|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2023 21:42:49 GMT
I agree. Tell that to someone who fights to defend his country for instance, Should we put them on trial? Or if one defends oneself against an armed intruder? Or what can we say about the Stand Your Ground law in that hotbed of immorality, Texas as well as 37 other states? As already mentioned there is no legal jurisdiction that does not necessarily recognise different types of killing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_lawLegally kill, yes. But the objections are more predicated around the right of women over their own bodies and healthcare especially when we know that most abortions are early on and involve expelling a type of mucus. Defend your country, defend your life, defend your property... The point was that there are different types of killing, only some of which are considered murder, and I have shown it is not just semantics but distinctions common around the world. I think here you have caught a touch of the novastars....
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 29, 2023 22:04:07 GMT
Defend your country, defend your life, defend your property... The point was that there are different types of killing, only some of which are considered murder, and I have shown it is not just semantics but distinctions common around the world. I think here you have caught a touch of the novastars.... Putting the word "legal" in front the word "kill" is merely an attempt to justify it. The semantic sugarcoating is only necessary for those who want to stay in the comfort of denial. Unless it's a kill or be killed situation, it isn't defense. Novastar had nothing to do with with your equating or my noticing it.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2023 22:17:35 GMT
Putting the word "legal" in front the word "kill" is merely an attempt to justify it. The semantic sugarcoating is only necessary for those who want to stay in the comfort of denial. Unless it's a kill or be killed situation, it isn't defense. That there are different types of killing, including justified killing, is a fact. And no one is claiming that abortion is defence, unless as most usually done, for reasons of 'defending' the woman's health and welfare. However the somewhat breathless and hyperbolic manner of expression distinctly reminded me of our friend.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 29, 2023 22:40:51 GMT
Putting the word "legal" in front the word "kill" is merely an attempt to justify it. The semantic sugarcoating is only necessary for those who want to stay in the comfort of denial. Unless it's a kill or be killed situation, it isn't defense. That there are different types of killing, including justified killing, is a fact. And no one is claiming that abortion is defence, unless as most usually done, for reasons of 'defending' the woman's health and welfare. However the somewhat breathless and hyperbolic manner of expression distinctly reminded me of our friend. To say killing is justified merely because it's legal is to let the law dictate morality. The argument that abortion is justified regardless of whether or not it's legal is nothing more than "heads I win, tails you lose." If, as you agreed, morality should dictate the law, then abortion should only be legal when it's a kill or be killed situation. Saying I sound like Novastar is a compliment, but I fail to see how her manner of expression drove you to assert such an asinine comparison.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2023 23:05:17 GMT
To say killing is justified merely because it's legal is to let the law dictate morality. I think the correct way to express matters here, as I have done before, is to say that Killing is not murder if it is legal (or not proven beyond a reasonable doubt of course). Something can be legally justified and so not murder yes; but a killing can be unjustified and not be murder (eg: unintentional homicide) so it is not "merely" the case as you say. This would show the law not dictating morality in practice, something you apparently disapprove of - and arguing against yourself. The problem here is that what is 'moral'; as we see in the abortion debate it has different meanings for different people. For instance your "should only be legal when it's a kill or be killed situation" may not be agreeable to all - especially as such a position seems to exclude abortions even if a pregnancy is due to rape, incest, or otherwise means bringing forth a brain dead child for instance. Perhaps you are a 'hard' pro-lifer? I think others on the pro-life argument may not be so strict in their proscriptions, which reflect the most extreme of pro life countries. I and others might think that for a woman's central health and reproduction rights to be abrogated, especially in favour of something which is not yet 'a person' and feels no pain (in the case of the vast majority of abortions at least) and which in many countries does not even have rights, unless they are subsumed to the mother, is the more immoral thing. It is also the case that many on the pro-life side are motivated by religious morality whereas not everyone would share that source for standards (let alone of the supposed "objective" sort) when it expresses a very poor opinion of the rights of women to speak out while Xian scriptures contain educational examples of mass killing, including that of children born and (presumably) those unborn, dictated by the deity. If you take it so. Because on the occasion which suggested it to me, you were similar in style and manner. But I am glad you are back to normal now.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 29, 2023 23:06:24 GMT
If pro-choicers care so much about killing babies BEFORE they suffer, how come they don't try to pass laws to legalize killing kids who ARE suffering? We've heard more than once ALL the kids in foster care would be better off dead, and if you asked the kids themselves, they would agree with it...strangely enough the people who say this don't make a habit of actually asking foster kids 'do you think you'd rather be dead?', just like they're very quick to say kids with x, y or z syndromes, disabilities, handicaps, etc., would be better off dead, none of which have the balls to go to any said person's face and TELL them they'd be better off dead. Why not?
And they sure wouldn't want to tell a rape baby they should've been killed before they were born, because some of them would be looking into a mirror, or talking to their mother, their grandmother, their sister, brother, spouse, best friend, etc.
And on the subject of rape, I don't understand why it's okay to kill the baby that was MAYBE conceived in rape, but the same people don't demand laws that give women the right to kill their rapists anytime anywhere because that'll be healing for them and give them closure. One person summed it up as 'oh well she might be MISTAKEN', ergo the WRONG man would be killed, oh but even if the guy DIDN'T rape her, he TOTALLY put that rape baby in her so it has to die instead? Yeah, doesn't compute, does it?
If only the anti-choice people cared as much about the child after its born, as they do about it before its born.
Thanks for confirming pro-aborts really don't give a shit about if kids suffer or not, all they want is a way to ESCAPE the consequences of their promiscuous actions.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2023 23:13:19 GMT
If only the anti-choice people cared as much about the child after its born, as they do about it before its born.
Thanks for confirming pro-aborts really don't give a shit about if kids suffer or not, all they want is a way to ESCAPE the consequences of their promiscuous actions.
If you look back, or try and remember, the responsibility argument you use was successfully dealt with already.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 29, 2023 23:45:30 GMT
To say killing is justified merely because it's legal is to let the law dictate morality. I think the correct way to express matters here, as I have done before, is to say that Killing is not murder if it is legal (or not proven beyond a reasonable doubt of course). Something can be legally justified and so not murder yes; but a killing can be unjustified and not be murder (eg: unintentional homicide) so it is not "merely" the case as you say. This would show the law not dictating morality in practice, something you apparently disapprove of - and arguing against yourself. The problem here is that what is 'moral'; as we see in the abortion debate it has different meanings for different people, so that for instance your "should only be legal when it's a kill or be killed situation". may not be agreeable to all - especially as such a position seems to exclude abortions even if a pregnancy is due to rape, incest or otherwise means bringing forth a brain dead child for instance so perhaps you are a 'hard' pro-lifer? I and others might think for that a woman's health and reproduction rights to be abrogated in favour of something which is not yet 'a person' and feels no pain (in the case of the majority of abortions at least) and which in many countries does not have rights, unless they are subsumed to the mother, is the most immoral thing. It is also the case that many on the pro-life side are motivated by religious morality whereas not everyone would share that source for what constitutes morality (let alone of the supposed "objective" sort) You continue to spin debunked semantics, and you forgot to include the capital punishment deflection. In terms of morality, rape is a grey area, and as such, I've no objections to leaving the choice up to the mother. Don't confuse uninvited with unwanted. I was referring to your comparison of having an abortion to blowing your nose. If I were to humor the alleged equivalence, I would ask why nobody struggles with the moral conundrum of picking boogers.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2023 23:56:28 GMT
You continue to spin debunked semantics, and you forgot to include the capital punishment deflection. In terms of morality, rape is a grey area, and as such, I've no objections to leaving the choice up to the mother. Don't confuse uninvited with unwanted. But here your morality has already effectively changed ito accommodate, as before it was abortions " only when killed or be killed". The fluctuation of which was my point. Not me. I did say that the ejecta of early abortions are said to look like mucus. Not the same thing at all. Straw an noted.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 30, 2023 0:15:56 GMT
Thanks for confirming pro-aborts really don't give a shit about if kids suffer or not, all they want is a way to ESCAPE the consequences of their promiscuous actions.
If you look back, or try and remember, the responsibility argument you use was successfully dealt with already.
Not really. An irresponsible person can get an abortion to opt out of THOSE responsibilities, what's their easy out when they get HIV because they couldn't bother using condoms or not having a one night stand with someone they had NO idea of their medical history whatsoever? Pro-aborts for some strange reason just LOVE to go all deaf dumb and dumber when the subject of STDs come up. Don't let those impede on a woman's right to be a revolving door.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 30, 2023 0:25:20 GMT
You continue to spin debunked semantics, and you forgot to include the capital punishment deflection. In terms of morality, rape is a grey area, and as such, I've no objections to leaving the choice up to the mother. Don't confuse uninvited with unwanted. But here your morality has already effectively changed ito accommodate, as before it was abortions " only when killed or be killed". The fluctuation of which was my point. We were talking in context of defense. Objectively speaking, if killing an innocent human being is, without exception, immoral, then aborting a rape baby is immoral. Then again, aborting to save the life of the mother would be as well, but you didn't take issue with that. I'm surprised you didn't QED my statement out of pure pedantry, but I appreciate you bringing up an exception that didn't come to mind when I wrote it. Yes, you: "most abortions are early on and involve expelling a type of mucus"And now that we're discussing the discussion, I believe I'll be on my merry way. Thanks for the chat.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 30, 2023 0:43:54 GMT
If you look back, or try and remember, the responsibility argument you use was successfully dealt with already. Not really. Yes really, as I said back then essentially the conceptions of responsibility that can ground the objection to abortions do not usually necessitate a requirement on the part of a pregnant woman to carry her pregnancy to term, and yours appear to spring from sexism and moral condemnation. Thus, your repeated iterations of the responsibility objection cannot easily be used to curtail reproductive choice and smacks of victim blaming. Then you suddenly remembered the responsibilities of men, remember? LOL The operative word here is "can". And you are arguing against a universal right based on what some might do (which no one denies). One might as argue against freedom of speech since some might use it to offer hateful and intimidating speech, then dodge behind the constitution to avoid responsibilities. But as mentioned above your notions of responsibility imho are not strong enough to necessitate always carrying to full term. Sorry about that. There is no doubt that condoms help avoid sexually transmitted disease. But your point is better addressed towards the Catholic Church which condemns their use, aiding to the spread of disease as well as unwanted births. STDs may be a good argument for contraceptives but again do not constitute a strong enough case to deny basic rights over health and reproduction.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 30, 2023 1:08:27 GMT
We were talking in context of defense. Objectively speaking, if killing an innocent human being is, without exception, immoral, then aborting a rape baby is immoral. Then again, aborting to save the life of the mother would be as well, but you didn't take issue with that. I'm surprised you didn't QED my statement out of pure pedantry, but I appreciate you bringing up an exception that didn't come to mind when I wrote it. That is the problem: to make this sort of statement one needs to agree first there is 'objective morality', when in fact many philosophers would argue that all morality is necessarily subjective - something I have tried to explain to you. I agree it is a coherent position to assert "all killing is wrong" but it is hard to hold the line as life is not like that. We are not all Quakers when tested on various examples; this while God, ostensibly the source of all "objective morality" Himself has a inconvenient record of mass killings, including that of innocent children. Moral codes tend to condemn unjust killings, legal codes those illegal ones.. It perfectly makes my point though. The immorality of letting a mother die when she could be saved or killing a foetus is finely balanced. Unless the mother succeeds in arguing otherwise the usual rule is to favour the survival of the mother. According to your logic all actions would be immoral: killing the foetus, or delivering the baby and thereby killing the mother, or doing nothing and letting nature take its course knowing the outcome. Haphazard notions of morality can have devastating effects on those thereby condemned. Never heard of cervical mucus, eh? I have: Cervical mucus is a fluid produced by and released from the cervix (the opening to uterus). Hormones cause the cervical mucus to change in texture, volume and colour throughout the menstrual cycle. (The presence of salt crystals in early pregnancy mucus is associated with a 50 per cent risk of abortion.) During pregnancy, a thick plug of mucus blocks the cervical opening to prevent bacteria from entering the uterus. During the late third trimester, this plug might push into the vagina. A woman might notice an increase in vaginal discharge that's clear, pink or slightly bloody. And nope, nothing about 'blowing a nose' there. I hope that helps. And thank you for playing.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 30, 2023 1:58:27 GMT
We were talking in context of defense. Objectively speaking, if killing an innocent human being is, without exception, immoral, then aborting a rape baby is immoral. Then again, aborting to save the life of the mother would be as well, but you didn't take issue with that. I'm surprised you didn't QED my statement out of pure pedantry, but I appreciate you bringing up an exception that didn't come to mind when I wrote it. That is the problem: to make this sort of statement one needs to agree first there is 'objective morality', when in fact many philosophers would argue that all morality is necessarily subjective - something I have tried to explain to you. I agree it is reasonable to assert "all killing is wrong" but it is hard to hold the line as life is not like that, and we are not all Quakers when tested on various examples; this while God, ostensibly the source of all "objective morality" Himself has a inconvenient record of mass killings. Moral codes tend to condemn unjust killings, legal codes those illegal ones.. It perfectly makes my point though. The immorality of letting a mother die when she could be saved or killing a foetus is finely balanced. Unless the mother succeeds in arguing otherwise the usual rule is to favour the survival of the mother. Haphazard notions of morality can have devastating effects on those thereby condemned. Never heard of cervical mucus, eh? I have: Cervical mucus is a fluid produced by and released from the cervix (the opening to uterus). Hormones cause the cervical mucus to change in texture, volume and colour throughout the menstrual cycle. (The presence of salt crystals in early pregnancy mucus is associated with a 50 per cent risk of abortion.) During pregnancy, a thick plug of mucus blocks the cervical opening to prevent bacteria from entering the uterus. During the late third trimester, this plug might push into your vagina. You might notice an increase in vaginal discharge that's clear, pink or slightly bloody. And nope, nothing about 'blowing a nose' there. I hope that helps. And thank you for playing. It appears that you misunderstood. I didn't say morality was objective; I said I was speaking objectively. And I was: "If killing an innocent human being is, without exception, immoral, then killing a rape baby is immoral." That isn't a subjective opinion about morality, it's an objective fact, for if rape babies are an exception, it would not be without exception. I suppose if I said nobody should be allowed to speed, you'd be quick to bring up emergencies and strut like a pigeon playing chess. We weren't talking about aborting a ball of snot, and abortions involve a lot of things that are just as irrelevant to the actual topic at hand. At any rate, discussions about the discussion and its participants are for peanut galleries. However... 50% risk of abortion. lol. Admin out.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 30, 2023 5:13:00 GMT
Yes really, as I said back then essentially the conceptions of responsibility that can ground the objection to abortions do not usually necessitate a requirement on the part of a pregnant woman to carry her pregnancy to term, and yours appear to spring from sexism and moral condemnation. Thus, your repeated iterations of the responsibility objection cannot easily be used to curtail reproductive choice and smacks of victim blaming. Then you suddenly remembered the responsibilities of men, remember? LOL The operative word here is "can". And you are arguing against a universal right based on what some might do (which no one denies). One might as argue against freedom of speech since some might use it to offer hateful and intimidating speech, then dodge behind the constitution to avoid responsibilities. But as mentioned above your notions of responsibility imho are not strong enough to necessitate always carrying to full term. Sorry about that. There is no doubt that condoms help avoid sexually transmitted disease. But your point is better addressed towards the Catholic Church which condemns their use, aiding to the spread of disease as well as unwanted births. STDs may be a good argument for contraceptives but again do not constitute a strong enough case to deny basic rights over health and reproduction.
Condoms ARE a basic right over health and reproduction. If you can't be bothered to buy a $5 box of condoms, you have absolutely ZERO business having sex, no matter what you wanna. Teenagers wanna drive around at 80 mph with no license, doesn't mean they get to.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 30, 2023 10:36:36 GMT
It appears that you misunderstood. I didn't say morality was objective; I said I was speaking objectively. Remember what you said about semantics, just earlier? I do. To which the answer is that "killing an innocent human being is always immoral" sounds like an absolute, supposed objective view of morality. (Not that I would necessarily disagree in most cases.) But as I have shown, there are exceptions - and indeed your list of such, since grown longer, for abortion were ones you yourself allowed. Let's not forget once again that this proscription also drags the God of Love in, murdering all first borns. So if one admits some exceptions, why not carefully argued and legal others? Here you already can see the problems with the absolutes of objective morality. Then why were you going on about the blowing of noses, to which I made no reference? From: CERVICAL MUCUS AND THE MANAGEMENT OF ABORTION R. R. Macdonald M.D., M.R.C.O.G. i.e. not LOL What, again?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 30, 2023 10:46:12 GMT
Condoms ARE a basic right over health and reproduction. I don't think you can separate out the two so readily. It is more the human right to the highest attainable standard of health which is recognized in international human rights law (and one reason why the right to abortion is based on a woman's health and wellbeing). To suggest condoms are somehow 'over' this needs substantiation. Remember what I said about your arguments from responsibility, how ultimately they do not trump a woman's reproductive rights and control over her own body? I do.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 30, 2023 12:48:00 GMT
Condoms ARE a basic right over health and reproduction. I don't think you can separate out the two so readily. It is more the human right to the highest attainable standard of health which is recognized in international human rights law (and one reason why the right to abortion is based on a woman's health and wellbeing). To suggest condoms are somehow 'over' this needs substantiation. Remember what I said about your arguments from responsibility, how ultimately they do not trump a woman's reproductive rights and control over her own body? I do.
You can't tout control over your own body when you can't be bothered to actually exercise it. 'My body my choice'? Stop making stupid choices and expecting people to feel sorry for you then.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 30, 2023 16:19:52 GMT
I don't think you can separate out the two so readily. It is more the human right to the highest attainable standard of health which is recognized in international human rights law (and one reason why the right to abortion is based on a woman's health and wellbeing). To suggest condoms are somehow 'over' this needs substantiation. Remember what I said about your arguments from responsibility, how ultimately they do not trump a woman's reproductive rights and control over her own body? I do.
You can't tout control over your own body when you can't be bothered to actually exercise it. 'My body my choice'? Stop making stupid choices and expecting people to feel sorry for you then.
As already said, and with reasons, the argument from responsibility is not effective.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 30, 2023 18:20:15 GMT
You can't tout control over your own body when you can't be bothered to actually exercise it. 'My body my choice'? Stop making stupid choices and expecting people to feel sorry for you then.
As already said, and with reasons, the argument from responsibility is not effective.
And yet you pointed out that's the true argument. 'Abortion lets women escape responsibility for their actions'.
|
|