull. I can infer almost nothing from your post on Hillary Clinton. There are thousands more like that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL!

If there's one thing I've never been accused of, it's being an attention whore. I guess you win that prize.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh huh.

[Cashcow]

I'm sorry for ruining this thread.

You can delete this conversation. I will permit it.