Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex

Yea some people thought it was real.



/facepalm

People still get fooled by the Onion?

Good grief...

Monster Rain wrote:People still get fooled by the Onion?

Apparently so.

Besides, there's no way that is real, the number is too low.

I love you, Onion.

biccat wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:People still get fooled by the Onion?

Apparently so.

Besides, there's no way that is real, the number is too low.

I suppose that's better than the NYT just making up their stories.

A little.

Awesome! Now we know where Mat Ward's next codex will be printed.

Monster Rain wrote:

biccat wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:People still get fooled by the Onion?

Apparently so.

Besides, there's no way that is real, the number is too low.

I suppose that's better than the NYT just making up their stories.

A little.

I'll have you know that the New York Times has a rich and storied history of plagerism. And establishing a constitutional right to lie about people.

It's almost as if a large section of the American population itches for any excuse to get angry over the idea of women having sovereignty over their own bodies.


That'd be just plain silly though. Nobody would buy into an obviously fake article just because they were a misogynist.

The best one is the 6th one down.

Wake up America! Wake up and Repent.

Blacking out the names, psh.

How are these people ever going to be shamed into silence from their idiocy? Just another strike against facebook as a place where people just want to put up their unfiltered mouth-diarrhea.

Chongara wrote:It's almost as if a large section of the American population itches for any excuse to get angry over the idea of women having sovereignty over their own bodies.

That'd be just plain silly though. Nobody would buy into an obviously fake article just because they were a misogynist.

edit: NM. Not interested in doing this today.

"People who disagree with me are stupid and/or evil."

biccat wrote:
edit: NM. Not interested in doing this today.

"People who disagree with me are stupid and/or evil."

Aww, we'll all feel left out though.

I don't see what is wrong with merely having the choice...
If a parent doesn't want their daughter to have an abortion they should raise them knowing about safe sex.

An eight billion dollar center for the sole purpose of carrying out abortions in Topeka, Kansas and PEOPLE FELL FOR IT?

Since this thread is going the route of pro-life versus pro--choice, I might as well put my views on the table and call it a day. Pro-choice is the way to go due to the sheer amount of sense it makes. Not everyone can afford a newborn, and sometimes if they have the child, they end up throwing it up for adoption. So....why not give a woman the choice to do what she wants with her own egg?

daedalus-templarius wrote:Blacking out the names, psh.

How are these people ever going to be shamed into silence from their idiocy? Just another strike against facebook as a place where people just want to put up their unfiltered mouth-diarrhea.

That's FB doing a "Cover Their Ass" maneuver so they don't get sued.

I'm appalled.

Surely we can muster more than 8 billion dollars to secure ourselves from the threat posed by the unborn.

dogma wrote:I'm appalled.

Surely we can muster more than 8 billion dollars to secure ourselves from the threat posed by the unborn.

Exactly, just imagine if the Abortionplex has been there for Hitler's Mom, Pol Pot's, or Thomas Jeffersons!

biccat wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

biccat wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:People still get fooled by the Onion?

Apparently so.

Besides, there's no way that is real, the number is too low.

I suppose that's better than the NYT just making up their stories.

A little.

I'll have you know that the New York Times has a rich and storied history of plagerism. And establishing a constitutional right to lie about people.

They gotta do something to keep up with the washington post. Otherwise they get buried under the yellow.

Most of the facebook posters seem to be older in their years.... most likely don't realize that the Onion is a joke website and just skimmed the article before declaring it horrid.

They think abortion is murder..... therefore feel outraged.

Because they think abortion is murder, and because they have been fooled into outrage.... they are therefore misogynist and stupid?

Although these people are guilty of completely missing the point of the article and laziness (since they most likely skimmed it and did not bother to check the source), I must say some of them come off better than some of the posters I see here.

Just because they feel upset about something (remember these people think abortion is MURDER, not an issue of womens' rights) doesn't mean they are as "stupid" as some of the posters here make them out to be.

As much as I hate to say it, most of the posts in this thread are a lot more idiotic and intolerant than most of the Facebook posters.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm appalled.

Surely we can muster more than 8 billion dollars to secure ourselves from the threat posed by the unborn.

Exactly, just imagine if the Abortionplex has been there for Hitler's Mom, Pol Pot's, or Thomas Jeffersons!

Just curious, TJ is a bad person now?

Manstein wrote:
Because they think abortion is murder, and because they have been fooled into outrage.... they are therefore misogynist and stupid?

I don't know about stupid. Plenty of very intelligent people are misogynist, or racist, or homophobic or dangerously nationalistic or what have you. Yes, though framing abortion as murder is an anti-woman stance.

Just curious, TJ is a bad person now?

Well he was the person to introduce and drum up support for the Indian relocation act, which was really the first big genocidal policy the US government officially adopted. Though, to be fair the more credit probably deserves to go to Andrew Jackson who signed it into law and saw it executed with a vicious enthusiasm that would make most super villains blush.

Chongara wrote:

Manstein wrote:
Because they think abortion is murder, and because they have been fooled into outrage.... they are therefore misogynist and stupid?

I don't know about stupid. Plenty of very intelligent people are misogynist, or racist, or homophobic or dangerously nationalistic or what have you. Yes, though framing abortion as murder is an anti-woman stance.

So wait... thinking a fetus is a human being is inherently anti-woman? Sorry bud but that is just silly. People don't sit around and try to frame excuses to why they don't like abortion. They don't like abortion because they honestly believe a fetus is a living thing and that its death IS murder. That has absolutely zero bearing on if they are "anti-woman" or not and to say so is simply avoiding a logical argument. You seem to forget, there are plenty of women who are pro-life too.



Also, you should read some TJ, he actually really liked Indians and thought their culture was a pure and noble one that should be "absorbed" into white culture (whether or not that is wrong is a different story). Jackson on the other hand... well, yeah, he would have rather seen them dead

Manstein wrote:That has absolutely zero bearing on if they are "anti-woman" or not and to say so is simply avoiding a logical argument. You seem to forget, there are plenty of women who are pro-life too.

Condescension toward those women in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..

...And getting back to our ORIGINAL TOPIC...

People are sheep. Go Onion.

Double post

biccat wrote:I'll have you know that the New York Times has a rich and storied history of plagerism. And establishing a constitutional right to lie about people.

Thought you were talking about FOX news for a minute....
a newspaper does it and it's terrible. A whole news channel does it, and well, that's cool.
doesn't make sense.

Manstein wrote:
Because they think abortion is murder, and because they have been fooled into outrage.... they are therefore misogynist and stupid?

The argument here is twofold. The first part is that anyone who believes abortion is murder is stupid, because only stupid people believe abortion is murder. The second part is that people who believe abortion is murder generally want to prevent abortions from occurring, which means that said people tend to favor legal measures restricting abortion, measures which necessarily restrict female choice while not actually doing anything to help the "child". These measures are therefore misogynistic because they are about punishing women for promiscuity, and not actually "saving a life" as advertised.

Keep in mind I am not endorsing either position, merely explaining them. Though I do believe that some people who take a strident position on abortion really want to punish women, rather than "protect children".

Manstein wrote:
Just because they feel upset about something (remember these people think abortion is MURDER, not an issue of womens' rights) doesn't mean they are as "stupid" as some of the posters here make them out to be.

Acting in consistence with one's beliefs does not mean that you aren't stupid, indeed it may be that the opposite is true. Stupid people also believe things. Of course "stupid" is a blanket term with about as much weight as "smart", which is to say virtually none.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manstein wrote:
People don't sit around and try to frame excuses to why they don't like abortion.

Why not? People do that with respect to every other contentious issue, why not abortion?

Manstein wrote:
You seem to forget, there are plenty of women who are pro-life too.

You can be misogynistic and female.

The argument here is twofold. The first part is that anyone who believes abortion is murder is stupid, because only stupid people believe abortion is murder. The second part is that people who believe abortion is murder generally want to prevent abortions from occurring, which means that said people tend to favor legal measures restricting abortion, measures which necessarily restrict female choice while not actually doing anything to help the "child". These measures are therefore misogynistic because they are about punishing women for promiscuity, and not actually "saving a life" as advertised.

I think your separation of the argument is dead on, but your further conclusions are based on the wrong things. Refer to the first bolded statement - Laws preventing homicide are technically limiting the choice of all people and, by your logic, don't actually do anything to help "people." Since we are operating on the basis that a fetus is a life, preventing "its" destruction by means of anti-abortion laws is the same as preventing someone from killing you dead on the street by having laws that prevent homicide.

Second Bolded sentance:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny

Misogyny - a hatred, dislike or mistrust of women. Refer this back to my previous statement. Using the term misogyny in this context is wrong and only serves to undermine the credibility of the opposition. Although a very very small minority of anti-abortion activists might indeed have a hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, 99.9% do what they do because they think abortion is an act of murder.

These measures arn't about punishing women for their promiscuity, they are about saving what some people think is a human life. Essentially your statement infers that anti-abortion activists simply dislike the fact that these women slept around, and should be punished with the burden of a child. This, I am willing to bet, is false for the VAST majority of anti-abortion activists and to simply state that they are all "using it as an excuse" is side stepping the argument. Essentially you are refusing to believe that anyone else can consider abortion to be murder, because you yourself do not believe that is murder, therefor you must believe they secretly have other motives, because to acknowledge their viewpoint that abortion is murder as real, would force you to contemplate your own thoughts on the matter.

You are pretty good about getting to the very core of the breakdown of an argument dogma, but your logic has ironically failed you here.

Acting in consistence with one's beliefs does not mean that you aren't stupid, indeed it may be that the opposite is true. Stupid people also believe things. Of course "stupid" is a blanket term with about as much weight as "smart", which is to say virtually none.

You are correct, but that isn't the point. People here arn't calling the FB posters "stupid" because they think abortion is murder, they are doing so because of the persons vocal, and perceividly incorrect, beliefs. Their naivte in regards to actually believing an Onion column and not checking the source is a testament to a foolish action but the posters here arn't driving at that. No one said these people were inept because they couldn't check a source correctly, but rather, inferred they were they were inept because of their viewpoint.

Why not? People do that with respect to every other contentious issue, why not abortion?

I think you know what I mean.

You can be misogynistic and female.

Just look up, I have already established that the term is being used incorrectly here and relevant only as a "smear tactic."

Manstein wrote:
I think your separation of the argument is dead on, but your further conclusions are based on the wrong things. Refer to the first bolded statement - Laws preventing homicide are technically limiting the choice of all people and, by your logic, don't actually do anything to help "people."

I would contend that, no matter the rhetoric, abortion is not perfectly analogous to murder. At best, it is a particular type of murder which requires special consideration due to circumstance. Adults don't ride around in the womb on a daily basis. As such, the statements "abortion laws do not help fetuses" and "murder laws do not help people" are not directly comparable. And, to the extent that they are, it is a fairly simple thing to argue that murder law do not help people.

Manstein wrote:
Since we are operating on the basis that a fetus is a life, preventing "its" destruction by means of anti-abortion laws is the same as preventing someone from killing you dead on the street by having laws that prevent homicide.

Laws don't actually prevent crime, they punish the commission of crime, which might reduce the future incidence of it via institutional normalization, but will never stop any given person from deciding to take a criminal action.

Manstein wrote:
Using the term misogyny in this context is wrong and only serves to undermine the credibility of the opposition.

Yes, that's the point.

Anyway, if any given member of the pro-life movement holds his views due to misogyny then the use of the words to describe an indefinite number of people in that group is not wrong.

Manstein wrote:
Although a very very small minority of anti-abortion activists might indeed have a hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, 99.9% do what they do because they think abortion is an act of murder.

You have no proof of that, just as I have no proof that some pro-life people are misogynists. However, while I could probably find evidence suggesting that some pro-life devotees are indeed misogynists, you will be hard pressed to acquire evidence suggesting that 99.9% of the movement are not misogynists.

Manstein wrote:
Essentially you are refusing to believe that anyone else can consider abortion to be murder, because you yourself do not believe that is murder, therefor you must believe they secretly have other motives, because to acknowledge their viewpoint that abortion is murder as real, would force you to contemplate your own thoughts on the matter.

No, that isn't what I'm doing at all. A person can consider abortion to be murder, but believe that it should be allowed, and then come to an alternative conclusion because he is a misogynist. Moreover, I did not say that all people who identify themselves as pro-life are misogynists, so an argument against my adoptive stance cannot turn on the type of categorical claim you're making above and any one which does is just a strawman.

As for my actual stance, I consider the argument of "Abortion is wrong because its murder." to be circular nonsense; ie. Abortion is wrong because its murder, and its murder because its wrong.

Manstein wrote:
You are correct, but that isn't the point. People here arn't calling the FB posters "stupid" because they think abortion is murder, they are doing so because of the persons vocal, and perceividly incorrect, beliefs. Their naivte in regards to actually believing an Onion column and not checking the source is a testament to a foolish action but the posters here arn't driving at that. No one said these people were inept because they couldn't check a source correctly, but rather, inferred they were they were inept because of their viewpoint.

Yes, as is generally the case when people disagree with each other over a contentious issue, which is what was pointing out. A person can be labelled as stupid if they believe a particular thing, such criticism is never a necessary consequence of holding belief X, but belief X can be legitimately taken as evidence of stupidity. Of course, doing so will generally be seen as rude, or confrontational, but often that is the point.

Manstein wrote:
Just look up, I have already established that the term is being used incorrectly here and relevant only as a "smear tactic."

Not really, you simply indicated that you don't believe its appropriate, but you didn't actually show why it isn't other than your own belief that it isn't.

I would contend that, no matter the rhetoric, abortion is not perfectly analogous to murder. At best, it is a particular type of murder which requires special consideration due to circumstance. Adults don't ride around in the womb on a daily basis. As such, the statements "abortion laws do not help fetuses" and "murder laws do not help people" are not directly comparable. And, to the extent that they are, it is a fairly simple thing to argue that murder law do not help people.

You are correct, it most assuridely is a very special situation. But once again I think I lose you after that. Using your comment (first bold), I don't ride around in a warzone too often, but does that mean I no longer have the right to my life by doing so? I have never been in a warzone in my entire life, and most likely never will, but I still have a right to my life if I did go into said warzone, or shopping mall, or park, or anywhere. Assuming that your comment was more in reference to "the physical world," how is a woman's womb any different? Sure adults arn't hanging out in wombs, but fetuses (and by basis of this argument, babies and therefore life) hang out in wombs by the millions each and every year. So, to assume that a woman's womb is some sort of alternate dimension where the laws of man no longer apply is a little.... exceptional.

Since I think that a good portion of people can agree that abortions conducted at birth, or even in the last trimester or two are "bad," the question comes down to this: Are fetuses life? If the answer is no, then claiming abortion at this stage is wrong would also mean that all forms of male masturbation are equally as bad, as male sperm could be roughly compared to this definition of "a fetus." If the answer is "yes" a fetus is life, then it is indeed life. Life is life, you can't be "kind of alive" or "kind of dead" you are either alive or dead, period. Therefor if a fetus is life and since all human life is equal (since killing a baby/child is the same as killing an adult) abortion would be murder.

To conclude that, fetuses are only require "special consideration" because we don't know if they are "alive" or not. Naturally, this operates under the assumption that all parties agree that murder is bad, and should not take place at all.

Laws don't actually prevent crime, they punish the commission of crime, which might reduce the future incidence of it via institutional normalization, but will never stop any given person from deciding to take a criminal action.

bah, that isn't the point and you know it. Arguing about whether laws are beneficial or not is a different discussion. The point I was trying to make is that anti-abortion laws are not based on some sort of punishment for females who are "promiscuous" but rather that they are trying to prevent "murder" much in the same way that other laws try to prevent homicide. Using your logic, laws invariably punish actions that take place BEFORE the action the law is installed to prevent.

Your line being: "[Anti-abortion laws] are therefore misogynistic because they are about punishing women for promiscuity, and not actually "saving a life" as advertised."

Using this same logic I can say: "Rape laws are about punishing people for being sexually aroused, not actually about preventing the act of rape." Clearly the ducks don't line up here.

Yes, that's the point.

Anyway, if any given member of the pro-life movement holds his views due to misogyny then the use of the words to describe an indefinite number of people in that group is not wrong.

So its fair for me to say that all Democrats are Communists on the basis that there is even one person in existence who is a Democrat and also a Communist? Because Fred Phelps, a baptist minister, thinks the way he does about homosexuals does that mean that you can characterize all Baptists as thinking that God hates America for allowing homosexuality? Nah, you are just flat wrong here bud. You can't generalize entire movements based on the belief of a few people in it. I mean... you CAN do it, but it isn't "right" and does not lead to any sort of constructive conversation.

You have no proof of that, just as I have no proof that some pro-life people are misogynists. However, while I could probably find evidence suggesting that some pro-life devotees are indeed misogynists, you will be hard pressed to acquire evidence suggesting that 99.9% of the movement are not misogynists.

O don't be sassy! You can find examples of just about anything you want in any particular group of anyone. My figure is figurative and I can call on you to prove that a significant portion of anti-abortion activists are indeed acting the way they act on the basis that they hate, mistrust, dislike, or otherwise believe in the subjugation or limitation of women. My bet is, you, nor anyone else, can't prove that.

No, that isn't what I'm doing at all. A person can consider abortion to be murder, but believe that it should be allowed, and then come to an alternative conclusion because he is a misogynist.

Huh? Your point here is?.... There are examples of people being whatever you want them to be. Sure, a person CAN consider abortion to be murder, but believe that it should be allowed, and then come to an alternative conclusion because he is a misogynist but to infer that a significant portion of anti-abortionists do this is silly. People can be anything you want, there are homophobic homosexuals too, doesn't mean that most closested homosexuals are homophobs.

Honestly, looking at that comment it makes me wonder if you just like to argue for the sake of it. There are exception to almost all rules, but basing all your arguments on the minority exceptions and then inferring that they take up a larger chunk than they do is pretty nitty gritty run around logic.

Moreover, I did not say that all people who identify themselves as pro-life are misogynists, so an argument against my adoptive stance cannot turn on the type of categorical claim you're making above and any one which does is just a strawman.

As for my actual stance, I consider the argument of "Abortion is wrong because its murder." to be circular nonsense; ie. Abortion is wrong because its murder, and its murder because its wrong.

Circular nonsense? So is homicide also circular nonsense? Me shooting you fatally is wrong because it is murder, and since murder is accepted as wrong, me fatally shooting you is also wrong. Your statement "Abortion is wrong because its murder, and its murder because its wrong" is in itself incorrect. Abortion is wrong because it is murder and murder is wrong, abortion is not murder because abortion is wrong, as you state.

Yes, as is generally the case when people disagree with each other over a contentious issue, which is what was pointing out. A person can be labelled as stupid if they believe a particular thing, such criticism is never a necessary consequence of holding belief X, but belief X can be legitimately taken as evidence of stupidity. Of course, doing so will generally be seen as rude, or confrontational, but often that is the point.

Another one of those, huh? moments here where I think you argue just for the sake of it. I mean, you are correct but that isn't the point at all. My statement is about I thought it was ironic and foolish that one group of people were chastising another for their beliefs, your scientific and exact breakdown of why this all occurs is totally irrelevant.