Where's the logic?

As my wife put it “For women, the Sanctity of Life is only good until puberty”. Once you reach breeding age you become chattel and are not worth squat except as a baby factory.

I always found it interesting how a bunch of men could sit around and think they have any right what-so-ever to tell women what they could do to their body. No ovaries=no opinion

What do you mean “think” @uberbatman? Here in Texas we, By God, know it!

Touché

@syz You are totally correct. There is seriously inconsistent logic among the anti-right-to-control-your-body types.
Good sex education classes are known to help reduce teen pregnancy rates.
Yet the same people who are anti-right-to-control-your-body supporters are usually the first to champion cuts to programs like that because they imagine they encourage kids to have sex moreor that not know ing anything at all about sex will help. But that’s incredibly ignorant on both counts because obviously sex is suggested in ads and tv shows and billboards and magazines and…

Throw into the mix that most anti-right-to-control-your-body are politically aligned with policies to cut pre-natal health care, post-natal health care pre-school (HeadStart), public schools of all kinds, food stamps.
You have a scene where folks who actually do care about fetuses are doped into voting for politicians who really don’t care about fetuses, or any other form of life, and who are going to be working to compromise every aspect of government that supports quality-of-life.

The basic problems are that people buy into sound-bite politics and don’t follow up with concern for what the elected congress critters are doing; and that politicians will do anything, say anything, to get votes, from anyone.

@syz writes “It’s more difficult for me to understand the point of view of those who feel they have some say over others’. Some of us believe that women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies and future.”

Pro-choice people don’t have any logical consistency either which is why a lot of people aren’t sympathetic to their cause, among other reasons, of course. They’re pro-choice for abortion, but don’t allow people to make monetary decisions for the present or future. You cannot choose to opt-out of welfare. You cannot opt-out of social security to go with a private pension, etc. Or how about choosing to have an assault weapon? Nope. Incandescent light bulbs? Nope. You’re not in a position to bring up logic.

And most importantly, if someone has to pay for someone’s abortion or contraceptives because they cannot afford it, then the person who is forced to pay, has every right to deny women the right to choose to have an abortion.

I’m pretty sure there are dudes out there who are definitely pro-abortion.

@exnick Your post makes no sense. But I’ll stick to the last portion; you don’t want to “pay” for a poor woman’s contraception or abortion (Oh, and by the way, um, I’ll pay for mine own, thanks.) Do you plan to pay for the child? They’re a hell of a lot more expensive (does that mean that if I “pay” for the child, I get to have say-so in how it’s raised?).

Really? What part makes no sense? I’ve listed examples where people are denied the ability to choose by the very people that demand the ability to choose where it suits them. How convenient.

I don’t plan to pay for the abortion, contraceptive or child. They can fuck-off equally. ’

If the child suffers, its the mothers fault. The blood is on the mothers hands. You’re not going to run a guilt trip on me.

Well there are several direction where the anti-right-to-control-your-body folks show logical inconsistencies. The “choice” vs government is one of them.
And @exnick has a bit of a point where “pro-choice” people are the same folks who are “anti-fatal-armament choice” and “anti-let-you-starve-to-death choice” and “anti-let-you-die-of-an-easily-treatable-contagious-disease choice”.

But the OP mentions specifically the cognitive dissonance of folks who insist people can’t have abortions because it’s “life” but who will work hard as hell to keep people from learning what they should to avoid pregnancy and who don’t give a shit about the life after it’s born.
However you come up with a moral argument for the unborn “life” you will have an argument to care for lives that are born.

If @exnick you are really interested in minimizing your government expenses you should be a big supporter of spending on free sex-ed classes and free contraceptions. Because whether you think so or not, unwanted kids will cost you orders of magnitude more, if not otherwise at least in prison expenses – which are HUGE in the U.S.

I agree. If people are against abortions, then they have to support contraceptives and welfare.

Unwanted kids will cost more only because we’re forced to support them when the mothers cannot. What you’re proposing is blackmail. Either you pay for preventative methods or you pay for it after. Either way, according to you, we taxpayers are forced to pay. You’re deliberately making an ultimatum that removes the ability to choose to not pay which is hypocritical for someone who is pro-choice on abortion. I don’t think like you. I’d support not paying at all, not before, or after. That is how I will lower my tax expenses.

Note the other examples of cognitive dissonance common amongst those who are pro-life, and you will see that there really isn’t much logic at all.

@exnick In other words, you propose anarchy. Everybody for themselves, no security beyond what you can provide for yourself, no safety nets, etcetera. In short, you want Afghanistan.If you are not an anarchist then you are conceding that some things are for the greater good. I doubt you would ever concede that though, so I will continue on with the assumption that you care nothing for society as a whole.

I would rather not pay either, but I am a realist, so I know that that isn’t an option unless we abandon the entire concepts of “society” and “civilization” and return to prehistoric times. Given that, the best option is to lower expenses, and contraception costs far less than a child.

@dabbler

Before you make an attack on the logical inconsistency of someone’s stances, you have to make sure your own positions are logically consistent. That’s all I’m saying. You just displayed my point by limited my choices to paying before or after. I must pay though. If you had given me the option to choose not to pay, then you’re logically consistent on a pro-choice stance, until then, you’re not.

@jerv

You have a different understanding of society then. You can still be a society and not pay for other peoples shit when they cannot afford it. You guys are obsessed with limiting choices to what you see fit.

I’m seriously going to laugh-my-ass-off if I see an abortionist pass moral judgements on me.

@exnick Quite possibly. Then again, I believe in compassion and empathy as well, while you seem to believe that personal freedom trumps EVERYTHING… or at least that your own personal freedom does; others are only free to agree with you and submit to your will. If I am wrong, please prove it. Don’t just refute it; prove it!

I also believe that there is always give-and-take, and that belonging to any society means that you must put up with things you don’t like in order to share in the benefits you do like. I like having the police come by when there is a shooting. I like having roads. I like many things about society… but I dislike many things about it as well. But it’s a package deal; you have to take the bad with the good.

Also, to be a part of society, you have to adhere to it’s norms. Those who don’t are either hermits or prisoners, neither of whom enjoy the benefits of society.

Well I disagree with you entirely. A one-shoe-fits-all morality is detrimental.

Compassion is not an automatic follow-up to empathy. You can get into a persons mind in the hopes of understanding him, but this does not mean that you need to feel love for him or care if he lives or dies.

You realize though, that you’re still attempting to justify your logical inconsistencies? There is no way out of that. Changing the subject won’t help.

Actually, that is what life is all about, the will to power. I won’t refute it, that is exactly it. There is a user here that expresses a lot of friedrich nietzsche thoughts. That is actually what brought me to fluther through a google search. Anyway, perhaps you’ll have a better understanding after you read this N’s morality

I am the antithesis of everything that you believe in.

Small table from the link…

Pro
Happiness
Altruism/Selflessness
Equality
Pity/Compassion

Con
Suffering
Self-love or self-interest
Inequality
Indifference to the suffering

Abortion is not about babies. That’s the first point. It has nothing to do with unborn or preborn or anything like that.

The abortion issue is ALL about power, in two ways:

a) The power of religion to dictate to people. (if people can choose to have an abortion, then they can choose not to believe in god. There goes the whole religion industry)

b) The power of men to rule women. The whole masculinity trumps femininity thing.

Babies are just an excuse to assert power.

@exnick I never claimed that compassion and empathy were linked, merely that I believed in both, but I have had just about enough troll-feeding for one day so I won’t press the issue.
It’s also obvious that your mind works so differently from mine that there is no way for me to effectively communicate with you; what I see as a web of connections, you see as mere non sequiturs and evasion while you focus on your small, narrow, simple view of reality.
Lastly, it doesn’t surprise me that you follow Nietzsche. However, it does disappoint me a bit insofar as the way you “came out” made you seem to wear that as a badge of honor in the same way a teen looking ot prove he’s a rebel tells people he’s a Satanist.

@elbanditoroso Entirely true. And it seems to be increasingly about political power as well. “You can’t put a baby-killer into office; vote for me instead!”

Resorting to ad-hominems? At least you’re no longer masquerading your weakness. Thank you for submitting to defeat. It was a pleasure.

This seems appropriate here link

Again, it is the hypocracy. It is not about the sanctity of life, It is not about the embryo, It is not about the “health” of the woman, it is about punishing women for being sexual creatures.
When you cut through all the crap the underlying belief system is:

1. People should not have sex except for procreation.
2. People should not enjoy sex when they do have it.
3. Men cannot control their urges so it is the womans responsibility.
4. Women can and should control themselves and men by refusing to engage in sex.
5. Because sex should only be for procreation children should be the natural outcome.
6. Since you did not control yourself, you deserve to be pregnant, your pregnancy is gods will. Regardless of your situation.
7. Abortion is the easy way out and that cannot be allowed, you must pay the penalty.
8. Having a baby will both punish you and teach you to follow gods law.

Odd thing is that the very people who are so sactimonious about how precious the life of the unborn is are the same ones who are adamantly self defense, shoot first, pro-war, anti-anything but our religion, no societal help for the poor and suffering, righteous god fearing fundamentalist zealots.
I

@exnick I’m not the one setting up options of whether or not you’ll pay, reality does that for us.
When you get to the point where you’re not paying for prisons, costs which will go up if noone is paying for abortions or child care or schools (and the enormous costs of which you have so far conveniently ignored), you’ll still be paying in direct costs of the impact of dysfunctional, diseased, and feral human beings on your doorstep.

If you’re interested in living in society that is the least bit civilized we have to collectively support it.
If you aren’t interested then quite complainin’ about government and move to South Sudan or South Yemen where there is approximately no government to impose its horrible agenda on you.

@rojo You forgot to mention that they have more than their share of sex scandals too.

@dabbler

Now you displayed your true colors. Stop me if I’m wrong, but you’re in essence saying that you’re a very weak individual who cannot fully sustain or fend for yourself and therefore you need people like me, who are much more evolved than you to help you out. That is the only explanation for why you would involve me in your worldly concerns.

If we don’t pay for prison, you’re afraid of getting robbed, killed, raped. Why would you be afraid? Your weak nature.

If we don’t pay for welfare, abortions, contraceptives, you’re afraid that mothers will be killing their children by being unable to support them. Welcome to reality. Perhaps mothers will think twice about whoring around with every guy out there when they see their dead child in their hands. They should go visit Africa, its like that there on a daily basis, except they do it for a potential evolutionary advantage. You have the same insecurities about education and I’m sure bunch of other ones.

You also rest your entire argument on a false conclusion. The only reason places in the world with “anarchy” continue to experience abundant amounts of famine, disease, violence, is because of external human intervention. That is not real anarchy. Anarchy doesn’t involve governments around the world pouring in, year by year, billions of dollars of financial aid, food, medicine. That is exactly why you do not see evolvement in such “anarchistic places”. All this artificial aid ensures the survival of those who have foot in the hierarchy and those who don’t. You also introduce mediocrity. You don’t evolve with peace, love, compassion, happiness”. Fending and suffering, produces excellence.

Real anarchy would be much more evolved than any society we live currently live in.

Btw, I can even prove my point by not going into the ideals of anarchism. Do a search on freedom indexes. The freer a countries categories were the more evolved it was over other countries. America use to be up there but people with your mindset took over and the decline continues.

When I say evolved, I mean quality-of-life, higher standard-of-living.

Oh yeah, and you’re still logically inconsistent, which was the topic at hand. Due to your weaknesses as a human being, what you see as costs (dysfunction, disease), you deny anyone the right accept the challenge of that path. Instead you limit choices through fear mongering and guilt trips to protect your insecurities.

@exnick Funny you should say that as that decline coincides with people who share your views gaining power.

It should be noted that we also deny small children the challenge of dodging traffic by keeping them from wandering into the street. Functional societies tend to be concerned for the safety and well-being of others, if for no reason other than expectations of reciprocity.

As for logical inconsistency, most of us here are humans, and humans are prone to acting on things other than pure logic. That tendency is practically a defining characteristic of humanity.

No, it declines for you, because you’re insufficient. An evolved person has no problem maintaining a foot in the hierarchy in any environment. Since you mentioned in other questions that you’re barely surviving in our current environment, barely making ends meet, it doesn’t surprise me that you’re terrified of a society that has no safety nets. The quality-of-life, the standard-of-living is just bad for you. Instead of taking your ball and going home, you piss on the whole game. The reason, as N puts it, is ressentiment.

Here is an example that displays your thinking. America offers some of the best services in the world, but your argument is that because a lot of Americans can’t afford it, it is pointless. This is the essence of your ressentiment. You resent the people who can afford it. You want to tear them down to your existence. De-volving.

No, I deny my children to play in traffic. Another parent would be careless, and that is why you see on the news reports of kids getting run over my cars. A parent’s carelessness is not my problem. I’m not looking to save every junky, bum, idiot in this world. Now that will progress to a functional society. A much more evolved society. You look to fight nature by creating artificial structures. That is nihilism.

Haha, now you’re taking pride in your illogical behaviors? “i’m just being human” You still wonder why you have problems in this world?

Logically, it would make sense to encourage and support contraceptives, education, abortions for people who are dumb and poor. It would be one less mouth to feed on welfare or prison and one less crime committed. Since at least 75% of the people in poverty, welfare, prisons, jails, probations, arrested are black and hispanic, extra efforts should be made among them.

But then again, this is all idealistic bullshit. It assumes theory can be effectively applied into practice. It undermines the thousands of years of ingrained human nature. Just look at former Soviet Union. They tried to create an environment that would cull out the ingrained human nature. That ended real well.

There is really good book by steven pinker called The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
I highly recommend it.

@exnick The irony is that you seek devolving back to prehistory, a time when freedom was absolute as there were no such things as laws or societal norms. The Ubermensch are cavemen!

@exnick “Real anarchy would be much more evolved than any society we live currently live in.”

Do you have any basis whatsoever for that claim? Do you know what anarchy is?

“Stop me if I’m wrong”
Stop, you’re wrong: “you’re in essence saying that you’re a very weak individual” no I’m saying I’m a normal individual.

Stop, you’re wrong: “you need people like me, who are much more evolved than you to help you out.” No, I so far have no reason to think you’re as evolved as I am or even that you know what that means, so I’m certainly not saying that. And I doubt I could rely on you just from the tone of your writing. You’re much more likely to put a shiv in me if you get the notion. But I do rely on plenty of other mature people in my society to keep the peace and help make life better than a constant survival challenge.

” That is the only explanation for why you would involve me in your worldly concerns.” I believe that’s the only explanation you can come up with. But it’s certainly not the only explanation.

“If we don’t pay for prison, you’re afraid of getting robbed, killed, raped. Why would you be afraid? Your weak nature.” If you call normal ‘weak’ then, yes. All the human beings in existence are vulnerable to robbing and killing and raping. Are you pretending to yourself that you are immortal?

Stop, you’re wrong: “If we don’t pay for welfare, abortions, contraceptives, you’re afraid that mothers will be killing their children by being unable to support them.” What?? You made that up. I wrote nothing of the sort.

Stop, you’re wrong: “You have the same insecurities about education and I’m sure bunch of other ones.” ‘insecurities’ ? I like civilization. Neglecting our collective potential threatens civilization. History bears that out, rather continuously.
I don’t really care if you consider my concerns for advancing civilization and maintaining civilization ‘insecurities’. But that and several of you other statements show you have such a weak philosophy that you have to rely on insults.

Stop, you’re wrong: “All this artificial aid ensures the survival of those who have foot in the hierarchy and those who don’t. You also introduce mediocrity. You don’t evolve with peace, love, compassion, happiness. Fending and suffering, produces excellence.” To only a point this is correct. Some human beings have noticed that along with all that unfortunate mediocrity you noticed there are opportunities to evolve in ways that are not possible in the feral situation you champion. It’s called civilization. It’s what happens beyond survival when given a chance.

So, please go ahead and explain to us all how: “Real anarchy would be much more evolved than any society we live currently live in.” If you can manage to do it with some facts and thinking instead of snarky inuendo, it’ll be worth reading.
It certainly seems that @jerv is correct, your idea of evolved is cavemen.

Maybe you have made the sad mistake of believing the juvenile and emotionally impoverished drivel that AynRand wrote. What would you do with yourself once you have triumphed over everything around you? You don’t know do you?

^^^ He won’t be answering you any time soon. Some moderator banned him. I’m trying to find out why right now.

@exnick has left the building. Returning troll.

^ Yes, I stopped feeding it some time ago.