Sarah Silverman Thinks It’s Time To Start Legislating Male Masturbation

Nope, you still don't get it. Women have a right to their own bodies. Women do not have the right to the bodies of others. A pro-life person thinks (to keep it simple) life begins at conception and, therefore, don't think a woman has a right to the unborn's body. I and any other intelligent people can see how this breaks down and would agree to the reasonableness of this position. There can be many positions that are reasonable.

That's why I submit that you are narrow minded on this matter, as you can't see how someone else can see costs (that aren't always financial, must less public costs). We sacrifice freedom (a cost) for human life all the time (e.g. speed limits, gun controls). We also sacrifice human life (a cost) for quality of life all the time (e.g. power tools, construction projects, medical research). You say it costs nothing for an abortion because you reasonably believe there is no life lost, but are unable or unwilling to see how someone else reasonably believes that a life is being sacrificed.

It's like a 2 dimensional person trying to understand a 3 dimensional object. Until you step back to see this matter from all sides and perspectives, you will never understand the costs and benefits in the bigger picture.

And I've stated even more clearly that there are very few in this world that want to make people's lives harder for that purpose. Since you fail to understand the pro-life position, you have filled that lack of understanding with malice and bad intent (i.e. wanting to cause harm, controlling women). I am pro-choice, but ignoring or simply discounting the reasonable and rational beliefs and position of the pro-life side does me no good as an advocate or analyst. By doing otherwise, I would rightfully be labelled either a fool or a fraud.

 

This is the best response I've read from a pro-choice person.

 

What an asinine distinction.

That's an obvious deception because most of the states in this nation place value on the unborn human being in utero, past a certain point, regardless of the mother's wishes
(though they usually coincide). Obviously the state has something to say about this as it does with all unprotected human beings.
What sort of monster are you?

Yes. It quite obviously is whether some priests have perverted their authority or not.

The word sanctity is not merely a religious one and you can go look it up if you don't believe it. You are down to quibbling over the meaning of certain words now...always the sign of a failing argument.

Yes...a viable human being.

Yeah, what indeed.
WTF are you on about? Nobody raises children that don't exist....duh!!

You called protection for a child "unnecessary". Not me.
Can't keep up with yourself?

 

No, you do not have a constitutional right to privacy. The Constitution and other laws of the land acknowledge you have an interest in privacy, and many con provisions and other laws are written to give you all kinds of rights to protect that interest. None of the amendments cited specifically grant a right to privacy, but do give you other rights that sync with your privacy interest.

I will simply refer you to the Planned Parenthood tapes. While perhaps not proof, they are certainly evidence and should have led to a more complete official investigation. (You stick your head in the sand and wonder why people resort to violence?)

a) Because knowing that violence will occur (reasonable or not) is a good enough reason to not usurp the agreed upon peaceful political process and b) I already exampled a justified use of violence. If MLK's passive resistance had been squashed, one could easily argue the Malcolm's violent tactics would have been justified.

Agreed, the problem is that when making that the "Law of the Land", the agreed upon peaceful process was denied to the pro-life groups. The 10th Amendment left abortion to the states to decide. By trumping that by judicial fiat (rather than amendment), you denied rights and usurped the process. What other reaction did you expect?

Not an ad hom, but an accurate observation. Perceived moral superiority is one of the biggest domestic threats we currently face. It leads to division, hate and anger. It's easy to be self righteous and to hate someone you believe is oppressing women. Harder if you acknowledge that they just believe abortion is just too great a risk to human life. So you the question you have to ask yourself: Do I fail to acknowledge due to a good faith attempt but inability to understand or Do I fail to acknowledge in order to feel self righteous and to justify my hate?

A proverbial "you" if you prefer. Using "one" can get cumbersome. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if I hacked back up the thread to find an accusation from you (non-proverbial) of others being "women haters"; nevertheless, I'll assume the best for this response.)

 

Nobody is forcing random, non-pregnant women to give birth. Women have autonomy over their own bodies by choosing whether or not to open their legs for someone. You are helping women make the choice to murder the human life that was created inside them through their own choices.

 

Makes as much sense as anything the the rightwing fascist have made into law.

 

No, are you? I will say that there have been many diversions, but I never use that as an excuse. I respond and then explain what it was irrelevant to the matter at hand.

a) I make no claim that Reagan was a saint, in fact I think he's a tad over-rated, but likely the last "great" president we have had. b) I can't specifically recall whether the ANC had used terror tactics or not, but I vaguely remember them doing so. c) I make no claim whether engagement or isolation was the best policy for South Africa. I simply claim that engagement was a reasonable one to take, as I do with Obama and Cuba/Iran.

Once again, limited perspective as you can only see one acceptable path to end apartheid rather than several reasonable routes. (I will add that, as of the last time I read on this matter, the Human Development Index is lower for black South Africans now than at the end of apartheid. Perhaps engagement would have avoided this reversal, perhaps not.)

What lalaland would that be?

The original subject of this thread was Silverman's use of (I say attempt at) satire to ridicule the pro-life position. I stated:

"I am simply stating that both sides of the abortion debate [are] rational and reasonable, which caused Silverman's attempt at satire to fail and evidences her own limited perspective. In response I get called a woman hater and the like, and you lecture me on constructive engagement?"

In what world (lala or otherwise) is this a distraction or otherwise not focused?

 

Yet again, repeating your reasonable belief does not make other beliefs unreasonable.

I fully understand. That's how narrow minded people talk about this issue.

No one expects you to believe both positions or to not take a position. That does not equate to not acknowledging the reasonableness of opposing beliefs and position. I take a position (pro-choice) but don't deny the rationality of the pro-life position (which isn't waffling). You can't believe that it will both rain and not rain tomorrow, so you predict precipitation. Does that mean that someone else can't reasonably predict sunny skies?

See, narrow minded. You can't acknowledge that others see a very big cost. What makes it worse, is you accuse others of a selfishness need to feel "warm and fuzzy and powerful" when in reality it is your selfish desire to feel morally superior...fascinating. Anyway, can't explain "cost" much better than I already have. Costs can be tangible or intangible, easily measured or highly subjective.

Non-responsive to the point made and context edited out of quoted text. Shameful really.

I can't confirm or deny your associations (long or otherwise) with anti-choicers. I will submit that you don't discuss this matter all that critically and often with bad faith. Perhaps that may explain your bad experiences. By the way, since you refer to them as anti-choicers, would it be accurate to label you an anti-lifer? I don't fall for the semantics used these days.

Then you are either the fool or fraud as I explained I would have been if I denied the very rational view of the pro-life movement. As I've stated before, one does not win a debate, much less persuade anyone, by denying that eggs will be broken to get an omelette or two. Here, one must acknowledge (at a minimum) we are risking the considered and intentional taking of a human life for the quality of life of others. As a pro-choice advocate, I recognize this and make my argument from there. I would be a fool to do otherwise.

 

The rightwing didn't take her joke and make an editorial out of it.

Look, I know the left is having problems distinguishing between males and females, much less black and white, but when they think a left-of-center writer is actually right-wing, then they've really deconstructed themselves to oblivion.

 

And this is the crap that keeps me at bay. You pubs can't go one single post without making some baseless, ignoramus comment about liberals in general. Not. One. Single. Fu€king day. Blech.

 

I get what you're trying to say, "" Anti-Choicers are reasonable and Pro-Choicers are reasonable so I believe abortion should be legal and I believe abortion shouldn't be legal ".


I haven't had to resort to petty insults, why do YOU have to be so UNREASONABLE....

Oh , the terms I use are accurate. Anti-Choicers want to deny women's right to chose and Pro-Choicers want to preserve that right (which is already established )

 

It is NEVER a part of a woman's body else the woman's body would kill it. It is separate from the mother with the marvel of nature the placenta passing O2 and nutrients to that separate human being.

 

It's amazing that any adult has to have basic biology explained to them.

 

Nope. I have clearly stated and argued that both sides of the abortion debate are reasonable. That's all. For the purposes of full disclosure only, I have identified myself as "pro-choice" and, therefore, believe that the procedure should be legal (but decided on the state level), a pro-choice, anti-Roe person.

I don't consider it an insult (petty or otherwise) or being unreasonable to confirm what is already acknowledged. If one doesn't understand how 50% of the population thinks, that one is most likely narrow minded on that matter. (If you prefer, suffers from a mental block).

Consider someone who claims to be a wine lover, but also admits to not understanding why some prefer white over red wine. They also say they white wine drinkers are dumb or evil. A true wine lover can have a preference for red, but would understand why some would think differently and prefer white. To not understand this suggests that that person doesn't know wines as well as they claim. (Of course Zima drinkers are another matter.)

Not really accurate in the big picture, as "pro-choicers" tend not to be for choice in other matters (e.g. gun rights). More accurate would be pro-legal abortion and anti-legal abortion. I do use the traditional terms, but usually put them in "quotes" to designate my qualification.

 

It's alive but we can squash it like a bug. No harm done.

 

Lol and what have the libs been doing in this tnread?

 

OK, fine, then the woman should be able to have it removed since it is "never part of her body" Why should anyone be forced to carry someone around inside them ???

 

Apparently men don't like it either given all the threads talking about fatherless children being more likely to drop out and commit crimes. If there are that many fatherless children, where are the fathers? Men like sex but have the luxury of walking away if they don't want the child. Your post was horrifically sexist, just FYI.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Clearly she thinks it is okay to discriminate based on gender.

 

Stock brokers aren't comedians, point number one. Point number two, audience members pay to see comedians. They sign up for jokes that aren't politically correct. A homeless guy on the street didn't sign up for that therefore the stock brokers aren't comedians, they're jerks. It's called a time and a place, and a comedy club would be the correct place, during a stand up routine is the correct time. Don't like the comedian don't listen to them.

Really what it comes down to is conservatives are sick of political correctness, until someone says something they don't like..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Totally disagree. Laughing my a$$ off at things I can't say after a long week of work is quite useful. Comedy makes the world livable and it takes talented people to do it right. I just saw Wanda Sykes a week ago. Best money I've spent in a while!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk