|
Post by goz on Jul 27, 2018 1:02:54 GMT
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. Logically (in normal medical terms not IVF) they can ONLY find out a few weeks after the event, when it MAY be too late!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 27, 2018 1:07:20 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. In this connection, maybe you should consider this point? "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." from a previous by me post to Planet Arlon.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 1:09:15 GMT
phludowinSimple. The proper definition of a person is a member of the human species regarded as an individual. A fetus is of the human species and is an individual(as distinct from a group) making it a person. This is not only reasonable but also factual.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 27, 2018 1:10:03 GMT
Then it is very important that they find out. It is their responsibility to find out. Logically (in normal medical terms not IVF) they can ONLY find out a few weeks after the event, when it MAY be too late! Not really. If you drive a car and have an accident, does it matter whether you intended to have an accident? Of course not, intentional or not intentional, you are responsible for the accident.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 27, 2018 1:13:46 GMT
Logically (in normal medical terms not IVF) they can ONLY find out a few weeks after the event, when it MAY be too late! Not really. If you drive a car and have an accident, does it matter whether you intended to have an accident? Of course not, intentional or not intentional, you are responsible for the accident. Not necessarily, and nobody 'intends' to have an accident.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 1:19:54 GMT
@graham So the right to control what happens inside the body? Good. The right to control what happens to the body? Bad. Gotcha. It really didn't seem to be so complicated that you'd need to repeat it. But okay. I don't know why you would make the assumption that I have been "casually dismissive". I suspect it's because, having arrived at the part of the thread where you realise that your arguments have failed, we are now moving into the "insult and then act like I've obviously won" part of your strategy. Time will tell. You haven't described inconsistency or double standards. You yourself summarised the right to control of what goes on in your body and what happens to your body as two different things. I agree with you about that, they are. I also feel that I've been very clear that I don't regard a fetus as a person which possesses rights at all. I've stated it several times, in this thread and in previous ones. Did you really not understand that this is my position? Yes obviously it would mean that. Here's a question for you. Do you regard conjoined twins as being separate? If so, then why do surgeons sometimes find it necessary to use surgery to separate people who are already separate to begin with?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 1:22:28 GMT
Logically (in normal medical terms not IVF) they can ONLY find out a few weeks after the event, when it MAY be too late! Not really. If you drive a car and have an accident, does it matter whether you intended to have an accident? Of course not, intentional or not intentional, you are responsible for the accident. And if you do have an accident, and it damaged your car... are you required to live with the undesired consequence of the accident and just have a damaged car forever? Is that the only way of taking responsibility for the accident? Or is it perhaps so that hiring an expert to get rid of the damage and restore the car to the way it was, is a responsible way of dealing with the situation?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 1:25:07 GMT
@graham So the right to control what happens inside the body? Good. The right to control what happens to the body? Bad. Gotcha. It really didn't seem to be so complicated that you'd need to repeat it. But okay. I don't know why you would make the assumption that I have been "casually dismissive". I suspect it's because, having arrived at the part of the thread where you realise that your arguments have failed, we are now moving into the "insult and then act like I've obviously won" part of your strategy. Time will tell. You haven't described inconsistency or double standards. You yourself summarised the right to control of what goes on in your body and what happens to your body as two different things. I agree with you about that, they are. I also feel that I've been very clear that I don't regard a fetus as a person which possesses rights at all. I've stated it several times, in this thread and in previous ones. Did you really not understand that this is my position? Yes obviously it would mean that. Here's a question for you. Do you regard conjoined twins as being separate? If so, then why do surgeons sometimes find it necessary to use surgery to separate people who are already separate to begin with? Conjoined twins are separate individuals yes. By separate I mean distinct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 1:29:30 GMT
Conjoined twins are separate individuals yes. By separate I mean distinct. "If so, then why do surgeons sometimes find it necessary to use surgery to separate people who are already separate to begin with?"
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 27, 2018 3:29:11 GMT
captainbryce For the same reason no one should have the right to end human beings life after it’s birthed. That does not follow. I DO have the right to end another human beings life under certain circumstances. In self defense, I have the right to end your life. In military combat, I have the right to end an enemy combatant’s life. A police officer has the right to end the life of a criminal threat. None of these apply to an unborn human being obviously, but you can’t just throw some blanket statement out there about how one has no right to end a life without qualifying that statement. Sometimes we do! We’ve been over this. Killing an innocent human being is murder plain and simple. Making it legal doesn’t make it any less immoral. Slavery was legal a couple of hundred years ago. So was killing Jews during Nazi Germany. We have been over it yes; you were wrong then and you still are. Murder is BY DEFINITION the unlawful killing of another human being. If it is LAWFUL, it is not murder. Plain and simple! So you are just factually incorrect. I’m not addressing the “morality” of killing being that varies depending on the circumstance, and morality is subjective. You support the murder of preborn babies. You’re in no position to call anyone else’s logic into question. Well I am; because nothing about what you previously said (nor what you are saying now) is consistent with logic. I do not support the “murder of preborn babies”, I support a woman’s legal right to choose. The only thing that has been definitely determined at this point is that you don’t know what the definition of murder is. If you honestly believe killing a innocent baby Straw man. I think terminating an undeveloped fetus is more ethical than forcing an innocent woman to deliver a rape pregnancy. then you really need to reassess your own code of ethics. Getting ethical advice from someone who thinks that homosexuals are going to hell is like getting dance lessons from a cripple.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 27, 2018 6:21:35 GMT
phludowin Simple. The proper definition of a person is a member of the human species regarded as an individual. A fetus is of the human species and is an individual(as distinct from a group) making it a person. That is your definition of a person, but it is not the universally accepted one. I'll post another one, taken from Wikipedia. This is closer to what I believe a person is. I'd also add that a person should have a sense of time, and expectations for the present and future, to be considered a person. The Wikipedia article also says says that "the defining features of personhood and consequently what makes a person count as a person differ widely among cultures and contexts". Since your stance on abortion seems to rest upon your definition of a person, I guess we should agree to disagree on that one.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 9:28:19 GMT
phludowin Simple. The proper definition of a person is a member of the human species regarded as an individual. A fetus is of the human species and is an individual(as distinct from a group) making it a person. That is your definition of a person, but it is not the universally accepted one. I'll post another one, taken from Wikipedia. This is closer to what I believe a person is. I'd also add that a person should have a sense of time, and expectations for the present and future, to be considered a person. The Wikipedia article also says says that "the defining features of personhood and consequently what makes a person count as a person differ widely among cultures and contexts". Since your stance on abortion seems to rest upon your definition of a person, I guess we should agree to disagree on that one. No that is not the universally accepted definition. That is a definition that you like which you feel suits your deranged narrative. All the dictionaries disagree with you. dictionary.com noun 1. a human being, whether an adult or child: 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. Oxforddictionaries.com NOUN 1A human being regarded as an individual. Collinsdictionary.com A person is a man, woman, or child. Merriam-Webster.com 1 : human, individual Oxfordlearnersdictionary.com a human as an individual
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 27, 2018 9:42:45 GMT
phludowin Simple. The proper definition of a person is a member of the human species regarded as an individual. A fetus is of the human species and is an individual(as distinct from a group) making it a person. This is not only reasonable but also factual. "Proper" definition? And then you think there are "factual" definitions, too?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 9:56:57 GMT
captainbryce I obviously meant innocent human. Nice try. Technically you may be right. But I see abortion for what it clearly is. Legalised unjustified killing of innocent human life. You’re arguing over semantics and technicalities when the morality of the situation should be the main issue. You support a woman’s right to have the choice to kill her preborn baby. In other words you do support the killing of preborn babies. I’ll rephrase it then. You believe women killing an innocent human is less unethical than a woman delivering a rape pregnancy. That’s messed up. You see this the crux of the problem for far-left people like you. You’ll get behind and support any cause that you feel conservatives are opposed to.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 9:57:56 GMT
phludowin Simple. The proper definition of a person is a member of the human species regarded as an individual. A fetus is of the human species and is an individual(as distinct from a group) making it a person. This is not only reasonable but also factual. And then you think there are "factual" definitions, too? Yes. It’s called a dictionary.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 27, 2018 10:03:48 GMT
And then you think there are "factual" definitions, too? Yes. It’s called a dictionary. And what makes the definition you find in a dictionary the "proper," factual definition? Just what would you say that dictionary authors are doing when they write a definition? Where do you believe they get the definitions from?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 10:27:35 GMT
Yes. It’s called a dictionary. And what makes the definition you find in a dictionary the "proper," factual definition? Just what would you say that dictionary authors are doing when they write a definition? Where do you believe they get the definitions from? Well dictionaries do tend to be the authority when it comes to accurate definitions of words.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 27, 2018 11:06:21 GMT
Well that’s not what you said, so try harder! In any case, it disproves the notion that all killing is murder. And it also disqualifies the idea of equating reasons one might be justified in terminating of a fetus to the killing of a actual person (which a fetus is not). Technically you may be right. There is not “technically” or “may” about it. I am factually right, and you are factually wrong! But I see abortion for what it clearly is. Legalised unjustified killing of innocent human life. You’re arguing over semantics and technicalities when the morality of the situation should be the main issue. Morality is subjective. Just because you “see it” one way doesn’t mean that how you see it is some objective moral standard that everyone should adopt. Because as I’ve already pointed out, you have a number of positions that I’d consider moral failings yourself. As far as I can tell, you “see” a lot of stupid and immoral things “clearly”. The point is that while you are entitled to your opinion that abortion is morally wrong, the law doesn’t see it that way, and neither do I nor millions of other people. If you don’t believe in abortion then don’t have one. That doesn’t mean you need to be forcing your religious, moral teachings down everyone else’s thread and insist on legislating their rights away based on your subjective moral beliefs. You support a woman’s right to have the choice to kill her preborn baby. In other words you do support the killing of preborn babies. I support a woman’s right to authorize a termination of pregnancy (depending on the circumstances) yes. I would never do that, and I would never recommend someone else do it. But it should be a woman’s legal right to do since that’s her body. I do not recognize an unborn fetus as a person. But even if I did, there are some circumstances in which even the innocent should be sacrificed for the greater good. And that decision should be left up to the person responsible for bringing that life to term. I’ll rephrase it then. You believe women killing an innocent human is less unethical than a woman delivering a rape pregnancy. That’s messed up. Even though your rephrase is a double negative, that’s essentially correct. And that’s okay for you to think that my beliefs are messed up. I think your beliefs about a lot of things are messed up. We can agree to disagree on such opinions. You see this the crux of the problem for far-left people like you. You’ll get behind and support any cause that you feel conservatives are opposed to. 1) I don’t see how that relates to my analogy at all. 2) That’s not a “problem” at all if you are “far-left”, anymore than it’s a problem that “far right” people will refuse to support any liberal cause. That’s why they are called “far left” or “far right” in the first place. 3) That’s not even true in my case. I’m definitely left, but I’m not so far left that I cannot adopt some conservative points of view. There are in fact SOME conservative causes that I can get behind, just not very many. And I presume the same works in reverse for most middle of the road conservatives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 11:11:31 GMT
And what makes the definition you find in a dictionary the "proper," factual definition? Just what would you say that dictionary authors are doing when they write a definition? Where do you believe they get the definitions from? Well dictionaries do tend to be the authority when it comes to accurate definitions of words. No, they aren't. Dictionaries describe the usage of words, they don't define them.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 11:29:46 GMT
captainbryce I thought the killing of an innocent human is universally regarded as wrong. I guess I have too much faith in people. Again your argument basically falls back to “if it’s legal, then it should be acceptable”. I’ve already debunked that bs. Slavery was legal and an acceptable practice by a large number of people once upon a time. So was gassing Jews during Nazi germany. Both were just as evil then as they are acknowledged today. So you support the killing of a preborn human being, yes. Thanks for the confirmation.
|
|