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.

 Jihadin wrote:
Abortion there is a "choice". The Holocaust there was no "choice".

Sure there was. People could have chose not to kill other people.

Does this count as a Godwin thing?

 Jihadin wrote:

Greater than the Holocaust?

seriously wrong hyperbole

Just wanted to hyperbole to point out the hyperbole, and also to violate my own sig in a way.

 Amaya wrote:
And yet you turn a blind eye towards every offensive thing liberals and democrats do.

No, I don't. That's just you lying to yourself in order to try to feel better about your own inadequacies.

 Jihadin wrote:
Abortion there is a "choice". The Holocaust there was no "choice".

Many, many people made the choice to participate in the Holocaust.

 Melissia wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
And yet you turn a blind eye towards every offensive thing liberals and democrats do.

No, I don't. That's just you lying to yourself in order to try to feel better about your own inadequacies.

Keep telling yourself that sweetheart.

 GalacticDefender wrote:

 youbedead wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Greater than the Holocaust?

seriously wrong hyperbole

As is calling abortion the greatest crime in history, also the holocaust could certainly fit as the greatest crime so not exactly hyperbole

The gak the Japanese did is every bit as evil as what the Nazis did. People should remember that.

Saying one thing is bad doesn't make every thing else good

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I would have thought just killing a living human person would be a greater crime than aborting a zygote. But the pro-life lobby are very keen on hyperbole.

and QFT. Zygotes aren't people, and are only alive because of the fact that they are made of cells. It is no more conscious than E. Coli.

I don't think that Zygotes are human, they will eventually become human though, and I don't see the difference between killing a human and killing an eventual human. They are both wrong because they remove the potential that a life contains. Preferably we should make efforts to reduce the number of abortions by encouraging the use of contraceptives and safe sex. We could also try to remove the social stigma from putting a child up for adoption, but ultimately it is the choice of the woman.

I don't see the difference between killing a human and killing an eventual human

By that definition, every time a man ejaculates, he kills off millions upon millions of eventual humans even in the case of him impregnating a woman; making men far, FAR worse than someone who advocates abortion.

But men can be abstinent and never ejaculate in their entire lives. Women have to kill the potential for human life every month.

 Amaya wrote:
But men can be abstinent and never ejaculate in their entire lives.

No without cutting their balls off, which itself is techniclaly the murder of trillions of potential human beings.

Look up nocturnal emission.

 Melissia wrote:

I don't see the difference between killing a human and killing an eventual human

By that definition, every time a man ejaculates, he kills off millions upon millions of eventual humans even in the case of him impregnating a woman; making men far, FAR worse than someone who advocates abortion.

And thus, Monty Python knows everything (as if there was any doubt.)

http://youtu.be/U0kJHQpvgB8

 Melissia wrote:

I don't see the difference between killing a human and killing an eventual human

By that definition, every time a man ejaculates, he kills off millions upon millions of eventual humans even in the case of him impregnating a woman; making men far, FAR worse than someone who advocates abortion.

Mellisa, don't insult my intelligence. There is a big difference between a sperm and a zygote, there is no possible way for a sperm to become a person with out an egg. (you can make a person with two eggs though)

 youbedead wrote:
There is a big difference between a sperm and a zygote

There's also a huge difference between a zygote and a human being.

 youbedead wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

I don't see the difference between killing a human and killing an eventual human

By that definition, every time a man ejaculates, he kills off millions upon millions of eventual humans even in the case of him impregnating a woman; making men far, FAR worse than someone who advocates abortion.

Mellisa, don't insult my intelligence. There is a big difference between a sperm and a zygote, there is no possible way for a sperm to become a person with out an egg. (you can make a person with two eggs though)

So once a month, when a couple manages to menstruate and ejaculate at the same time, we have a conspiracy to commit murder?

 Melissia wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
There is a big difference between a sperm and a zygote

There's also a huge difference between a zygote and a human being.

I don't think that Zygotes are human

Learn to read

 Ouze wrote:
Alright, looks like one of my least favorite politicians has decided to add his contribution to the barrel of derp.

Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion.

King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.

“Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way,” King told KMEG-TV Monday, “and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.”

Dear conservatives: every time you let the gag fall out of one of these trogolodytes mouths, you make it that much harder for the less insane of you to claim there isn't really a GOP war on women.

wow


so they believe that a person who lives a perfectly good life and does nothing but help others their whole life will go to hell when they die if they do not believe in Jesus Christ as their God and savior, it seems that their thinking hasn't evolved ever. It's like, I never heard of it, so it can't be true, mentality.

When will these things die finally so we can move past this era of idiocracy?

Many, many people made the choice to participate in the Holocaust.

Seriously? The victims had a choice to go in the camps?

I really dont understand the idea of "Legitimate rape".
I always thought that its either rape or its not rape, you can be forced to sex or you can voluntarily.

About abortion, i really dont think there is that much wrong with it especially if its after a woman was raped.
And dont tell me its like killing a human being, millions of animals get killed everyday to feed us but most people dont care.
Another thing is why male politicians are being opposed to it, its not like they will ever know what its like to be pregnant.

 Amaya wrote:
But men can be abstinent and never ejaculate in their entire lives. Women have to kill the potential for human life every month.

Sperm are dying inside a man all through his life, whether he ejaculates or not. So there's no way for a man to avoid killing them either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

Many, many people made the choice to participate in the Holocaust.

Seriously? The victims had a choice to go in the camps?

No but the people running the camps had a choice to not kill said people.

Ah, yes, the ignorance and inability of acceptance within humankind is blinding. I skipped 9 pages of argument to land here not really sure if I even want to touch this topic because really, some of you either a.) need to go back to basic health class, or b.) burn your bible you think holds every single one of the answers of the universe, when clearly it does not or c.) chill the flakk down and get some luffa for your butt.

1.) Rape is rape no matter what prefix is stuck on it, and mean's that two or more people engaged in sexual activity when at least one did not. What you wear does not mean you were asking for sex. Ever. Only asking for sex means you were asking for sex. Period.

2.) Abortion happens regardless if it were legal or not, and every choice should always be there for those who need it because when it is not, a whole lot of women die performing self induced abortions-killing their unborn children with them (the very reason why it was made legal in the first place). If it threatens your life it should certainly be there.However, every measure should be available to help any woman to complete the term and give a child up for a loving adoption (because there is actually a wait-list for hopefuls -especially gays and lesbians who will never be able to conceive children of their own until technology catches up with their biological quandary. After all, if the mother chooses to bring a child she had no intention of conceiving in the first place, honor her courage, but do not condole her lack of it if she chooses otherwise, that's the equivalent of blaming her for being at fault for her rape, which is the attackers fault, not the victim's.

3.) Lastly, why are you even concerned with the nuances of a southern Republican politician regardless of how he views rape in his position of decadent power? Your concern over the internet does nothing to change his mind, which is likely still focused on the domination of women, minorities, his preservation of both power and wealth and utter devotion to the ideal that America is a shining beacon upon a hill to which the world seeks and adores to emulate. His traditional view reflects nothing of your own, nor most of the people on earth who are not only leaving the archaic idea's of southern bell patriotism behind, but beginning to question the ideas of our government as a whole.

No but the people running the camps had a choice to not kill said people.

so we equating the staff and guards that ran the camp to the doctors and nurses the runs the abortion clinics? Are we equating genocide to abortion?

 Jihadin wrote:

No but the people running the camps had a choice to not kill said people.

so we equating the staff and guards that ran the camp to the doctors and nurses the runs the abortion clinics? Are we equating genocide to abortion?

I could tell you that the majority of people who use the services of abortion clinics are undereducated, poor, and of a different class and race than those that predominantly judge and dictate how "wrong" abortion is. It really wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that abortion clinics are an agent of slow acting ethnic cleansing because those who need it most lacked the effective educational resources that could have prevented them from needing a clinic in the first place. If that is their intention, is a completely different matter.

 Jihadin wrote:

No but the people running the camps had a choice to not kill said people.

so we equating the staff and guards that ran the camp to the doctors and nurses the runs the abortion clinics? Are we equating genocide to abortion?

I'm not equating anything to anything. I was just stating the fact that some people who participated in the Holocaust chose to do so of their own will.

 Jihadin wrote:

No but the people running the camps had a choice to not kill said people.

so we equating the staff and guards that ran the camp to the doctors and nurses the runs the abortion clinics? Are we equating genocide to abortion?

No, we're clarifying that the Holocaust wasn't an act of God, as seems to be your implication that 'there was no "choice"'.

 DemetriDominov wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

No but the people running the camps had a choice to not kill said people.

so we equating the staff and guards that ran the camp to the doctors and nurses the runs the abortion clinics? Are we equating genocide to abortion?

I could tell you that the majority of people who use the services of abortion clinics are undereducated, poor, and of a different class and race than those that predominantly judge and dictate how "wrong" abortion is. It really wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that abortion clinics are an agent of slow acting ethnic cleansing because those who need it most lacked the effective educational resources that could have prevented them from needing a clinic in the first place. If that is their intention, is a completely different matter.

Abortion=ethnic cleansing?

Alright, guns kill more black people than white people in the US. That means that Republicans are against gun control because they support ethnic cleansing!

Blacks account for 30% of abortions and 10% of the population.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/race.asp
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces/family_planning_abortions.html

 LoneLictor wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
If that is their intention, is a completely different matter.

Abortion=ethnic cleansing?

Alright, guns kill more black people than white people in the US. That means that Republicans are against gun control because they support ethnic cleansing!

If you're being serious, your post sure looks stupid now.

But really, is it that hard to believe that republican's and even democrats who make these comments don't like brown people, or rather people different than themselves of both race, class, and especially country? They sure like bombing them, leaving them uneducated, taking their land, allowing them to die from starvation or disease, stealing their money, taking away their social security they will only ever pay for, allowing them to shoot each other, taking their homes and their children to be "reeducated" in boarding schools, lying to them about virtually everything from "abstinence education" to the American dream of capitalism most will never achieve because it is a Ponzi Scheme, indoctrinating them, imprisoning them for preventable "crimes" in a broken penal system that does not rehabilitate individuals- it breaks them even further, and then expecting them to understand that their views, their concerns, their questions aren't represented in a government that gerrymanders, cheats, or lobbies its own electoral barriers to better suit either of our polar parties? Does that look more like our system of governance, or rather of our rulers?

And thank you Amaya for linking the resources.

 Daemonhammer wrote:
I really dont understand the idea of "Legitimate rape".
I always thought that its either rape or its not rape, you can be forced to sex or you can voluntarily.

About abortion, i really dont think there is that much wrong with it especially if its after a woman was raped.
And dont tell me its like killing a human being, millions of animals get killed everyday to feed us but most people dont care.
Another thing is why male politicians are being opposed to it, its not like they will ever know what its like to be pregnant.

Clearly you didn't listen to the song. It explained everything. And it had a catchy tune, so double-win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

No but the people running the camps had a choice to not kill said people.

so we equating the staff and guards that ran the camp to the doctors and nurses the runs the abortion clinics? Are we equating genocide to abortion?

No, we are ridiculing the concept of calling the service provided by these doctors and nurses the greatest crime in human history.

Genocide was just one of the examples of actual crimes that are greater than that.

Now if the people that are stating that it is the greatest crime in human history want to equate it with genocide or argue that abortion is worse than the holocaust than go ahead. But I know that I am not making that claim.

 AustonT wrote:
Really because every time I hear the phrase "war on women" I'm turned to the liberal cause that champions women. Then I realize that female Democratic staffers make between 5 and 30% less than their male counterparts. Especially if they work for Minority leader Pelosi. Then I realize that the predictable and dishonest rhetoric of the war on women is just that: predictable and dishonest. So for every troglodyte that says he/she is open for discussion, I hope there is a thoughtful and evolved liberal spouting support for women while paying them unequally and attempting to break the healthcare system by empowering insurance eventually raising the cost and lowering the quality of care provided. Care women rely a great deal more on than men, but at least they'll have abortions.

So, because we are able to point to one inequality that happens on both sides of the political spectrum, therefore clearly neither party has a consistent record of voting against women's rights and issues? I'm pretty sure there is a phrase for that.

Are you sure this is a door you want to open to disprove the core assumption that the a growing element of the republican party is hostile to women? Because, man, I don't think you like what's behind that door.

 Orlanth wrote:
It was ridiculous only if you insist on reading it as it was stated. Something is odd there, a level headed man would ask for clarity at this point, hot howl for blood.
Sure enough it was retracted, plain as day. He said he misspoke, so he misspoke.

When politicians say things that blow up in their face they claim they mispoke and try to weasel out of the situation. You're not so completely naive as to be unaware of this, so why are you pretending otherwise?

Akins said he misspoke. There was a logical alternative to what he said based on assuming he misspoke, which happened to be correct as he did misspeak.
That cannot be ridiculous because the original comment you quote doesn't make sense in literal terms as there is no such thing as legitimate rape.

You appear to have based your entire response to this around the fiction that people care only about the term 'legitimate rape', and some kind of fictional media reaction which takes only those words to make some kind of fantasy about there being 'legitimate rape'.

That is not what this is about, and it is not the problem with Akins' comment. So just fething read properly and learn something - Akins thinks the female body has some kind of protection from pregnancy if the woman didn't consent to sex. He made this up in his brain because he cares not one fething bit for the realities of life on this planet, and he doubled down on that stupid by throwing in a reference to mysoginist fantasy where women make up most rape claims.

There is no other way to interpret his sentence. None. Not one. I asked you to provide one and you didn't, because there isn't one. And yet you keep pretending there is. Because you're being ridiculous.

As for why I defend him, its because its just to do so. Too many people like to pour the hate on because its the internets. Dogma of course assumed that as I was defending him I must agree with him, and that I wouldn't if I didn't. To give him some credit he accepted my reasons for defending him were not personal, that leaves you still barking.
As things heat up I still call for understanding, far from being ridiculous, its the pattern of the voice of reason. Which often must stand alone against the braying. So be it.

And a whole lot of the time people opt to defend the indefensible in order to stake for themselves a higher moral ground.

I defend him, in part, as in what he spoke, not his policy per se, because he misspoke, he said he misspoke and that isn't being accepted.

And I am pointing out his actual policy, not any slip of the tongue, is absolutely odious. He thinks woman have a magical defence against pregnancy through rape when they don't, and uses that scientific ignorance as part of his fantasy that a woman who says she got pregnant

Here in the UK this sort of error occurs all the time, now we have a fairly vicious media and party political system, but if someone misspeaks, its taken advantage of in a joking way and the person is allowed to retract and business carries on as usual.

Yeah, but this guy didn't misspeak. He gave a sentence which clearly stated his belief in something, and that's it.

This whole issue is highly partisan, something leveled at me oddly enough even though I am defending him solely on a point of human decency.

It isn't decent to defend someone through disingenuous means. Inventing a fantasy in which somehow he totally meant something other than 'woman have magical defences against pregnancy through rape' and then complaining when people take his comment as face value is not being honest.

The entire thread started off with 'Republicans are idiots' theme to it athen took a look at the harsh abortion laws in Missouri and related them specifically to Akin to back and assumption that he really did mean things as extreme as what he misspoke Yet if you scratch the surface on that you will find that the harsh anti-abortion laws of Missouri were bi-political and instigated by the Democrats.

I honestly do not have a problem with people being opposed to abortion, even abortion in the event of rape. If you believe it is a person then it deserves protection like all other people, and that's fair enough.

My problem is with that fringe of anti-abortion folk who traffic in lies and nonsense... and if you've done any amount of time following this debate you'll realise there are a lot of these folk. I've had people claim they oppose Obamacare because it funds abortions, and when I pointed out it doesn't with direct evidence they weren't relieved as a person would be when they found out something they thought was a problem wasn't at all, they were angry that I'd ruined their crusade. I've had that happen multiple times. Here on dakka I've had to point out to the same people more than once that no Planned Parenthood funding can be used for abortion, only for those same people to mention it again later on.

I feel deeply sorry for Akin, we don't know if he would have made a good senator, and now we might never know.

We know he's a nut. He stated that the core of liberalism is hating God.

 sebster wrote:
Here on dakka I've had to point out to the same people more than once that no Planned Parenthood funding can be used for abortion, only for those same people to mention it again later on.

Actually, if you don't mind me diverging for a second here (again); maybe you guys can help me with this. I once read an article that talks about a rubber band effect; whereby if you believe something enough, someone can show you clear evidence it's not true, and if you're reasonable, you'll then agree it was not true, but later on you will return to the original belief instead. It's not so much being disingenuous as an actual psychological phenomenon.

I've seen it as well, with a co-worker who was convinced Al Franken only got elected because "the democrats found a bunch of votes at the last second in the trunk of a car*". I showed many sources showing this wasn't so, he came around... and then a few months later, repeated the original belief. God, I wish I could find that article again.

*this thread is not the place to rehash that, I'm simply using it as an example

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Here on dakka I've had to point out to the same people more than once that no Planned Parenthood funding can be used for abortion, only for those same people to mention it again later on.

Actually, if you don't mind me diverging for a second here (again); maybe you guys can help me with this. I once read an article that talks about a rubber band effect; whereby if you believe something enough, someone can show you clear evidence it's not true, and if you're reasonable, you'll then agree it was not true, but later on you will return to the original belief instead. It's not so much being disingenuous as an actual psychological phenomenon.

I've seen it as well, with a co-worker who was convinced Al Franken only got elected because "the democrats found a bunch of votes at the last second in the trunk of a car*". I showed many sources showing this wasn't so, he came around... and then a few months later, repeated the original belief. God, I wish I could find that article again.

*this thread is not the place to rehash that, I'm simply using it as an example

Not just that, being shown evidence that directly refutes what you believe will simply reinforce your belief