My argument with a dickweed.

[jasmeel]

His point from his 25 things on Facebook:
14. I am staunchly Right to Life. I do not believe in second class humans, no matter what stage of development they are in. I have run though all the abortion-choice arguments and they are either de-humanizing, misleading or just plain false. This is my biggest disagreement with the Libertarian Party and will most likely be the reason we part ways. I invite all and especially libertarians to go to l4l.org (libertarians for life) and review their arguments. I also find it ironic that our own Mr. Macko, who the LPO sees as a bigoted, sexist, anti-semitic, homophobic, holocaust denying, white supremacist, believes that all humans have the same rights from conception to natural death, while other leaders in our party seem to think that rights are given to the developing child by the mother when she feels like it. It makes me beg the question, “If rights are given to us arbitrarily from somewhere outside ourselves, can they not be justifiably and arbitrarily taken away from us by something outside of ourselves?” and “ If the government allows a mother to decide when her pre-born child has rights, isn't it then the government who is actually giving those rights to the child by proxy?” if so then I could argue that all rights come from the government to the people and can be taken away from the people by the government which would make the foundations of libertarianism (and the U.S. Constitution) false. If you wish to present your abortion-choice arguments to me, please read the library at l4l.org before doing so. It will save us both time.


My Counterpoint (sort of a joke)
1:58pm March 8
Does my kidney have the same rights as my fetus?? I don't know how I'm going to send it to college!!

His dickish response (note the misspelling)
at 12:41am March 9
Thank you Georgette for reinforcing my arguement. Your quip was dehumanizing to a developing baby. Again, please read the library at l4l.org. It covers your dehumanizing comparison of baby = tissue mass. Also, the DNA in your kidney is the same as the DNA in your heart, your developing baby's DNA is different than your kidney's, that is to say it is his or her own individual DNA.

My return response (note the logic, facts and reason)
9:29am March 9
Modern science tells us that some cells within the developing fetus are in fact not pluripotent. Thus,your kidney does have a good deal in common with your fetus (which has cells that are not pluripotent). It depends on surface antigens expressed on certain cells within the developing fetus whether they can become any cell (pluripotency) or have a predetermined cell fate. (King et al 2009 stem Cells Dev.)

Also, your logic in point #14 is flawed. Your argument assumes you are correct from the outset rather than arguing your point based on facts. To refer to a fetus as a pre born child assumes it's a child which of course presumes that one who gets an abortion is killing a child which is of course indirectly assumes the fetus is a child. This is called circular logic.

[BluePatriot21]

1. If you would...

If you would like to debate me on abortion and the wonders of the female body and its cell structure kindly get your own vagina first and then come talk to me, until then keep your dick in your pants so the women in the world wont need to immediately run out and have an abortion because they had sex with you and got pregnant. Thank you.

PS Stop acting like such a little pussy, it in no way makes you qualified to discuss how I deal with mine.

Does that retort work for you? Sorry if I have offended anyone's flower by using those words

[Captain Hilts]

7. Yes, your language is offensive. nt

[jasmeel]

9. You could never offend my flower...=)

[rd_kent]

15. Wait just a second...

Just because someone does not have a vagina does not mean that they are not entitled to their opinion. Many supporters and champions of woman's rights are men. No need to discount some of your biggest supporters as it is self-defeating. Also, I take exception to

"until then keep your dick in your pants so the women in the world wont need to immediately run out and have an abortion because they had sex with you and got pregnant."

Ah, the last time I checked, the woman in your scenario shares equal responsibility here. If men could just chose to have sex with whatever woman he wants, with or without birth control, then you would have a valid point. But until that becomes reality (and it never will) you are dead wrong.

"PS Stop acting like such a little pussy, it in no way makes you qualified to discuss how I deal with mine." I love how you want to have it both ways here. Just because you dont have a dick doesnt mean you should act like a dick.

[tavalon]

2. You're trying to teach a pig to fly

It's going to drive you crazy and probably piss of the pig. It's pointless. These people have no ability to reason or problem solve.

[jasmeel]

3. I'm waiting to see how long until I get defriended from his

acct of Facebook. That's my goal.

Maybe he'll find some logic on his libertarian website... Somehow I doubt it.

[safeinOhio]

4. Hard to argue with that

I love your response.

[BlueJazz]

5. You know...One could get into all kinds of Scenarios, as far as "Killing a Fetus"...I mean..

...If a large potion of the populace votes in a Senator who permits a Chemical plant
to be built (especially in a foreign, Non-regulated Country) AND that same Chemical plant
spews out Toxins that cause a rise in non-voluntary abortions, then are not the people who
voted in that Senator guilty of Murder ??? (if you feel Abortion is Murder... I Don't)

I guess my point is, the world and the subject of Abortions is WAY to complicated to assign
just a Black & White Resolution.

My Thought...as Always..Let. The. Mother. Decide. Period. :)

[jasmeel]

8. That's brilliant... Life begins with the quality of our environment!

That's a great way to sell environmentalism to fundies!

[elias7]

6. Now you can beg the question legally (circular logic fallacy)

whereas his use of "begging the question" was inappropriate

[plantwomyn]

10. You can question him about his own statements.

"This is my biggest disagreement with the Libertarian Party" and "If the government allows a mother to decide..." Libertarianism is all about LIBERTY. Until an human becomes an individual their is no right to "individual liberty". A fetus is in essence at best symbiotic with it's host. Morning sickness is the hosts first clue that her body is attempting to reject a "foreign" object. Once the "relationship" is no longer "mutualistic" it becomes parasitic like a tape worm for example. Tape worms have distinct DNA from their host. So does your Mr. Facebook promote laws to make the removal of tapeworms illegal?
Link this to him and let him answer the question none of the protests could.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. A foetus is no more a child than an adult is.

Talking about foetus as "unborn children" is like talking about adults as "grown-up babies". Foetus, baby, child and adult are different stages of human developement.

A foetus (unlike a kidney) is a human, but (like a kidney) until it has developed a mind it is not a person.

And it is people rather than humans that should have rights.

[Hello_Kitty]

12. An alarming number of libertarian males are anti-choice.

Regardless of what the 'official' position of the party is, I suspect it's the majority of them, at least the male ones. I think they regard 'individual liberty' as exclusively pertaining to males and their property. Women and children are part of that property. A woman who aborts is defiantly rejecting her owner's seed.

[Iris]

13. “If rights are given to us arbitrarily from somewhere outside ourselves," but it's quite all right

for a woman's rights to be arbitrarily decided from somewhere inside her own body?

[GOB2K]

14. yeaaaah

you go girl

[undeterred]

16. I start from a theistic view and end up at a different place.

I do see the fetus as a life and not just a mass of tissue. And I agree with Obama that the decision to abort is a very morally significant one. To me its not merely a medical procedure.

Becoming a human being is a biological process which happens over a period of weeks and months. Taking the life of a viable fetus should therefore be more significant on a legal and moral level than having an organ removed. I would rather see fewer abortions than more, but I don't find anything criminal about having an abortion. It seems to me like a lot of women would rather have the child than abort it, but financial and emotional circumstances make it very difficult for her.

Whenever I run across someone who professes deep concern about the life of the fetus I would like to believe them. But if you carry on the conversation long enough they always end up revealing their contempt for women. There is a pathological envy in many men over a womans ability to bear a child or choose not to bear it. One man told me that he thinks the man who impregnated a woman should have the 'right' to decide she should keep the child if he wants it, even if she does not. I asked him if he could imagine surrendering the right to make his own medical decisions to someone else- even someone who he had broken off a relationship with.

And if it is more important than any ordinary medical decision, then its that much more important that we protect the womans right to make it herself. Any one who wants to be part of that decision should earn his or her place in that womans life. A lot of women would decide to have a child instead of terminate the pregnancy if they had the support and resources it takes to raise a child. It makes all the difference in the world for society to approach an unwanted pregnancy with support and help instead of condemnation.

Anyone who claims to care deeply about the life of the fetus should be working to expand the rights and economic opportunities of women in our society, as well as to expand the availability of birth control and low cost day care. They should also remember that there is a 50% chance the fetus will grow up to be a woman who wants to have rights over her body.

[My Good Babushka]

17. Rights ARE given and taken by the government

I hope not arbitrarily, but sometimes it seems so. So the foundations of his politics is wrong. So his argument is hollow.

[ismnotwasm]

18. To me it boils down to dehumanizing women

rather than dehumanizing a fetus. Every pregnancy is risk. What forced birthers are saying is women should be forced to risk their lives carrying a pregnancy to term. Forced in the truest sense, with no input or recourse; essentially no human rights.


Placing a greater ethical, moral, spiritual and physical value on a theoretical life over the life of all women is the height of misogyny, and has very little to do with the nonsense pseudo-logic your little "L" dickweed puts forth. He simply thinks women have inherently less value than a fetus.

[Iris]

19. well said.

[Mad_Dem_X]

20. That's what it boils down to, IMO.

The opinion that women have less value - and therefore less rights - than a fetus. That once a woman is pregnant, she ceases to be a complete human being in her own right.