Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2018 22:19:11 GMT
Exactly so. Except you missed the part where you then fail to prove me wrong, and so run away. You somehow believe a woman’s choice is more important than a babies right to life. If the baby in question is inside the woman, then yes. See? You freely admit that you cannot produce an argument against the opinion. So you simply call the opinion deranged, as if an insult proved you right. Which is all your "pro life" argument is. An emotional opinion that you can't back up. Everything you pile on top of that fails, because it's all based on a foundation of "I'm obviously right... because I say so! And you're a poopy head if you disagree!" It's why you always, always fail in these discussions.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 26, 2018 22:20:28 GMT
Exactly so. Except you missed the part where you then fail to prove me wrong, and so run away. You somehow believe a woman’s choice is more important than a babies right to life. Exactly. So do I. And I also believe that anyone who does not believe a woman’s choice is more important than a babies right to life is a deranged idiot. Prove me wrong, if you can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2018 22:30:58 GMT
You somehow believe a woman’s choice is more important than a babies right to life. Exactly. So do I. And I also believe that anyone who does not believe a woman’s choice is more important than a babies right to life is a deranged idiot. Prove me wrong, if you can. This thread should be renamed in honour of Cody : "A pro-life advocate gets owned on abortion by... well, everyone really."
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 26, 2018 22:45:36 GMT
@graham
How is this a strong argument though? We’re talking about two separate individuals with unique DNA. Just because the baby is inside the mother does not mean it’s part of the mother. It should not be discriminated against for residing inside the mother. It is also a person and therefore should be granted the same rights as any other person.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 26, 2018 22:51:52 GMT
You somehow believe a woman’s choice is more important than a babies right to life. Exactly. So do I. And I also believe that anyone who does not believe a woman’s choice is more important than a babies right to life is a deranged idiot. Prove me wrong, if you can. If the individual’s choice includes harming an innocent human being, then restricting that individual’s freedom to make that choice is not deranged, it’s ethical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2018 23:02:31 GMT
@graham How is this a strong argument though? We’re talking about two separate individuals with unique DNA. Just because the baby is inside the mother does not mean it’s part of the mother. So what? It doesn't matter to me whether it's part of her body or not. Only that it is inside her body. In my view every person has a fundamental right to control what happens inside their own body, and nobody can override that. Besides, it's simply factually wrong to say that they are not separate. The "baby" is inside the woman, connected to her body. It relies on her body for life support. That is not separate. I disagree that it is a person. I don't think it is. But again, this simply doesn't matter to my argument. Say my heart failed and some demented doctor connected my circulatory system to your body so that your heart pumped for both of us. Say that disconnecting me would kill me. I am a person, and I have the same rights that you have - but you should still have the right to disconnect me from your body, even if it will certainly result in my death. Why? Because your right to control of your body trumps my right to live. Even if I agreed with you that a fetus has the same rights as any other person, in my view it should still be perfectly legal for the mother to abort it. Because those rights do not extend to the right to violate the bodily autonomy of another person.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 26, 2018 23:18:33 GMT
@graham How is this a strong argument though? We’re talking about two separate individuals with unique DNA. Just because the baby is inside the mother does not mean it’s part of the mother. So what? It doesn't matter to me whether it's part of her body or not. Only that it is inside her body. In my view every person has a fundamental right to control what happens inside their own body, and nobody can override that. Besides, it's simply factually wrong to say that they are not separate. The "baby" is inside the woman, connected to her body. It relies on her body for life support. That is not separate. I disagree that it is a person. I don't think it is. But again, this simply doesn't matter to my argument. Say my heart failed and some demented doctor connected my circulatory system to your body so that your heart pumped for both of us. Say that disconnecting me would kill me. I am a person, and I have the same rights that you have - but you should still have the right to disconnect me from your body, even if it will certainly result in my death.
Why? Because your right to control of your body trumps my right to live. Even if I agreed with you that a fetus has the same rights as any other person, in my view it should still be perfectly legal for the mother to abort it. Because those rights do not extend to the right to violate the bodily autonomy of another person. That is not the same thing as abortion, unless you mean just in the case of rape. If it is not a rape then the women chose to create a human. That can involve being responsible thereafter, much like both parents are responsible for much longer. Not taking responsibility is just whacky.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 26, 2018 23:28:58 GMT
So what? It doesn't matter to me whether it's part of her body or not. Only that it is inside her body. In my view every person has a fundamental right to control what happens inside their own body, and nobody can override that. Besides, it's simply factually wrong to say that they are not separate. The "baby" is inside the woman, connected to her body. It relies on her body for life support. That is not separate. I disagree that it is a person. I don't think it is. But again, this simply doesn't matter to my argument. Say my heart failed and some demented doctor connected my circulatory system to your body so that your heart pumped for both of us. Say that disconnecting me would kill me. I am a person, and I have the same rights that you have - but you should still have the right to disconnect me from your body, even if it will certainly result in my death.
Why? Because your right to control of your body trumps my right to live. Even if I agreed with you that a fetus has the same rights as any other person, in my view it should still be perfectly legal for the mother to abort it. Because those rights do not extend to the right to violate the bodily autonomy of another person. That is not the same thing as abortion, unless you mean just in the case of rape. If it is not a rape then the women chose to create a human. That can involve being responsible thereafter, much like both parents are responsible for much longer. Not taking responsibility is just whacky. I have to take issue here, as this is not correct. It is BOTH sexist and inaccurate. Although every time you have sex (even on contraceptives) it is 'possible' to create a baby, this is something about which the participants in sex of both sexes, are totally unaware of and totally without control. No-one knows when a conception will take place, even though it may be possible.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 26, 2018 23:36:16 GMT
@graham
You feel every person has a fundamental right to control what happens inside their own body but not what actually happens to their body? How come? After all 65000 females each year do not have control over their bodies. Besides in most cases control of what happens inside the woman’s body can easily be exercised to prevent pregnancy from happening in the first place.
They’re separate individuals.
A person is properly defined as a member of the human species regarded as an individual.
False equivalency.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 26, 2018 23:37:37 GMT
That is not the same thing as abortion, unless you mean just in the case of rape. If it is not a rape then the women chose to create a human. That can involve being responsible thereafter, much like both parents are responsible for much longer. Not taking responsibility is just whacky. I have to take issue here, as this is not correct. It is BOTH sexist and inaccurate. Although every time you have sex (even on contraceptives) it is 'possible' to create a baby, this is something about which the participants in sex of both sexes, are totally unaware of and totally without control. No-one knows when a conception will take place, even though it may be possible. Then it is very important that they find out. It is their responsibility to find out.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jul 26, 2018 23:41:59 GMT
Both of them are annoying, and extremist. Both believe they know everything in the cosmos based on what little we know in our feeble sensations and meter readings of a tiny part of the Universe.
Do they not teach about Socrates in school any more? He was taught in every high school grade and college History course I took in the seventies. He said the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing (or words to that effect)
Today's society of internet smart phone pukes is a society of people who are the exact opposite of Socrates.
I don't know if a fetus is a cognitive being. If the development of a nervous system and a brain in organic chemistry creates cognition, then we have to admit that there is magic in such chemical processes. If the thought itself is cognition, then computers have cognition, and it is still Magic.
So, since no one knows the supernatural, no one knows.
Fact is that "right to life" is a better slogan for human rights than "right to choice". The conservatives are obviously correct when they equate "right to choose" with the "right of Nazis to choose to exterminate Jews".
However, we don't know if there is a spirit in the fetus. I doubt there is, but I don't know. Anyone who says he or she knows, that person is the most self righteous of liars, and has zero credibility. That appears to be about 4/5 of the people here.
Now, this can best be equated to doing an atomic bomb test on a small island in the Pacific Ocean. You look for life, for human beings, and you search the surface, but if you don't have the tools to look in hidden areas, you don't know if it's uninhabited. We don't have the tools to know if there is cognition or a soul or spirit in the fetus. We can be self righteous and play God and claim since there is no marketable life, that it's not alive, but lets be honest and call it "convenience", because that's what it is.
In the case of destruction of life, if one doesn't know, one should exercise caution for life above the right of another to choose whether to kill that possible life or not. Obviously, if the mother's life is at stake, that should be the first concern. We know that person exists.
So what about the "unwanted child"? Steps should be taken to identify the father, and tests forced upon prospects to determine such, and he should be fined and also sterilized if he refuses to sponsor the child, so he never has another child. Same operation for the mother. Obviously, in the case of rape, only the father, if found, should be sterilized.
Incentives should be given for sterilization any way, such as not letting anyone into positions of government if they have children, and if anyone has children, any amount made over 200,000 a year needs to be all given back to the government to use for universal medical care for all. Each child a woman has should be deducted from whatever food stamps or welfare she gets, unless the child was the result of rape.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2018 23:42:54 GMT
So what? It doesn't matter to me whether it's part of her body or not. Only that it is inside her body. In my view every person has a fundamental right to control what happens inside their own body, and nobody can override that. Besides, it's simply factually wrong to say that they are not separate. The "baby" is inside the woman, connected to her body. It relies on her body for life support. That is not separate. I disagree that it is a person. I don't think it is. But again, this simply doesn't matter to my argument. Say my heart failed and some demented doctor connected my circulatory system to your body so that your heart pumped for both of us. Say that disconnecting me would kill me. I am a person, and I have the same rights that you have - but you should still have the right to disconnect me from your body, even if it will certainly result in my death.
Why? Because your right to control of your body trumps my right to live. Even if I agreed with you that a fetus has the same rights as any other person, in my view it should still be perfectly legal for the mother to abort it. Because those rights do not extend to the right to violate the bodily autonomy of another person. That is not the same thing as abortion Nor was it meant to be. Rather, it was making the point that whether the fetus is considered to be a person or not is not relevant to the argument. This is also irrelevant. Consent is revocable; if, in my example, Cody had agreed to take part in that procedure and provide me with 'life support', he would still have the right to revoke that consent at a later date and cut me off. Even if it meant my death. Having an abortion IS taking responsibility. It's just doing so in a way that some people don't like.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 26, 2018 23:50:51 GMT
That is not the same thing as abortion Nor was it meant to be. Rather, it was making the point that whether the fetus is considered to be a person or not is not relevant to the argument. This is also irrelevant. Consent is revocable; if, in my example, Cody had agreed to take part in that procedure and provide me with 'life support', he would still have the right to revoke that consent at a later date and cut me off. Even if it meant my death. Having an abortion IS taking responsibility. It's just doing so in a way that some people don't like. That is so obviously wrong as regards making children. If you consent to play charades, sure you can change your mind and leave the game. It depends on how much you promised. Breaking that promise could be wrong, but not very wrong, it's just a game. Consenting to making children is at least an 18 year commitment if not longer. You can get out, but there's a price.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2018 23:52:23 GMT
@graham You feel every person has a fundamental right to control what happens inside their own body but not what actually happens to their body? Correct. Because of the principle of bodily autonomy, which I regard as a fundamental right. Indeed, and women have every right to engage in behaviour that will prevent pregnancy - use of birth control, etc. No, they are not. As I demonstrated, one is linked to and dependent on the body of another. To call that 'separate' is to torture the meaning of the word 'separate' beyond usefulness. There are many definitions of person. Wikipedia's article on personhood states that "A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility." It goes on to point out that many cultures define personhood differently. Needless to say, a fetus does not meet that criteria. And again - to me, it does not matter if one considers a fetus a person. If the life of a person is dependent on nullifying the bodily autonomy of another person, then the life of the person is forfeit if the other person decides to withdraw their consent. False in what way?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2018 23:57:09 GMT
Nor was it meant to be. Rather, it was making the point that whether the fetus is considered to be a person or not is not relevant to the argument. This is also irrelevant. Consent is revocable; if, in my example, Cody had agreed to take part in that procedure and provide me with 'life support', he would still have the right to revoke that consent at a later date and cut me off. Even if it meant my death. Having an abortion IS taking responsibility. It's just doing so in a way that some people don't like. That is so obviously wrong as regards making children. No, actually it isn't. Legally, it is not at all wrong. In my opinion, it is not wrong morally or ethically either. You may hold the opinion that you are right and the law and I are wrong, and that is your right. But if you are claiming that your view represents some objective truth and I am factually mistaken, then you are wrong. No, it really isn't. One can abort the "child" during pregnancy. Even after birth, one can give up a child - for adoption by another person, say. If your claim were true, then adoption would be an impossibility because every mother and father would have an 18 year commitment that they would have to fulfil. Hell, the government will even step in and take children off parents - and so they should, in some cases.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 27, 2018 0:07:18 GMT
That is so obviously wrong as regards making children. No, actually it isn't. Legally, it is not at all wrong. In my opinion, it is not wrong morally or ethically either. You may hold the opinion that you are right and the law and I are wrong, and that is your right. But if you are claiming that your view represents some objective truth and I am factually mistaken, then you are wrong. No, it really isn't. One can abort the "child" during pregnancy. Even after birth, one can give up a child - for adoption by another person, say. If your claim were true, then adoption would be an impossibility because every mother and father would have an 18 year commitment that they would have to fulfil. Hell, the government will even step in and take children off parents - and so they should, in some cases. The "law" might hold that it is not a human being, but it probably doesn't say that exactly. Your argument that it doesn't matter whether it is a human being is something else entirely. To argue that it doesn't matter because choice is revocable is a non sequitur. If by chance it is a human being then there is a responsibility on someone for that life. The "law" can excuse responsibility, but there is a logic to causes and effects beyond the law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 0:13:58 GMT
No, actually it isn't. Legally, it is not at all wrong. In my opinion, it is not wrong morally or ethically either. You may hold the opinion that you are right and the law and I are wrong, and that is your right. But if you are claiming that your view represents some objective truth and I am factually mistaken, then you are wrong. No, it really isn't. One can abort the "child" during pregnancy. Even after birth, one can give up a child - for adoption by another person, say. If your claim were true, then adoption would be an impossibility because every mother and father would have an 18 year commitment that they would have to fulfil. Hell, the government will even step in and take children off parents - and so they should, in some cases. The "law" might hold that it is not a human being, but it probably doesn't say that exactly. Your argument that it doesn't matter whether it is a human being is something else entirely. To argue that it doesn't matter because choice is revocable is a non sequitur. Then it's probably a good thing that I didn't make that argument. I dodged a bullet there! Perhaps you'd care to engage with the argument I did make? Again - having an abortion IS taking responsibility for the existence of an unwanted pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 0:18:19 GMT
@graham
In the same way the mafia whack a witness before they’re able to give court testimony.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 0:54:11 GMT
@graham
So the right to control what happens inside the body? Good. The right to control what happens to the body? Bad. Gotcha.
I hear you. And I fully understand where you’re coming from. What I don’t understand is how can be so casually dismissive of another person’s life as if it has no value.
You’re sitting there crying your heart about infringement on the rights of women having control of their own bodies. But don’t seem to give a toss about the 650000 unborn female fetus’ killed each year who do not have control over their bodies. Why the inconsistency and double standards?
Let’s use your hypothetical. If your circulatory system was connected to my body so my heart pumped blood for both of us, would that mean we were no longer separate individuals?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 27, 2018 0:54:24 GMT
Exactly. So do I. And I also believe that anyone who does not believe a woman’s choice is more important than a babies right to life is a deranged idiot. Prove me wrong, if you can. If the individual’s choice includes harming an innocent human being, then restricting that individual’s freedom to make that choice is not deranged, it’s ethical. That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. However, I believe that in this case, the "innocent human being" (embryo/fetus) is not a person, and therefore has no inherent right to life. In order to show otherwise, you'd have to make a convincing case for why a fetus/embryo is a person. Convincing means: Backed up with facts and sound reasoning. Since abortion is legal in most civilized countries, and laws reflect ethics of societies, it would appear that your opinion is not only not backed up with rational arguments, but also wrong.
|
|