Log In · Register

 

Debate Rules

Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.

Debate.

17 Pages V  « < 13 14 15 16 17 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
ABORTION VERSION TWO
NoSex
post Dec 5 2009, 12:55 AM
Post #351


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(Peanups @ Dec 4 2009, 11:30 PM) *
If you say it's not born, go back to the law of biogenesis. A persons produces a PERSON.


i don't care whether or not a baby is human or alive or a "person." i simply do not believe that discourse is part of the legal problem of abortion, see my arguments (above, in this thread) for clarification on that point. nonetheless, i would like to correct you on two points:

1. biogenesis is the process of one lifeform producing another lifeform, not necessarily x producing x (eg. a horse & a donkey produce a mule) -- that's not what biogenesis is concerned with.
2. the "law of biogensis" could refer to two things:
a. the idea that living things only arise from living & not non-living things.
b. the wholly discredited idea that the embryonic developmental stages of a specific species mimic or are especially similar to that same species' evolutionary stages.

so, essentially, you're wrong.
 
fixtatik
post Dec 5 2009, 01:41 AM
Post #352


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,237
Joined: May 2008
Member No: 648,123



QUOTE(NoSex @ Dec 5 2009, 12:04 AM) *
3. you completely contradict yourself here: first you say that roe v. wade only permits the mother to abort "until birth", then you ask why she cannot abort the baby after birth. well, because that's the law. the court decided on no abortions after birth. :)

...And everything else.

I understand I may have been a bit obscure in my questioning; I'm just wondering why that decision was made. Why is it that it's the mother's "right" to kill before, but not after? I hardly think 9 people (especially 9 people who weren't elected by the majority) have the right to make that decision (and yes, I know it was a 7-2 decision, not 9-0). But then, yes, who has the right to say that it can't be done. And the answer is this: it's manslaughter.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it murder, because it's not exactly done with ill intentions in mind. But it's nothing less than manslaughter; no matter which way you put it, it's the destruction of a human being. Destroying an egg or sperm separately is not, because apart, they are not human beings. Humans have 46 chromosomes (give or take, depending on abnormalities). Once human sperm and egg form that initial cell, that's a human. Otherwise, you'd have to define when that cell structure becomes a human being.

I've read pro-choice articles where writers argue that individual cells (like a skin flake from the top of your head) are human, but not human beings, like a zygote is human, but not a human being. I find that to be a deeply flawed argument. Whether you consider a zygote, embryo, fetus, whatever, to be a human being or not, if you let it grow, it will be born, age, and die like the rest of us. A hair cell will not grow to what we consider a person. A sperm and egg together will, if nothing goes wrong.

But everything about pro-choice all goes back to the same point: a fetus is capable of surviving outside of the mother if it's premature, with the help of machines. And therefore, it's not an actual part of the mother. Whether you like it or not, that thing is a separate entity. If a mother carries it to term, it's not going to keep living inside her. Late-term abortions are post-24 weeks. I suppose it's safe to assume that's when the states which ban late-term abortions consider the fetus to be a human being. Why 24 weeks? At 15 weeks, a fetus still looks like a baby, albeit a tad deformed. Its lungs start developing, and it can sense light. Why isn't it a human being at 15 weeks? At 10 weeks? At a day?

If someone goes so far as to define when these cells become a human being (even if they do say it's at conception), still: why is it the mother's right to determine its fate? The process is nothing less than sickening. If the fetus is developed past the elements of drugs, doctors go inside the womb with forceps, drag the baby out and pull it apart piece by piece. Funny, that's legal to do, but I'd be arrested if I pulled off the fingers of my neighbor.

edit: I feel I should address the indecision of viability without artificial support in Roe v. Wade. There are people in the world who wouldn't survive *immediately* without mechanical support, but do recover (I say immediately because otherwise we'd end up on a tangent with VS or comatose victims). There are cases of people who have to be on life support after a full-term delivery, and remain on it for years to come. Yet it would be illegal to kill this person. Like I said before, I find abortion legality to be extremely inconsistent with the rest of US laws regarding death.
 
NoSex
post Dec 5 2009, 04:05 AM
Post #353


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(fixtatik @ Dec 5 2009, 12:41 AM) *
I'm just wondering why that decision was made. Why is it that it's the mother's "right" to kill before, but not after?


because it is the mother's right? & after the child has left the mother's body, it no longer relates to those rights. i'll say this again: the legal precedent for choice is that it affirms the right of the mother to control her body. once the child has left the mothers body, obviously, the terms which permit abortion no longer apply. that is why the child cannot be terminated after birth. it's about the mother's rights, not the child's (i.e. of course, whether or not you even believe the child has rights).

i don't see how you still haven't grasped this idea. the mother has a right to privacy & the right to control her own body. if a pregnancy is unwanted, the mother has the right, legally, to terminate that pregnancy. as i had stated before, this is pragmatic. it works. it helps our society function. & the legal status of abortion is a reflection of the powers & responsibilities of government, i.e. government has a responsibility to uphold the rights of women. now, as i will reluctantly demonstrate (i say reluctantly because i have already made it clear that this is not of immediate legal concern, or of specific concern to myself), the status of the fetus as a person is ambiguous, & for this ambiguity, legal precedence must be given to the mother (who is, without debate, a person).

1. in early stages, the unborn child looks absolutely nothing like a human being. this creates a sense of separation. generally, & in our world of signifiers, we expect things to appear uniform. most of us can recognize a table, because it is easy to understand what a table is. however, an unborn child, @ an early stage, is so unlike a human being, that even visually identifying (or differentiating) it is especially difficult. this is unprecedented & a sign that the problem is more complicated than the anti-abortion side would like to admit.
2. biology, sociology, philosophy, even religion has not yet been able to come to good agreement, even within provincial circles, on what exactly a person is. personhood is a complex & uniquely transcendent concept (i.e. it is unmeasurable).
3. biology may come closest in agreement on what makes a human being. however, biology has nothing whatsoever to say about personhood. this is a problem because personhood is what allows men to build governments, share rights, etc. if we operate merely from the position of biology, we cannot discuss the function or nature of rights (which are bestowed & maintained by persons).
4. further, as i alluded to earlier, biology can only come closest in agreement; the issue of what determines a human being is indeed still controversial & without certainty. for example, you said that a human being has forty-sex chromosomes. that, however, is not necessarily true. there are chromosomal anomalies. for example, a child with down-syndrome may have 47 or 48 chromosomes & a child with turner syndrome will have 45 chromosomes.
5. you must recognize that we do not, in any other matter, treat an unborn child as a person. a birthed child has a certificate of birth, why? because this is the moment that we socially deemed significant to enter civilization as some degree of person. we give them social security numbers & consider them in census & for tax roll. to demand a fetus as a human would be to deny the history of our relationship, in society, with the fetus. there is a reason it is a birth certificate & not a certificate of conception.
6. for all your analogies, of course, you fail to truly characterize the position of the fetus. the fetus is unique in its dependency in that, when in the womb of the mother, it demands the body of a singular woman, without inclusion. i.e. only that specific mother can carry her child, only that specific mother can nurture her child. no one else can care for the mother's child, unlike all other cases of dependent beings. even further, not only is the child dependent exclusively on its mother, it actually lives inside of her. there is no other case that i can think of in which a being gains personhood while living in & of another's body. this is unique. now, even if the child were determined to be a human being, with a right to life, we could not @ the same time demand that the mother give up her body, unwillingly, for the child. if you want to discuss so called inconsistencies, note that we cannot force organ transplants or blood transfusion, even if it would save someone's life -- this is despite the fact that we maintain that we hold the right to life. we cannot forcefully draw from another's lifeforce in order to support a dependent. a fetus on a respirator is just that, a fetus on a respirator -- it is simply not dependent in the same way an unborn child is, for it does not impede on the rights of another, & especially not a unitary & solitary other (i.e. one mother, one caregiver).

in summary:
the personhood of the fetus is indeterminate @ best. & given the structure of our government & our constitution, the best, most appropriate legal status is choice. the mother's rights are without question, so we must support & defend them. &, even if we were to affirm the rights of the unborn, which would be unprecedented in all of human history (for christ's sake, god aborts babies in the bible), those rights could not be reconciled with the rights of the mother -- our government simply does not allow it. if i may emphasize once more, because the opposition has seemed to ignore this point, the legal precedent is on the right of the woman (not on a discussion of the personhood of an unborn child). forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy is unconstitutional, just as forcing anyone to give up their body for the sake of another is unconstitutional.

& to clarify my very first point & the question raised in your quote:
the mother has the right to terminate the child before it is born & not after because of the fact that before the child is born the mother's rights are being impeded on & after, the mother no longer stands as the necessary provider & holder of the child. once the child leaves the mother, it makes sense that the abortion, termination is no longer permitted, because the purpose of abortion to begin with is to reaffirm the right of the woman has to her body. once her body is no longer invaded, termination is no longer an option. this makes sense.
 
fixtatik
post Dec 5 2009, 06:34 AM
Post #354


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,237
Joined: May 2008
Member No: 648,123



QUOTE(NoSex @ Dec 5 2009, 04:05 AM) *
for example, you said that a human being has forty-sex chromosomes. that, however, is not necessarily true. there are chromosomal anomalies. for example, a child with down-syndrome may have 47 or 48 chromosomes & a child with turner syndrome will have 45 chromosomes.
Actually, I said give or take, depending on abnormalities, but I'll let that slide.

The problem with your argument is that you keep saying that government-appointed rights exist; the entire debate revolves around why certain rights are given, not that they are given. The only thing that I don't "grasp" is the reasoning behind determining that something following natural law is a violation of human rights. If it's in regards to a woman's rights take a look at federal law. It's illegal to attempt a home abortion, or to kill the fetus in any other way besides what's medically approved in abortion clinics. Doesn't that violate a woman's privacy? If the whole debate is about rights, shouldn't it be the mother's right to determine how and when to terminate a pregnancy? It's her body, right? And if that's the case, what about drug addicts who aren't harming society, but merely their own bodies? Why is that illegal? It's their body. You say it's the government's responsibility to be practical, but the inconsistencies surrounding abortion legality are anything but practical.

I also don't see the grounds of your association of an unborn child with that of an "invader." Children are not forced upon us. Even in the case of rape, the "complication" of a pregnancy is not against laws which were around long before people invented rights. Females in all species that utilize internal pregnancy were built (whether by creation or evolution) to bear children. A child growing inside of a mother is not a virus that needs to be removed.

Not only that, but it contradicts the fact that you brought up: 36 states made it illegal to terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks of gestation. It's still in her body, so isn't it her right? Again, rolling back to the same problem: when is a fetus determined a person? There's my example of a premature birth. (Please, note that I've made a statement that a fetus is not a parasite that needs to be removed, so don't throw any circular arguments at me.) Late-term abortion occurs after 24 weeks. Babies can be born prior to 24 weeks, but as I said, it's a crime to kill them. Since that's true, governments decide that a fetus becomes a person when it leaves the mother. But wait...36 states disagree and say that it's illegal to abort after 24 weeks, so it must be a person then. Seems to me that pro-choice advocates have more of a debate going on among each other than pro-choice vs. pro-life.

There were well over a million abortions in the US in 2005. England gets the pleasure of 200,000 a year. Are there really that many women who are suffering complications from pregnancies (i.e., the fetus actually is a parasite, risking the mother's health), or are these just a bunch of foolish, irresponsible morons who think that because everyone else does it, why not them?
 
brooklyneast05
post Dec 5 2009, 10:24 AM
Post #355


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



QUOTE
I was simply asking what do you believe are the differences. Go back to the law of biogenesis. A persons produces a PERSON. In between conception and birth, it is a person at conception and when the women goes to give labor, because a person can ONLY reproduce another person. It is a human at all stages of existence, because again, as the law of biogenesis states, humans produces humans.


no you still are misapplying this law. of course it's a human in the sense that it's not some other species of animal. humans do conceive humans, duh. i'm saying that that is irrelevant to whether it's a person in the sense that it has rights. we're just using different ideas of the word person. just because a human isn't conceiving a donkey, doesn't mean that it think what's just been conceived has the same rights as those who are born. you're saying i guess that because what's just been conceived is going to grow into a human being, that it has the same rights. i don't think it does at that moment in time.

QUOTE
Again, you are basing everything on the basis that the unborn are basically not a person. But why don't you explain to me what defines a human? I was simply stating ways that people dismiss a fetus as being a person.


it's because we're throwing around a ton of different words like human and person all at once, both with different ideas of what this is. if you haven't read nates posts then read those, because he says it a lot better than me. i don't think a fetus is a "person" with legal rights.


QUOTE
Goes back to the top. What defines a person? Why can't a fetus be a person? We're you not a person while in the womb at contraception? Doesn't this all go back to the law of biogenesis? This AGAIN, goes back to the law of biogenesis, person produces a person. Intelligence should NOT be a factor to decide what is human and what is not.

Also, I was not saying that mentally disabled people can't think. It seems someone read into it a little too much. I am saying their intellectual capabilities are weaker than those that are not mentally disabled. How can you disqualify an unborn child simply because it may not be as developed as a toddler?


weaker? try non existent. but no i don't see how it goes back to biogensis. you clearly think it's a person at conception just because in the future it will become a person rather than another animal. i duno what to say besides we disagree. i don't think anything has any rights at conception. i don't think it's a person. and i don' think it should infringe upon someone (the mother) who we already know for a fact has rights.

QUOTE
Fetus's do breathe. They breathe right when they are zygotes. When a fetus, they breathe amniotic fluid. What about people with COPD? They RELY on breathing machines and are completely dependent on it. If you are going to try to throw the "but they are born" argument, what is the difference between a human and an unborn human? The only answer you have given me is that it is "unborn" which is no answer at all.

The point was that YOU are saying there is a difference of what a person is depending on their location. It appears you are claiming that they aren't persons because they are in their mother's wombs. But does a person stop being a person when it is in another location (this is where canada came from)? No, so why should the same go to unborn babies? This AGAIN, goes back to the law of biogenesis, person produces a person. Location should NOT be a factor to decide what is human and what is not.


my problem with what you're saying is that you have all these little examples of problems that fully born humans can have and you're analogizing them to a fetus as if it's the same thing. you're right, a person could be on a breathing machine, in certain circumstances. that's not the norm, that's not a requirement. in born people you're just brining up exceptions. a fetus has ALL of these problems at the same time and they aren't exceptions. it's not like they just can't breathe, or they just can't feel anything, or they just can't think. they can't do all of these things at the same time. the inability to do all this is their natural state. they aren't sick or abnormal because they can't do these things. a person who can't do these things is sick or abnormal.


your location stuff is still stupid as f*ck. i'm sorry but it's just ridiculous to say that me talking about there being a difference between living inside a human and living in canada is the same thing. it's not remotely the same thing. how many people do you know that live inside someone else? there is a giant difference between the location of being INSIDE a human being and just being in another country. i'm not at all talking about location in such a silly sense.


QUOTE
New born children depend on their parents/guardians in every single fashion. If the parent doesn't tend and nurture the baby, it will die. This is similar to how a fetus depends on its mother. Both a baby and an unborn baby rely on the parents. Our dependencies extend to each other, and without the defense of the goodness of meeting human dependencies, none of us would be alive. So if we say dependency makes it not a person, than we at all points in the past and most likely in the future will be considered not persons Again, this goes back to the law of biogenesis, person produces a person. Dependency should NOT be a factor to decide what is human and what is not


like i said, and like nate has gone into too so read his post, the dependency is not the same. yes a baby is dependent on child care. it's not literally dependent on it's mother in the sense that it is living in her and can't survive out of her presence. plus he also brings up that it's dependent on SPECIFICALLY her. where as a toddler or baby or whoever is not dependent on one specific mother only for survival. we can give it to another woman and it's childcare dependency can be fulfilled. the dependency is just on a completely different level.

but tbh, i don't know how to argue with someone who can't see that. i mean if you don't get why a fetus living inside someone is more dependent on them than a toddler...i don't know what else to say about it.


QUOTE
And again you are assuming about the vitro fertilization. I never even HINTED at that point so I'll just ignore that


i'm assuming because everything else you said pointed to that and you keep saying that at conception it's a child. i mean as you would say "according to the law of biogensis"...a person makes a person...so those fertilized eggs are people right?


i agree with nate about legality, because this debate on what is a person can go on and on, but nobody doubts that the mother is a person. it only makes sense that her rights are protected first and foremost.

i'm 100% against the government telling my wife what she has to do with her own body and the contents of it.



good responses though homies i like reading them
 
NoSex
post Dec 5 2009, 03:28 PM
Post #356


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(fixtatik @ Dec 5 2009, 05:34 AM) *
Actually, I said give or take, depending on abnormalities, but I'll let that slide.


so you openly admit, not even biologists have a good definition of what a human being is. philosophy, the law, sociology, and religion are even less precise. & when attempting to discuss what a "person" is, all fields are inadequate.

QUOTE(fixtatik @ Dec 5 2009, 05:34 AM) *
The problem with your argument is that you keep saying that government-appointed rights exist; the entire debate revolves around why certain rights are given, not that they are given. The only thing that I don't "grasp" is the reasoning behind determining that something following natural law is a violation of human rights.


okay, you must understand the function of law & human society. law & human society is not @ all about conforming to what is "natural." it's about formulating a progressive & utilitarian civilization, that operates to a conceived optimum. & we know that that optimum has little concern for the concept of "what is natural is best." for example, when someone naturally becomes ill, we fight that natural illness with artificial drugs. there is simply no legal precedent or conceivable reason that we should conform, as a society, to what is "natural." our human rights are conceived in a philosophy of government, they have little concern for what is natural or not -- notice, civilization itself stands in opposition to what people may call "natural."

QUOTE(fixtatik @ Dec 5 2009, 05:34 AM) *
And if that's the case, what about drug addicts who aren't harming society, but merely their own bodies? Why is that illegal? It's their body. You say it's the government's responsibility to be practical, but the inconsistencies surrounding abortion legality are anything but practical.


the fact that the government is inconsistent or does not properly exercise its power in certain instances in no way supports the belief that abortion should be illegal. &, even further, if your argument is based on the value of consistency (which is unconvincing to begin with, boarding on incoherent), you could equally argue for the legality or illegality of abortion. i.e. if it is just about consistency, the law could conform to accommodate abortion or the law could conform abortion to accommodate other legislation.

QUOTE(fixtatik @ Dec 5 2009, 05:34 AM) *
I also don't see the grounds of your association of an unborn child with that of an "invader." Children are not forced upon us... A child growing inside of a mother is not a virus that needs to be removed.


because an unwanted child is precisely that to a mother who is carrying it. if the presence of the child is unwanted, it is seen as an invader, a parasite. although it is true that the child does not "need" to be removed, if the mother does not want her body occupied by a fetus, she has the right to abort it. like i said before, if you care so much for consistency, you must recognize that in no other situation can we force someone to give their body up (to any degree) for the life of another. & that's in a situation where we fully understand that both parties have full rights as human beings w/ personhood.

QUOTE(fixtatik @ Dec 5 2009, 05:34 AM) *
Not only that, but it contradicts the fact that you brought up: 36 states made it illegal to terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks of gestation. It's still in her body, so isn't it her right? Again, rolling back to the same problem: when is a fetus determined a person? There's my example of a premature birth. (Please, note that I've made a statement that a fetus is not a parasite that needs to be removed, so don't throw any circular arguments at me.) Late-term abortion occurs after 24 weeks. Babies can be born prior to 24 weeks, but as I said, it's a crime to kill them. Since that's true, governments decide that a fetus becomes a person when it leaves the mother. But wait...36 states disagree and say that it's illegal to abort after 24 weeks, so it must be a person then.


how many times do i have to say this? the legal precedent for abortion has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the recognition of the fetus as having personhood or being a human being. in fact, as stated before, even if the courts explicitly defined the fetus as a person, they would still not be able to take preferential interest in the rights of the unborn baby, against the rights of the able-bodied mother. there is absolutely no legal precedent to force a woman to give up her body for an unwanted pregnancy. notice, most pro-choice advocates argue that any form of abortion ban is unconstitutional or illegal. that argument is based on the above principle.

&, as pointed out before, if the law is inconsistent, that's not an inherent problem, because the law is inherently arbitrary --- we create it. secondly, if you demand consistency, you can make equal arguments for the extension & enforcement of abortion as you can for the abolition of abortion (although this may not be true, given the fact that we could still not reconcile a woman's right with a non-choice position; if abortion were illegal, in order to be "consistent" we would have to start forcing people to give up their bodies to protect the life of others).

QUOTE(fixtatik @ Dec 5 2009, 05:34 AM) *
There were well over a million abortions in the US in 2005. England gets the pleasure of 200,000 a year. Are there really that many women who are suffering complications from pregnancies (i.e., the fetus actually is a parasite, risking the mother's health), or are these just a bunch of foolish, irresponsible morons who think that because everyone else does it, why not them?


1. parasites aren't necessarily detrimental to the health of their host. in some instances, parasite & host actually share mutual benefits. &, insofar as a parasite is defined as an organism living off of a host, a pregnancy can be seen as a parasite.
2. no. there are not. most women get abortions for other reasons (eg. not prepared for a child).
3. for whatever reason a woman gets an abortion, it is her right. just as you cannot impede on a person's right to speech, even if you find it "foolish" or "irresponsible," you cannot, legally, force a woman to give up her body to carry an unwanted pregnancy. the value you place on these actions (eg. wrong, stupid, etc.) are not of constitutional concern.

i'm curious:
why do you think that abortion should be illegal? since inconsistency obviously does not satisfy that answer (as i argue above), i'm looking for something more foundational & convincing. why do you oppose the legal status of abortion?
 
fixtatik
post Dec 6 2009, 01:02 AM
Post #357


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,237
Joined: May 2008
Member No: 648,123



QUOTE(NoSex @ Dec 5 2009, 03:28 PM) *
so you openly admit, not even biologists have a good definition of what a human being is.
I don't really believe chromosomal anomalies can be considered a faulty definition of a human being.

My reasoning behind abortion laws is because of the inconsistency of the law. I don't really care if it's legal or illegal; if it's one or the other, I just want the deciders to actually decide, rather than dance around the questions as if they don't have any relevance.

Abortion legality is inconsistent because:
1. Some states approve abortion up to 9 months, while others are only up to 24 weeks (just before the third trimester at about 5 1/2 months).
2. If it's legal because of privacy rights, why is it a federal crime to perform a home abortion, or by any other means than what's considered to be accepted at an abortion clinic?
3. It's the mother's right, because it's her body. But as I've already said, drug users use drugs to affect their bodies, not others.
4. Deciding on when a fetus is considered a person is necessary. If it's not, then it should be legal to go around killing anyone. Simply because it happens to be in the mother makes no difference if it's a person, considering that it's a part of natural law. You argue that it defies the principles of law-making, but if no one follows any form of naturalism, then society ends up believing that anything can be solved by sitting around a desk and saying "this does that."

Again, you're not doing anything but stating the obvious that the law is the law. Progress is never made if people sit back and accept everything the way it is. Humans are where they are today because they ask questions. "Why" is the first step towards development, not "okay, you're right." Prior to Roe v. Wade, it was the law that abortions are illegal. Were you around then to say, "okay, I agree" when legislators said it was wrong?
 
NoSex
post Dec 6 2009, 01:33 AM
Post #358


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(fixtatik @ Dec 6 2009, 12:02 AM) *
My reasoning behind abortion laws is because of the inconsistency of the law. I don't really care if it's legal or illegal; if it's one or the other, I just want the deciders to actually decide, rather than dance around the questions as if they don't have any relevance.


so you would support the the full actualization of the woman's right to her body & the full abolition on all bans on abortion?

QUOTE(fixtatik @ Dec 6 2009, 12:02 AM) *
Again, you're not doing anything but stating the obvious that the law is the law. Progress is never made if people sit back and accept everything the way it is. Humans are where they are today because they ask questions. "Why" is the first step towards development, not "okay, you're right." Prior to Roe v. Wade, it was the law that abortions are illegal. Were you around then to say, "okay, I agree" when legislators said it was wrong?


i said that the law should exist because it works; it helps society function. it is easiest & most constitutional to allow for abortion rights. you couldn't possibly argue against this. there is absolutely NO pragmatic reason to ban abortion. banning abortion would, in no way whatsoever, help society "progress" or function. in fact, it would do the exact opposite. imagine the implications of criminalizing abortion. if i cannot convince you that the rights of the mother are important, you must recognize that the alternative, giving preferential rights to the fetus, is absolutely untenable:

1. how do you punish an abortionist?
2. how do you prevent abortions?
3. if abortions will happen anyways, why cause all the trouble of criminalization?
4. how do you explain the abolition of the rights of women?

there is still an important point that you have not addressed whatsoever:
what is the legal precedent to forcing a woman to carry child, when you cannot force another person to protect the life of another? (note: this question revolves around the fact that even when we are dealing with undeniable human beings, we cannot force one to give up their body for the life of another. this means that the definition of the fetus as a person or not, is not important in determining the legality of abortion).

also:
you must concede that the concept of personhood, which permits rights & social prescriptions, is utterly ambiguous.
 
fixtatik
post Dec 8 2009, 12:37 AM
Post #359


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,237
Joined: May 2008
Member No: 648,123



QUOTE(NoSex @ Dec 6 2009, 01:33 AM) *
so you would support the the full actualization of the woman's right to her body & the full abolition on all bans on abortion?

I'd support it if it were consistent with other laws of similar statute, and with itself.

QUOTE
1. how do you punish an abortionist?
2. how do you prevent abortions?
3. if abortions will happen anyways, why cause all the trouble of criminalization?
4. how do you explain the abolition of the rights of women?

I don't really see where you're drawing the line that it's impossible to ban abortion. You're failing to recognize that an unborn child is still a human being, and as such, abortion is manslaughter. Whether the court uses that in reasoning or not is irrelevant to the debate at hand. It's a debate of the two sides of abortion, not debating whether or not the law is already in place. That said, manslaughter does not depend on "personhood." It's the act of a human being killing another human being. If you want to argue human rights, what about laws between nations? If a diplomat comes to the US and kills a person, he's simply expelled from the country. If a civilian comes to the US and kills a person, he is tried by the US justice system. Does the law seriously make the diplomat more of a human being than the civilian?

QUOTE
there is still an important point that you have not addressed whatsoever:
what is the legal precedent to forcing a woman to carry child, when you cannot force another person to protect the life of another?
And you still haven't addressed my concerns:
1. Why is it a federal crime to perform a home abortion or kill the fetus by any means other than in an abortion clinic?
2. Why do some states forbid late-term abortions but allow them during the first two trimesters?
3. Why is it legal for a woman to have an abortion because it's her body, but illegal for someone to obtain drugs and "abuse" them?

edit: Actually, on the topic of privacy and equal rights, what about my own? We're still bound by the Patriot Act, which expires at the end of this year but is well in line for renewal. While it may not have much of an effect on those of us who don't talk about bombs and God all the time (now the NSA is likely reading this for mentioning it), there are still other circumstances of our government completely violating the Freedom of Information Act: one nice example is the ACTA's current negotiations. Women may be suffering these same inconveniences, but they still have one up by being able to freely kill their children.
 
NoSex
post Dec 9 2009, 10:45 PM
Post #360


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(fixtatik @ Dec 7 2009, 11:37 PM) *
I'd support it if it were consistent with other laws of similar statute, and with itself.


so, shouldn't you support it & be in opposition to things which are inconsistent with it? why support the inconsistencies over abortion? you're not making a coherent argument.

drawing from your own example: why should the patriot act be a reason to not support abortion?
 
fixtatik
post Dec 10 2009, 12:30 AM
Post #361


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,237
Joined: May 2008
Member No: 648,123



The abortion law is the inconsistency. It's illegal to use narcotics and other drugs that severely impair one's OWN body. It's illegal to kill another human being. (Yes, I mentioned the inconsistency in political vs. civilian law of the same nature, but I'm support morality here.)

With abortion, which is ONE situation, it's legal to kill the fetus up to 9 months in some states, 5 1/2 in others (which is an inconsistency in itself), and it's also illegal to do it on your own (which is another in itself). How are you not seeing that? I swear I've said it at least 3 or 4 times.
 
NoSex
post Dec 10 2009, 02:36 AM
Post #362


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(fixtatik @ Dec 9 2009, 11:30 PM) *
With abortion, which is ONE situation, it's legal to kill the fetus up to 9 months in some states, 5 1/2 in others (which is an inconsistency in itself), and it's also illegal to do it on your own (which is another in itself). How are you not seeing that? I swear I've said it at least 3 or 4 times.


okay, you're not making any sense again. this is why your argument is incoherent. if there are inconsistencies, & you want to correct them, you could go either way: you could conform all other laws to meet abortion, or you could conform abortion to other laws, i.e. you could either support or oppose abortion legality. no one is for or against abortion because the law is inconsistent, they are for or against abortion because they either like abortion or they do not. & in the case of liking or not liking abortion, you have to give specific arguments to qualify your position.

so, i'll ask you again:
why are you against abortion?
 
fixtatik
post Dec 10 2009, 09:16 AM
Post #363


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,237
Joined: May 2008
Member No: 648,123



QUOTE(NoSex @ Dec 10 2009, 02:36 AM) *
no one is for or against abortion because the law is inconsistent, they are for or against abortion because they either like abortion or they do not.

Many kudos for knowing everyone's ideals.
 
NoSex
post Dec 10 2009, 09:30 AM
Post #364


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(fixtatik @ Dec 10 2009, 08:16 AM) *
Many kudos for knowing everyone's ideals.


oh my god, you are so dense. of course, this sort of incompetency should be expected from someone who doesn't believe in evolution. let me speak really slowly @ you:

if your singular principle is consistency, you cannot make an argument for or against abortion. because, moving only from consistency, you can make an equal argument for the amendment of laws to FIT abortion or the amendment of abortion to FIT other laws. you actually have to have a reason to prefer one course of action over another.
 
fixtatik
post Dec 10 2009, 10:06 AM
Post #365


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,237
Joined: May 2008
Member No: 648,123



Hahaha...I actually love debating with you. I can make statement after statement, and you gloss over everything to see merely what you want. I'm dense, yet after everything I've said, you still can't figure out what my stance is? Please go back and re-read everything. When you're done, and if you still don't have the deductive power to understand something so elementary, then I'll gladly let you in on my little "secret."

But it's okay. I understand completely that you're the type of person who expects everything answered for him, yet when asked a question, you'll dance around it and try your best to insult the opposing party.

See before: are you really going to start in on your bullshit again? You're the most simpleminded debater I've ever met.
 
brooklyneast05
post Dec 10 2009, 10:08 AM
Post #366


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



so you have absolutely no preference whatsoever whether abortion is legal or not right? all you care about is that we make all laws consistent with other laws and you don't care how we go about that? you're good with abortion being legal as long as some other laws conform to it?
 
kryogenix
post Dec 10 2009, 12:37 PM
Post #367


Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All
******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,089
Joined: Dec 2003
Member No: 29



QUOTE(NoSex @ Dec 5 2009, 04:05 AM) *
in summary:
the personhood of the fetus is indeterminate @ best. & given the structure of our government & our constitution, the best, most appropriate legal status is choice.


Really? What you're saying is, you're not sure whether the fetus is a human being or not. Therefore, abortion may or may not be murder. However, you're fine with abortion, even though there's the possibility that those performing them may be committing the murder of the unborn child? I'd say the prudent thing is to err on the side of caution here.

If we're going by the Constitution, I'm pretty sure the baby's right to life trumps the mother's right to end the baby's life.
 
NoSex
post Dec 10 2009, 04:52 PM
Post #368


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 10 2009, 11:37 AM) *
Really? What you're saying is, you're not sure whether the fetus is a human being or not. Therefore, abortion may or may not be murder. However, you're fine with abortion, even though there's the possibility that those performing them may be committing the murder of the unborn child? I'd say the prudent thing is to err on the side of caution here.


even if the fetus is a human being, that does not necessarily mean that terminating it is murder. we do not conclude, in all cases, that the termination of one human being by another is murder (not even in certain cases of deliberate termination, e.g. capital punishment). further, we do not fundamentally refrain from murder because it is some sort of moralistic ideal. we refrain from murder because it is part of a social contract, & because of this, it helps society function (as i said before, the function of law is NOT to legislate morality).

so, how does the banning of abortion help society function? (notice, this is my primary concern; the functioning of society -- not moral righteousness, as such a goal is @ first immeasurable &, worse, incompatible with the nature of law).

QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 10 2009, 11:37 AM) *
If we're going by the Constitution, I'm pretty sure the baby's right to life trumps the mother's right to end the baby's life.


it's very difficult to discuss the function & role of rights; the claim that this one right "trumbs" another is an incomplete analysis, not reflective of the way we integrate rights into society. also, rights often imply a responsibility of the right holder to respect certain rules and codes of conduct -- discussing an unborn child as being able to practice this sort of recognition is absurd. secondly, it would be a historical landmark if we gave rights to an unborn child. there is no philosophical, legal, or historical precedent for such a move; world governments have, up until this point, almost uniformly only given rights to born persons. lastly, even if we grant rights to the unborn child, we cannot force the woman to give up her body for the life of her child. notice, there is no legal precedent for this: you cannot force a stranger to save a drowning victim, you cannot force a neighbor to give up an organ or two to save the life of their neighbor. even in cases where there is no confusion whatsoever on the legal status of both parties, we cannot force someone to give up their body for another.
 
kryogenix
post Dec 10 2009, 07:43 PM
Post #369


Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All
******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,089
Joined: Dec 2003
Member No: 29



QUOTE(NoSex @ Dec 10 2009, 04:52 PM) *
even if the fetus is a human being, that does not necessarily mean that terminating it is murder. we do not conclude, in all cases, that the termination of one human being by another is murder (not even in certain cases of deliberate termination, e.g. capital punishment). further, we do not fundamentally refrain from murder because it is some sort of moralistic ideal. we refrain from murder because it is part of a social contract, & because of this, it helps society function (as i said before, the function of law is NOT to legislate morality).


So what about the social contract called the Constitution where everyone is guaranteed the right to life? And are you seriously comparing a fetus to a convicted felon?

QUOTE
so, how does the banning of abortion help society function? (notice, this is my primary concern; the functioning of society -- not moral righteousness, as such a goal is @ first immeasurable &, worse, incompatible with the nature of law).
it's very difficult to discuss the function & role of rights; the claim that this one right "trumbs" another is an incomplete analysis, not reflective of the way we integrate rights into society. also, rights often imply a responsibility of the right holder to respect certain rules and codes of conduct -- discussing an unborn child as being able to practice this sort of recognition is absurd. secondly, it would be a historical landmark if we gave rights to an unborn child. there is no philosophical, legal, or historical precedent for such a move; world governments have, up until this point, almost uniformly only given rights to born persons. lastly, even if we grant rights to the unborn child, we cannot force the woman to give up her body for the life of her child. notice, there is no legal precedent for this: you cannot force a stranger to save a drowning victim, you cannot force a neighbor to give up an organ or two to save the life of their neighbor. even in cases where there is no confusion whatsoever on the legal status of both parties, we cannot force someone to give up their body for another.


And yet you're forcing the unborn child to give up its body for the convenience of the mother.

Slavery helped society function prior to the 1800's. Do you support bringing back slavery?

You seem to be under the impression that rights are granted by government. People have rights, regardless of what the government says.
 
NoSex
post Dec 10 2009, 10:49 PM
Post #370


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 10 2009, 06:43 PM) *
So what about the social contract called the Constitution where everyone is guaranteed the right to life? And are you seriously comparing a fetus to a convicted felon?


i'm simply demonstrating that human life is sometimes negotiable under law & within human affairs. there can be no ultimate decider of this other than man, for we invent rights & the law to begin with, & we constitute these things according to our interest and the functionality of society.

QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 10 2009, 06:43 PM) *
And yet you're forcing the unborn child to give up its body for the convenience of the mother.


this is assuming that the child has rights. nonetheless, even if the child has rights, as i stated before, there is simply no legal precedent to say that the mother cannot expel the child from her body. in no other scenario is an invader legitimized -- you cannot be forced to give up your organs for a neighbor, nor can you be forced to save a drowning victim. it would not be argued that the drowning victim has been forced to give up its body for the convenience of another. further, as a right holder, is it not the child's responsibility to not invade the body of another to begin with? how should we punish the child for invading the body of the mother? notice how discussing the child as having equal rights as the mother is absurd and untenable.

QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 10 2009, 06:43 PM) *
Slavery helped society function prior to the 1800's. Do you support bringing back slavery?


the reason slavery is no longer legal is because it was no longer sustainable; slavery was not abolished because everyone was suddenly convinced that it was morally evil. read some foucault.


QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 10 2009, 06:43 PM) *
People have rights, regardless of what the government says.


ahahha, prove it.
 
kryogenix
post Dec 11 2009, 07:40 AM
Post #371


Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All
******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,089
Joined: Dec 2003
Member No: 29



QUOTE(NoSex @ Dec 10 2009, 10:49 PM) *
i'm simply demonstrating that human life is sometimes negotiable under law & within human affairs. there can be no ultimate decider of this other than man, for we invent rights & the law to begin with, & we constitute these things according to our interest and the functionality of society.


OK, but I'm asking you, under the framework of the social contract that we're discussing, assuming that the unborn child is human, does that not mean it has the right to life?

QUOTE
this is assuming that the child has rights. nonetheless, even if the child has rights, as i stated before, there is simply no legal precedent to say that the mother cannot expel the child from her body.


This is a terrible argument. First of all, you're wrong, since there were laws in England. Second of all, even if there weren't, why does that mean there shouldn't be? There weren't any laws against hacking prior to the invention of computers; should we not have laws against hacking because there was no legal precedent?


QUOTE
in no other scenario is an invader legitimized -- you cannot be forced to give up your organs for a neighbor, nor can you be forced to save a drowning victim.


You're not actively killing your neighbor by denying him your organs. You're not actively killing a drowning victim by not jumping into the lake to save him. But when you're tearing the unborn child's body to shreds with hooks and needles, you're actively killing it. I'm appalled that you can't see the difference here. That's like saying if my brother is terminally ill, taking up space in my house and I don't want to give him my organs, there's nothing wrong with me shooting him in the face.

QUOTE
it would not be argued that the drowning victim has been forced to give up its body for the convenience of another. further, as a right holder, is it not the child's responsibility to not invade the body of another to begin with? how should we punish the child for invading the body of the mother? notice how discussing the child as having equal rights as the mother is absurd and untenable.


Again, vilifying the unborn child, as if it made a conscious decision to be born. The unborn child isn't an invader, silly. Take a college level biology course. The mother has every egg she'll ever need already inside of her body at birth. It's not like a fertilized egg crawls into her vag against her will.

QUOTE
the reason slavery is no longer legal is because it was no longer sustainable; slavery was not abolished because everyone was suddenly convinced that it was morally evil. read some foucault.


But if it was sustainable, would you be ok with it?

QUOTE
ahahha, prove it.


You first. If you can make blank assertions, then so can I.

Among the first human beings, there was no man made law. One kills the other. Was there wrong committed, or was murder fair game back then since no man made law existed?
 
NoSex
post Dec 11 2009, 02:56 PM
Post #372


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 11 2009, 06:40 AM) *
OK, but I'm asking you, under the framework of the social contract that we're discussing, assuming that the unborn child is human, does that not mean it has the right to life?


i'm talking about hobbeian social contract, which concludes that men agree not to kill one another insofar as other men give up their right to kill them. obviously, in the case of an unborn child, the social contract is not relevant. & as i stated before, the right to life is always negotiable. so even if we conclude that the fetus has rights, we cannot conclude that it cannot be terminated.

QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 11 2009, 06:40 AM) *
This is a terrible argument. First of all, you're wrong, since there were laws in England. Second of all, even if there weren't, why does that mean there shouldn't be? There weren't any laws against hacking prior to the invention of computers; should we not have laws against hacking because there was no legal precedent?


you're so stupid. alright, so, why don't we provide fetuses with certificates of conception, rather than certificates of birth? why do we not give them social security numbers? hold funerals for them when they die? charge the mother with manslaughter when she miscarries? include it in census or in tax roll?

QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 11 2009, 06:40 AM) *
You're not actively killing your neighbor by denying him your organs. You're not actively killing a drowning victim by not jumping into the lake to save him. But when you're tearing the unborn child's body to shreds with hooks and needles, you're actively killing it.


first of all, many people have & could disagree with these distinctions. if you could have saved a drowning victim & chose not to, how far removed is that from "actively" killing someone? it gets the job done, doesn't it? further, & most importantly, if you're going to make such a sophomoric distinction, i suppose we could solve the abortion problem by surgically removing the fetus than allowing it to fend for itself on the outside of the mother's body? notice, if a deadly virus has become airborne & the only safe place is inside a building, it would not be illegal for you to expel unwanted persons from your home.

QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 11 2009, 06:40 AM) *
I'm appalled that you can't see the difference here. That's like saying if my brother is terminally ill, taking up space in my house and I don't want to give him my organs, there's nothing wrong with me shooting him in the face.


shoot him in the face or not, refusing to give him organs will, nonetheless, kill him. so, what is so appalling about one scenario & not the other?

QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 11 2009, 06:40 AM) *
Again, vilifying the unborn child, as if it made a conscious decision to be born. The unborn child isn't an invader, silly. Take a college level biology course. The mother has every egg she'll ever need already inside of her body at birth. It's not like a fertilized egg crawls into her vag against her will.


oh, i see. so, we're supposed to treat the unborn child like a person except for in ALL THE WAYS THAT IT DOES NOT RESEMBLE A PERSON @ ALL. oh, right, that makes sense.

QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 11 2009, 06:40 AM) *
But if it was sustainable, would you be ok with it?


if i were born in late 1700 america, i suppose i probably would be okay with it.

QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 11 2009, 06:40 AM) *
You first. If you can make blank assertions, then so can I.

Among the first human beings, there was no man made law. One kills the other. Was there wrong committed, or was murder fair game back then since no man made law existed?


ahhaha, you're such an unlearned puritan. i'm a logical positivist. i think that ethical propositions are meaningless. metaphysical, ethical, aesthetic propositions do not meet the principle of verification, i.e. these propositions have no clear empirical referent & have no proposed method of falsification, substantiation.

my only assertion in this argument is that abortion works well; it helps society function. this is what i care about most in this debate & this is what my position stands upon. further, i hold that the criminalization of abortion is untenable (as argued earlier). this is my position. all this requires is a demonstration of how abortion serves our society & how criminalization does not. i feel i have done that very well. unfortunately, my opposition is far too interested in arguing metaphysical nonsense, such as "what is a person," or "is murder wrong?" no one has yet demonstrated to me how abortion legality is detrimental to the functionality of society.

you could, perhaps, characterize my argument as pragmatic.
 
kryogenix
post Dec 11 2009, 05:29 PM
Post #373


Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All
******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,089
Joined: Dec 2003
Member No: 29



QUOTE(NoSex @ Dec 11 2009, 02:56 PM) *
i'm talking about hobbeian social contract, which concludes that men agree not to kill one another insofar as other men give up their right to kill them. obviously, in the case of an unborn child, the social contract is not relevant. & as i stated before, the right to life is always negotiable. so even if we conclude that the fetus has rights, we cannot conclude that it cannot be terminated.


Why? If it is determined that the fetus is simply a developmental stage of the human child, and thus has the same rights as a human child, why is the mother allowed to have it killed for the sake of her convenience?

Is it negotiable to kill your 1 month old child because it's a burden to you?

QUOTE
you're so stupid. alright, so, why don't we provide fetuses with certificates of conception, rather than certificates of birth? why do we not give them social security numbers? hold funerals for them when they die? charge the mother with manslaughter when she miscarries? include it in census or in tax roll?


We wouldn't do any of that stuff because we recognize the basic human right to life. Yes, even our government, which you claim is the arbiter of all our rights, recognizes the inalienable right to life.

It's hilarious how you use government tools to determine whether or not a person has rights or not. If a person doesn't get a birth certificate, does that mean they weren't born? Am I allowed to shoot across the Mexican border and kill Mexicans because they don't have SSNs? Seriously? What do any of these things have to do with whether or not it is ok to kill people?

QUOTE
first of all, many people have & could disagree with these distinctions. if you could have saved a drowning victim & chose not to, how far removed is that from "actively" killing someone? it gets the job done, doesn't it?


You even acknowledge here that it is removed from killing someone though. Notice how society distinguishes between murder and manslaughter. Apples and oranges.


QUOTE
further, & most importantly, if you're going to make such a sophomoric distinction, i suppose we could solve the abortion problem by surgically removing the fetus than allowing it to fend for itself on the outside of the mother's body? notice, if a deadly virus has become airborne & the only safe place is inside a building, it would not be illegal for you to expel unwanted persons from your home.


Tell me if it's legal to expel your newborn baby from your home. You are responsible for your offspring while they are under your custody.

QUOTE
shoot him in the face or not, refusing to give him organs will, nonetheless, kill him. so, what is so appalling about one scenario & not the other?


Because I am depriving him of his life when I shoot him in the face? Whereas, I am depriving him of nothing by not giving up my organs. His requirement for functioning human organs existed prior to the decision to give up my organs or not. Furthermore, someone else may choose to donate his organs, or there may be organs available from someone who is already deceased.

Are you really that stupid?

QUOTE
oh, i see. so, we're supposed to treat the unborn child like a person except for in ALL THE WAYS THAT IT DOES NOT RESEMBLE A PERSON @ ALL. oh, right, that makes sense.


What? Going by what you said so far, you'd have no problem killing a baby 40 weeks into development as long as it's still in the mother's body.

Let's say on one table you have a baby that's 1 minute away from being delivered. On the other table, a premature, Down's Syndrome baby that was delivered 1 minute ago.

The unborn child resembles a person (46 chromosomes) more closely than the Down's Syndrome child (47 chromosomes). Based on what you've said so far, you'd have no qualms with kill the unborn child, yet you would not be in favor of putting the retarded child to death. At least, I hope not, but you've surprised me in the past before.


QUOTE
ahhaha, you're such an unlearned puritan. i'm a logical positivist. i think that ethical propositions are meaningless. metaphysical, ethical, aesthetic propositions do not meet the principle of verification, i.e. these propositions have no clear empirical referent & have no proposed method of falsification, substantiation.


The assertion that only empirical statements have any value is non-empirical. This is a self defeating argument.

Congrats, we salute you, Mr. Self-Proclaimed-Logic-Master.

QUOTE
my only assertion in this argument is that abortion works well; it helps society function. this is what i care about most in this debate & this is what my position stands upon. further, i hold that the criminalization of abortion is untenable (as argued earlier). this is my position. all this requires is a demonstration of how abortion serves our society & how criminalization does not. i feel i have done that very well. unfortunately, my opposition is far too interested in arguing metaphysical nonsense, such as "what is a person," or "is murder wrong?" no one has yet demonstrated to me how abortion legality is detrimental to the functionality of society.

you could, perhaps, characterize my argument as pragmatic.


I love how you talk about the criminalization of abortion as untenable, but the principle of slavery isn't.

Claiming that certain classes of human beings do not have the right to exist based on their usefulness to society undermines the basic human right to life.

If we're going to take away the right to life of human babies, then why stop there? Why not black people? Gays? Pseudo intellectuals that take too long to graduate highschool?
 
NoSex
post Dec 11 2009, 06:35 PM
Post #374


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 11 2009, 04:29 PM) *
If we're going to take away the right to life of human babies, then why stop there? Why not black people? Gays? Pseudo intellectuals that take too long to graduate highschool?


omg you're right! legalized abortion collapses society! chaos! chaos! chaos! people are murdering on the street because of legalized abortion! omg! this is sorriest slippery slope argument i have ever seen. try it again: what is the use of criminalizing abortion?

the reality of the matter is that abortion legality works. & that is the only meaningful & worthwhile discussion to have. especially concerning the LAW, whose job is NOT to legislate & enforce morality. if you want to argue whether or not abortion is wrong, notice how that debate will 1) get you absolutely no where (as you can't prove such an assertion), and 2) have little or nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of abortion.
 
kryogenix
post Dec 11 2009, 08:10 PM
Post #375


Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All
******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,089
Joined: Dec 2003
Member No: 29



QUOTE(NoSex @ Dec 11 2009, 06:35 PM) *
omg you're right! legalized abortion collapses society! chaos! chaos! chaos! people are murdering on the street because of legalized abortion! omg! this is sorriest slippery slope argument i have ever seen. try it again: what is the use of criminalizing abortion?


lol nice strawman. guess that's all you have to resort to when I demonstrate how ridiculous your "arguments" are. also good job ignoring 90% of my post, I'm glad the dilemmas I posed made you uncomfortable with your twisted sense of reality.

If people suddenly repudiated the belief in the inalienable right to life, there probably WOULD be chaos. Order exists DESPITE abortion, not because of abortion. Order exists because of the fundamental belief in the right to life. The fact that people recognize the inalienable human right to life is what prevents society from descending into chaos. I am merely pointing out that legalized abortion goes against the belief that society already holds, but fails to uphold when it comes to unborn children.

QUOTE
the reality of the matter is that abortion legality works. & that is the only meaningful & worthwhile discussion to have. especially concerning the LAW, whose job is NOT to legislate & enforce morality. if you want to argue whether or not abortion is wrong, notice how that debate will 1) get you absolutely no where (as you can't prove such an assertion), and 2) have little or nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of abortion.


OK, let's argue the law. How about the part that says that all people are endowed with the right to life?

Law protects rights. Wiping out Native American tribes and breaking treaties paved the way for the creation of the most powerful industrialized nation in the world. According to you, genocide and dishonesty works, so we should be free to commit genocide and renege on our promises.

 

17 Pages V  « < 13 14 15 16 17 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: