mooeypoo

Wow. Where do we start with the logical fallacy appeal-to-emotion Godwin's law super-salad....

Agreed completely. The kitty, totally. It has 9 lives.

There are also some people (women and men, though admittedly mostly women) who abuse the sexual harassment laws to get revenge or get advancements at work, suing (or threatening to sue) people due to false charges. There are also occasions of false rape charges. People abuse the law. That doesn't mean that there's no difference between sex and criminal sex. I see what you mean, Ringer, but I think this distinction is incredibly important to stress over and over again. ~mooey

Let me get this straight. The exploitation of women is due to the "It's just sex" maxim who you claim is vaunted by a group of girls. So, in other words, since women treat sex casually, they get exploited. Is this what you meant to say, or is this just a byproduct of what you were unsuccessfully trying to say? I mean, not that it's the first time I hear the "blame the victim" mantra, but this one's a relatively imaginative one. Kudos for that. I'll ignore the enormous generalization you seem to be making about women in general and their supposed exploitation in general, so we can concentrate on the crux of the blame issue. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, though, because of your earlier comment that: --is a perfect example for flawed logic. First, if you think that the difference between 'sex' and 'sex crime' is grey area even in principle, I would suggest you keep your genitalia inside your pants and never use them for sex, in fear you may accidentally be criminal with it. Second, this statement is not different than saying that the difference between using a computer and using a computer criminally is a grey area. It's not a grey area. Neither is violence or criminal sex. It's very clear, really. If it's not concensual, it's not legal. If it's with a minor it's not legal. If it's violent and hurt someone, it's not legal. No grey here. Not even shades of grey. 16 year old prostitution is legal? Where is this again? As far as I understand it, that's not supposed to be legal. Not because of prostitution necessarily (that's a different issue) but because they're minor. I'd like to get more details on this, seeing as you're using it as an example to show how your entire idea is correct. Proof or drop it, as we often say to science people. What is "sex positive bandwagon" and who are you to tell anyone what to do with their own genitalia? If I want to have sex with a woman, or a man, or two men and three women, it's my business. The only way you should care about it is if my act is hurting someone else. Which, unless you're considering having blueballs from not being able to join in "being hurt", is not hurting anyone. So. You seem to claim sex and criminal sex are too close together. That's scary. You seem to claim "positive sex" is bad. The solution is easy: don't practice it. You seem to claim that women bring about their own exploitation. I dare you to repeat this to a woman who's been raped. All three, in fact. And let me reiterate: If you don't see a big difference between sex and criminal sex, please keep you sex to your own hands, and stay away from others. Unbelievable. ~mooey

! Moderator Note Personal ad link removed.

What are you talking about? The bible is FULL of demeaning rules and regulations about women, from what time of month a man is allowed to touch her (and NOT touch her because she's "dirty" with something supposedly god gave her monthly) and up to the lovely fact that a raped woman is no longer pure, so the rapist must marry her otherwise she won't ever find a husband. The entire bible is about controlling sexual acts, women in specific. Those are quite consistent religious arguments, wouldn't you say?

Well, the way to test it is easy: give us an example of a good religious argument for it I think that point was unclear, then, but regardless, I think that it's probably a mix of both. The subjucation of women probably has a lot to do with the "regulation of sex" but it's not strictly that, seeing as there are societal and religious laws and customs about women staying home to deal with the children and house, while the big manly man has freedom to do as he pleases, for the supposed purpose of being the of the family. ~mooey

"You guys" who? Considering we're mostly from different countries, different genders, different ages and different social status background, I am having a bit of trouble identifying who "you guys" are. That and, of course, the lovely ad hom. But we'll skip that one 'till we identify who exactly you're trying to attack. Female sexuality is easier to contol...? I beg your pardon? do you mean that women are easier to control in a patriarchal male-dominated society and in a patriarchal male-dominated households? That might make a bit more sense, but works against your argument. Then again, abortions have nothing to do with sexuality, or the "control thereof" of sexuality of women. Last I checked, both men and women contribute to the event that might necessitate abortion, but I might have to review my biology booklet. Whatever male 'instincts' you're refering to, I am hopign they're not some reference to rape, seeing as rape was longlong proven to have nothng to do with sex and everything to do with control. So, in short, wtf are you talking about? As for the subjucation of women, well, let's think what would happen if MEN would be in this place instead of women..

! Moderator Note Since this is not mainstream science (to say the least), the thread is moved to speculation.

Okay, sure. Then again, late-term abortions are a different issue in the ethical discussion here as well as in the law for that exact reason. I, for one, am pro choice, but am not too quick to be pro late-term-abortion. Those should be decided STRICTLY by medical opinion in case there's severe potential harm to the woman or baby otherwise (and barring any *very* special circumstances I might not be able to foresee, and why courts and medical committees are for). So.. early-term abortion is exempt from this 'baby is suffering' issue. Would that mean we can agree it's the woman's choice?

"Fetus" can only feel pain around 35 weeks after conception, or around 2-4 weeks before delivery. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fetus-feels-pain-37-weeks-study/story?id=14472566#.UIThr8XYFnE Which means the fetus does not feel pain during the time that is viable for abortion, the mother does not inflict suffering, and hence, your claim is irrelevant.

badjoke, can you tell us what you've already tried, and where you got stuck? We don't answer homework questions, but we'd love to help you get to the answer yourself.

Science seems to establish quite well that a blastocyst isn't life. That makes it nonlife, which makes your argument moot by definition. There's no need to go into your blatant disregard for proper discussion by strawmanning the argument to fit your own goals, you've already lost it in the first sentence. Are we going to have a logical argument about this, or are you just going to spit on us and call us murders until we give up on the thread completely?

That's what I said, it's designed to shoot tanks, which means that if it shoots people, it kills them without a doubt. Unlike a gun, where if you know how to use it you may choose to either kill or "just" injure. Well, I was a Lieutenant in the military, dealing with guns on a personal loving level. But yeah, what do I know. You said "IF X, then Y" Your X turned out to be not-so, by your logic, it should be not-Y. Hence, "if the guns are not designed for shrapnel" --> they might not be DESIGNED to produce shrapnel, but unless you want to claim to me that individual people are going to shoot tanks on an individual level, then they were not meant to be shot directly AT people (without a tank) and when they are shot at people (without a tank) the only reason you would say there's no "shrapnel" is because the human shrapnel is soft and squishy. I might not be anti guns (which I am not) but your logic in this case really doesn't follow, Anders. Are you really saying anti tank weaponary is okay to be bought in a store? If so, then your initial "if .." conditions should be ammended, since those guns fail on them. When the Zombie apocalypse come, do what Milla did, and break into the abandoned police station to take your fill of weapons. Until that happens, I would much rather people don't get access to these unless they have proper training, which in the case of anti tank and armor-piercing weapons, it takes A LOT of training, as well as lack of any dissernable PURPOSE. They're clearly not for self defense. You can say that about everything with equal amount of lack of logic. For instance, it's illegal to commit theft. But when the Zombies come ad there is a block on the immediate supply of water and food, it may be necessary to go to your local Zombie-infested supermarket and steal some bottles of water. By your logic, we should already allow people to steal bottles of water RIGHT NOW, because god knows what might happen in the future. This is again where I leave you to your ranting. No one said "central government" and (SURPRISE) the people who might be against automatic assault rifles or anti-zombietank missiles might not be anti weapons in general, or for a central malignant government. This is just a huge strawman that's extremely not useful. If you know wha you're doing, you can make a gun from anything. That's not the issue here, just like it's not the issue of banning guns to prevent criminals from having them since CLEARLY criminals will not listen to any ban law. The issue is selling a shoot-ready (and having the ammo on the side is still shoot-ready) weapon for people who have no need for the particular weapon (OVERKILL!) and are not TRAINED to use the weapon. Do you know why "anti tank" weapons are usually the job of two or three particular soldiers in a platoon? Because they take extra training on how to properly and effectively use them. Even to soldiers who know how to use guns, know how to do tactics, and shoot actual bad guys with actual guns. You're making no sense. Yes, but Phi, when the Zombies come, it might happen, so we have to get ready for it RIGHT NOW!

Well, if you know, it must be true. Anders, you have a tendency to state bombastic claims as your opponents' claims just so it's easier for you to argue against, and then generalize positions to make a point. Those two are fallacies that turn any argument void. So, please stop doing that. Thanks. Oh, and my points about the gun which by your logic should be banned, despite the fact you seem to note it should be legal, still stand unanswered. ~mooey

But they're not designed for that. In fact, they're designed for maximum shrapnel and damage. ... define "effective" ? They were meant to be used against Tanks, which would either make them ineffective against people because they're "overkill" or too effective against people because they'd live a red mist in their wake. Do you forsee the need for individual civilians to shoot tanks anytime before the Zombie apocalypse? So if the explosives were sold on the side to be purchased in the next store, that solves the issue? By what you're saying, these guns should be illegal. And yet your conclusion is that they shouldn't be.. Your logic is a bit choppy here. ~mooey

! Moderator Note You are not. And if you continue to insist, we will absolve you by suspending your account for violating our rules. Don't make things worse by answering this moderation note, zorro, we'll just start deleting those. I will remind you that you came to us, not vise versa, and as a result, you are obligated to go by our rules, not vise versa. Enjoy your stay.

! Moderator Note Zorro, in this forum you don't just assert, you claim and provide evidence to your claims. Proselytizing and preaching is against our rules. Please do not make things worse by replying to this moderation note.

! Moderator Note studiot, if you wish to discuss a topic you can start a new thread. There's a big blue button on the top right-hand side of thread lists in the sub forums. Do not continue derailing the thread into a different topic. This will be the last warning you get on the matter, so please don't make things worse by answering this moderation note. We're not really asking you, we're telling you, and we're trying to do that politely. Please read the rules you agreed to when you joined, and don't force our hands into moderation actions we are really trying to avoid.

No one plans abortion, chilled_fluorine. We went over this. And 'potential for life' would mean that whenever a man ejaculates, he commits genocide. Actually, it's even worse than them women; see, women's bodies are designed to expel the egg if it has not fulfilled its intended potential every month. Men's bodies are not designd with this function -- whenever a man ejaculates outside a woman's womb, it is his choice, and he commits murder. Are you against masturbation? Oh, and check out page 2 in this document: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf Abortions are a really tiny tiny tteeeeeeenny tiny percent of what Planned Parentood is *actually* doing. Another point of dogmatic propaganda won for some anti-women's-rights party.

Alright, that explains your position better, thank you. Now another question: what do you think of the "Abortion Pill"? This can only be used up to 9-weeks in (about 60 days) in a period of time where the blastocyst is, scientifically speaking, not even remotely close to anything resembling a human. Not only that, but the pill is blocking the hormone "Progesterone" - this prevents the lining of the uterus from forming to support a blastocyst, so the "potential life" has no time to become potential (let alone form into something we can call 'life'). In many ways, there's no difference between this pill and birth control, which does something very similar in process, the only difference being that the hormones are constantly present in the body and not just taken as a precautionary method after something might've gone wrong (say, a condom ripped). What's your view on this? Also, as a continued question - since this was a huge huge deal with the republican party not too long ago -- are you for removing Planned Parenthood from having a federal budget?

chilled_fluorine, are you supporting the republican party just because you can't stand the thought of supporting the other party, or do you support the republican party because you really believe in their ideals? Because the way you keep making excuses to why they claim X or Y or claim to believe in X or Y seems like it's more the former than it is the latter. And if that's the case, I'm not entirely sure what it is you're trying to argue at all...?

Home-made abortions are deadly. Women seek abortion when they require one (note, "REQUIRE", not "want") whether they are legal or not. When abortions are legal, they are generally safer. If you hold the stance that "If women are going to get abortions, I would very much prefer them to do it safely." as you quoted above, then I don't quite see how you could be against legalizing abortions. If you still are against legalizing abortions, please explain how that holds with this logic. ~mooey

Which is why that is not even remotely close to proving or claiming that God exists. That is a strawman, since that's not QUITE how a meter was declared or how asecond was verified, but even if it wasn't, that's a good example of failed logic. .... which is a great example for how your OWN arguments have so far failed the logic. Now that we're on the same page, I think we will be waiting for your next more logical claim. Also, my nice little visual claim (about women dying) was so far unanswered. It's a big point. Even if you abolish "pro life" you are not going to stop abortions, which clearly shows that women didn't just say to themselves "oh, yeepy, abortion is allowed and easy to get, I want me some!" and hence, clearly, women don't just "want" one. Sometimes, they need one, and clearly as history shows, they might do anything they can to get it. If you're truly "pro life", should you not support clear and proper regulations, so women who need this treatment can get it safely? ~mooey

Also, Whether we like it or not, that's a fact. We might as well make sure it's done safely and is being regulated so not "every woman who wants it" can just "have it" and potentially die from it. A better argument, for instance, would be to try and get potential abortion patients to go through some screening process to make sure they're choosing abortion for ethical and responsible reason. We can discuss THAT. But saying that banning abortions will "Save lives" is factually untrue not just because you can't define a blastocyst as life scientifically, but because women die from home-made abortions regardless of what laws are put in place. Reality. It is even when it sucks.