or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 255

post #3811 of 5454
I realize there are a lot of complicated issues around the abortion debate, but I really hate how glib liberals are about it these days. Like saying "zygotes" when anyone knows that abortion isn't about "zygotes" at all.
post #3812 of 5454
In their defense, the recent Hobby Lobby case revolved around a religious objection to paying for some kinds of birth control that can cause abortions of fertilized eggs. I'm not sure if it's technically a zygote or not.
post #3813 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

I realize there are a lot of complicated issues around the abortion debate, but I really hate how glib liberals are about it these days. Like saying "zygotes" when anyone knows that abortion isn't about "zygotes" at all.

Yeah, I'm (somewhat uncomfortably) pro choice, but that doesn't make it okay to be disingenuous about it, or to ignore the significant questions it raises about human-ness. The liberal tendency to ignore the fact that allowing abortion require us to decide, at least approximately, when we become human does the debate as much disservice as conservatives who insist it's a person the very moment the sperm touches the egg.
post #3814 of 5454
A fertilized egg is a zygote by defjnition
post #3815 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

A fertilized egg is a zygote by defjnition

I thought Munch's point was that it's only a zygote for a very brief period of time, and when we talk about abortion, we're talking about destroying something that has long passed that stage. Thus, liberals like to use "zygote" to frame abortion as something it's not WRT the age and complexity of what is being aborted.
post #3816 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

In their defense, the recent Hobby Lobby case revolved around a religious objection to paying for some kinds of birth control that can cause abortions of fertilized eggs. I'm not sure if it's technically a zygote or not.

Actually, that's not quite right. What the HL case is about would not be abortifacients but rather things that prevent implantation in the first place. Plan B works on several levels but the final level is preventing implantation. Since the fertilized egg never becomes implanted it definitionaly cannot be "aborted." RU 486 was a true abortifacient but Plan B is not. Same with IUDs, i.e. they prevent implantation.
post #3817 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I thought Munch's point was that it's only a zygote for a very brief period of time, and when we talk about abortion, we're talking about destroying something that has long passed that stage. Thus, liberals like to use "zygote" to frame abortion as something it's not WRT the age and complexity of what is being aborted.

You're right but I was talking to ataturk who said he wasn't sure if technically it was a zygote
post #3818 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Actually, that's not quite right. What the HL case is about would not be abortifacients but rather things that prevent implantation in the first place. Plan B works on several levels but the final level is preventing implantation. Since the fertilized egg never becomes implanted it definitionaly cannot be "aborted." RU 486 was a true abortifacient but Plan B is not. Same with IUDs, i.e. they prevent implantation.

Those may be the accepted technical definitions of pregnancy and abortion, but it's not the position taken by Hobby Lobby (the people, not the decision). They said that "contraceptives" that prevent implantation are abortifacients. The supreme court said it doesn't matter whether it's technically an abortion because the label [or even the rationality] is not what's important.

What I said was that I'm not sure whether it's a zygote at the point where the "abortion" would occur, or slightly more developed; but I don't think it substantially undermines the argument presented by the picture at issue here either way.
post #3819 of 5454
I wasn't really thinking about Hobby Lobby (sign that I am not a liberal) so point taken there.

Of course the larger point is that there's a level of "love" between "don't kill that" and "I will take personal responsibility for that thing's life"
post #3820 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Those may be the accepted technical definitions of pregnancy and abortion, but it's not the position taken by Hobby Lobby (the people, not the decision). They said that "contraceptives" that prevent implantation are abortifacients. The supreme court said it doesn't matter whether it's technically an abortion because the label [or even the rationality] is not what's important.

What I said was that I'm not sure whether it's a zygote at the point where the "abortion" would occur, or slightly more developed; but I don't think it substantially undermines the argument presented by the picture at issue here either way.

I understand the incorrect position taken by the HL people. Your statement made an affirmative comment that can only be read as agreeing with the HL folks:
Quote:
In their defense, the recent Hobby Lobby case revolved around a religious objection to paying for some kinds of birth control that can cause abortions of fertilized eggs.


I wanted to put the difference out there. If your statement was not designed to show agreement with the HL people my apologies for the misread.
post #3821 of 5454
My comment was lazy and poorly worded, and it didn't really communicate what I was trying to say.
post #3822 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

My comment was lazy and poorly worded, and it didn't really communicate what I was trying to say.

This should be sigged by every member of SF ever.
post #3823 of 5454
The other thing that makes that macro dumb is that you can easily turn it around: "Why not do what you do with other unwanted children and just kill them?" Sure it's disingenuous and a cheap shot, but no less than the other one.
post #3824 of 5454
+1 to Piob for correcting the (incorrect) talking point about HL and abortificants. This drives me up the wall because if you're going to a) present a case about science/healthcare b) hear a case about science/healthcare c) cover a case about science/healthcare you should read a textbook.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

The supreme court said it doesn't matter whether it's (technically) an abortion because the label [or even the rationality] is not what's important..


See the above sentence, especially the part where you read a textbook. (Not Ataturk you. You clearly (now) know those drugs aren't actually abortificants. It's that a blind disregard for scientific and medical is absolutely insane.)
post #3825 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Not related to hockey loss; no riot shall occur.

Oh of course not, it's extremely chicken-hawkish.

I kind of want to tell them that but I'm not that much of a shit disturber.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.