Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 12 Oct '15 08:57 / 1 edit
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=20&v=-W6G_ndFVMY

    It looks at the funny way the pro-lifers describe every life as precious when talking about abortions (how to stop people from getting them) but lose their passion when talking about guns.

    they expect laws limiting abortions to actually decrease the number of abortions, but won't allow that limiting people getting guns might decrease the number of shootings.
  2. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    12 Oct '15 09:11
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=20&v=-W6G_ndFVMY

    It looks at the funny way the pro-lifers describe every life as precious when talking about abortions (how to stop people from getting them) but lose their passion when talking about guns.

    they expect laws limiting abortions to actually decrease the number of abortions, but won't allow that limiting people getting guns might decrease the number of shootings.
    I'm prolife, and I also believe giving people the ability to defend themselves is also a
    matter of being pro-life. I imagine all the lives lost in abortions far outnumber the lives lost
    to even bad guys and good guys using their weapons on people combine. I wonder if
    abortion deaths out number some of the deaths we have seen in some of our wars too?
  3. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    12 Oct '15 10:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=20&v=-W6G_ndFVMY

    It looks at the funny way the pro-lifers describe every life as precious when talking about abortions (how to stop people from getting them) but lose their passion when talking about guns.

    they expect laws limiting abortions to actually decrease the number of abortions, but won't allow that limiting people getting guns might decrease the number of shootings.
    The irony (hypocrisy) goes far deeper.

    For instance "The US is one of only three countries left in the world that do not guarantee paid maternity leave. The others are Papua New Guinea and Oman.

    The closest thing we have is the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which became law in 1993 and allows qualified employees to take 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for specific family and medical reasons. Having a baby, or caring for an adopted child, falls under this category.

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 12% of Americans have access to the paid parental leave, which is considered a benefit by employers. Only 5% of low-wage earners receive paid maternity leave. Paid parental leave policies remain up to individual employers."


    http://www.techrepublic.com/article/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-maternity-leave-in-the-us/

    For a country that makes so much hype about its "family values", that is very revealing. "Family values" have nothing to do with supporting families and everything to do with promoting authoritarian, divisive and intolerant attitudes. If the American Christian fanatics cared about reducing rates of abortion (and they don't) they would do more for pregnant women but they are, of course, no more than a front for the plutocracy and its neoliberal agenda.
  4. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    12 Oct '15 10:36
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I'm prolife, and I also believe giving people the ability to defend themselves is also a
    matter of being pro-life. I imagine all the lives lost in abortions far outnumber the lives lost
    to even bad guys and good guys using their weapons on people combine. I wonder if
    abortion deaths out number some of the deaths we have seen in some of our wars too?
    If you were prolife after a baby was born, would you not be concerned about the society it was growing up into that was so paranoid about defending itself, that maybe, just maybe, if that society were to embrace attitudes that narrowed the gap between the haves and have nots, then maybe people in that society would be just a tad less concerned about other people coming to get their stuff, and then the right to bear arms would be there to defend against tyranny and not against other people?
  5. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    12 Oct '15 10:50
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I'm prolife, and I also believe giving people the ability to defend themselves is also a
    matter of being pro-life. I imagine all the lives lost in abortions far outnumber the lives lost
    to even bad guys and good guys using their weapons on people combine. I wonder if
    abortion deaths out number some of the deaths we have seen in some of our wars too?
    Never mind your distractions about foreign wars. I wonder how infant deaths in the USA arising from inequality and the poverty of health service provision compare with rates of abortion? Is it really the "unborn child" you are concerned with here or is it not, rather, your intolerant and oppressive ideology you want to push down our throats.

    A country like Holland manages to have good, non-judgemental abortion services alongside lower rates of abortion compared with those in America. If what you cared about really was in fact the rights of the child, born or otherwise, you would want to copy European policies and I don't mean the Irish policy, where abortion rates are relatively high despite a total ban.

    The second rate American performance on infant mortality does not get the attention of our Christian bigots, who care nothing for the lives of (poor or working class) infants, only for their authoritarian, anti-women "Family Values" hypocrisy:

    A recent working paper from the National Bureau for Economic Research suggests that high infant mortality in the US is a problem that disproportionately affects poor women with infants who are between a month and a year old.

    Infant mortality rates in the US are 3 deaths per 1000 greater than in Scandinavia, and the reasons for that are still not very well understood. The authors of this study looked at microdata from the US, Finland, and Austria, and found that the differences in infant mortality between the US and the two European countries are almost entirely accounted for by looking at infant deaths between the first month and the first year after birth.

    Cumulative infant mortality rates are higher in the US at every stage — at birth, in the first month, and in the first year — but the authors find that the differences are relatively small in the first two time periods (the US is actually just a touch ahead if you isolate outcomes between the age of 1 week to 1 month). Then it goes downhill. The study finds that "despite starting with very similar conditions at birth and the same neonatal outcomes, Austria vastly outpaces the US starting at 1 month of age." In an appendix, the authors did a similar study using data from the UK and Belgium and found very similar results.

    The authors think the cumulative difference in rates, therefore, have less to do with acute health problems just after birth and more to do with SIDS, sudden death, and accidents.

    The data suggests that the higher infant mortality in the US comes almost entirely from the deaths of babies born to poor women. Once they broke down the data into income and education levels the researchers found that, somewhat unsurprisingly, the infants of well-off, educated white women are just as likely to survive as their counterparts in Europe. They also found that the data was unchanged if they excluded black infants from the US sample (n.b. there is a documented black-white gap in infant mortality rates, but the authors find that it doesn't seem to be a mechanism here).

    Thus, the conclusion is that this is about class. Poor women in the United States see their infants die at an alarming rate, given the medical technology available in this country. ...

    ... The authors don't get into who should pay for this, but it's likely not a coincidence that these European countries have robust public healthcare systems.


    Actually the authors (this is Business Insider dot com for heavens' sake) run scared of their own findings but it is clear that the evidence is hard to get away from.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/why-infant-mortality-higher-in-us-than-europe-2014-10?IR=T
  6. 12 Oct '15 12:23
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=20&v=-W6G_ndFVMY

    It looks at the funny way the pro-lifers describe every life as precious when talking about abortions (how to stop people from getting them) but lose their passion when talking about guns.

    they expect laws limiting abortions to actually decrease the number of abortions, but won't allow that limiting people getting guns might decrease the number of shootings.
    I'm pro choice and pro gun restriction but I'm not sure why you seem to believe a position on the abortion issue should mandate your position or gun issues.
  7. 12 Oct '15 12:24
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I'm prolife, and I also believe giving people the ability to defend themselves is also a
    matter of being pro-life. I imagine all the lives lost in abortions far outnumber the lives lost
    to even bad guys and good guys using their weapons on people combine. I wonder if
    abortion deaths out number some of the deaths we have seen in some of our wars too?
    " I also believe giving people the ability to defend themselves is also a
    matter of being pro-life."
    that's like saying war is pro-peace. someone's peace. after the war ends.

    "I imagine all the lives lost in abortions far outnumber the lives lost
    to even bad guys and good guys using their weapons on people combine."
    the number of deaths in many areas are fewer than the number of abortions. you still implement safety measures though.

    the debate is how pro-lifers (most are also pro guns) don't trust women to not get abortions but they trust all people with guns.
    when there is a mass shooting no prolifer talks about banning guns, just that we need to take better care of insane people (though no conservative actually does anything about that either).
  8. 12 Oct '15 12:28
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I'm pro choice and pro gun restriction but I'm not sure why you seem to believe a position on the abortion issue should mandate your position or gun issues.
    if pro-lifers would practice what they preach, they should by default be the most anti-gun, anti-war activists.

    every life is sacred? then no more guns and no supporting wars.
    people's rights are sacred and we shouldn't do anything to restrict them? how about a woman's right to choose?
    a fetus is a living human being deserving of life? how about after it's born? doesn't it deserve not to starve? doesn't it deserve education? doesn't it deserve a safe environment?
  9. 12 Oct '15 13:25
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    if pro-lifers would practice what they preach, they should by default be the most anti-gun, anti-war activists.

    every life is sacred? then no more guns and no supporting wars.
    people's rights are sacred and we shouldn't do anything to restrict them? how about a woman's right to choose?
    a fetus is a living human being deserving of life? how about after ...[text shortened]... t it deserve not to starve? doesn't it deserve education? doesn't it deserve a safe environment?
    Does it go both ways? If you are for gun control because you believe it is more important to protect lives than worry about the right to own gun, are you mandated to then be pro-life because it is more important to save the life of the fetus and ignore all other factors.
    It's clearly wrong to think that everyone needs to frame all issues the way you do and then answer them in a manner which you personally believe is consistent.
  10. 12 Oct '15 13:35
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Does it go both ways? If you are for gun control because you believe it is more important to protect lives than worry about the right to own gun, are you mandated to then be pro-life because it is more important to save the life of the fetus and ignore all other factors.
    It's clearly wrong to think that everyone needs to frame all issues the way you do and then answer them in a manner which you personally believe is consistent.
    "Does it go both ways?"
    it doesn't. being pro gun control doesn't lead to considering a fetus and actual human being and not the non-autonomous organ living inside a human being.

    on the other hand, considering a fetus a human life , so precious and worth protecting that you want to restrict people's rights over it, then it should follow that you should consider restricting people's "right" to bear arms to protect as many precious lives (the fact that i don't consider it a right in the first place is not relevant here)
  11. 12 Oct '15 13:57
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "Does it go both ways?"
    it doesn't. being pro gun control doesn't lead to considering a fetus and actual human being and not the non-autonomous organ living inside a human being.

    on the other hand, considering a fetus a human life , so precious and worth protecting that you want to restrict people's rights over it, then it should follow that you shou ...[text shortened]... ecious lives (the fact that i don't consider it a right in the first place is not relevant here)
    Your certainly entitled to your position, but I personally see no logic in your insistence that if a person votes one way on one issue then they most vote one way on another issue. Furthermore people, I imagine, could be pro-life or against gun control for a whole host of reasons and their views could be coherent even if it does not match your over simplistic version of these issues.
  12. 12 Oct '15 14:12
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Your certainly entitled to your position, but I personally see no logic in your insistence that if a person votes one way on one issue then they most vote one way on another issue. Furthermore people, I imagine, could be pro-life or against gun control for a whole host of reasons and their views could be coherent even if it does not match your over simplistic version of these issues.
    "I personally see no logic in your insistence that if a person votes one way on one issue then they most vote one way on another issue."
    must? of course not. but depending on the motives invoked when voting on a certain issue one can be a hypocrite if he conveniently forgets those motives on a different issue.
    if you are a vegetarian because you don't agree with cruelty against animals then wearing furs and leather shoes makes you a hypocrite.
  13. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    12 Oct '15 14:14
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I'm prolife, and I also believe giving people the ability to defend themselves is also a
    matter of being pro-life. I imagine all the lives lost in abortions far outnumber the lives lost
    to even bad guys and good guys using their weapons on people combine. I wonder if
    abortion deaths out number some of the deaths we have seen in some of our wars too?
    You're pro-life???
    What the hell does that make me? Anti-life????

    If ever a term was nonsensical and totally misplaced, it's pro-life.
    Anti-abortion is what you should be called.
    Or anti-woman's choice to do with her body as she pleases... I can go with that one too.
  14. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    12 Oct '15 14:22
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=20&v=-W6G_ndFVMY

    It looks at the funny way the pro-lifers describe every life as precious when talking about abortions (how to stop people from getting them) but lose their passion when talking about guns.

    they expect laws limiting abortions to actually decrease the number of abortions, but won't allow that limiting people getting guns might decrease the number of shootings.
    Your post contains too much logic for the American brain to comprehend.
  15. 12 Oct '15 14:56
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    if pro-lifers would practice what they preach, they should by default be the most anti-gun, anti-war activists.

    every life is sacred? then no more guns and no supporting wars.
    people's rights are sacred and we shouldn't do anything to restrict them? how about a woman's right to choose?
    a fetus is a living human being deserving of life? how about after ...[text shortened]... t it deserve not to starve? doesn't it deserve education? doesn't it deserve a safe environment?
    If consistency is what you demand you could insist on the libertarian point of view. They believe abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state and have the consistent view that the right to own a weapon is an individual's right and that we should repeal all gun control laws.