The Abortion Debate

[DCVI]

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

Deformography

kp is dcvi

Y'know i've been wondering: Most of you inadvertently defend infanticide.

You say that anything infringing upon Autonomy can be killed without a good reason. Some of you, further your points, by saying that a fetus/zygote/embryo cannot think or feel. To many of you, you define personhood as something that must, first and foremost, think and feel.

But as I just read, research holds that infants up to as young as 3 and sometimes, 4, do not have the neurological capability to remember anything, nor truly reason, logic, or "think", in the conventional sense.

So essentially, what you have is this tiny, albeit, cute, piece of human flesh that happens to be animated. But intellectually, a one year old is a human with the upper brain functions still in their infancy. Actually, one might argue, a baby is the closest thing to a human "zombie" we might ever have (that is to say, a human without the being).

So by this reasoning: What stops a mother from killing her one year old if she argues that it was inconveniencing and living on her property?

According to pro-choice thinking: Nothing. The women is well within her rights to kill her born children. The only thing that protects them is the law, and for any of you Choicers well into your prime before '73, you would know that the law has been "wrong" before.

...what did you just do to the BD argument? That is so horrendously wrong, at least from my POV, that I hardly know where to start.

The bodily domain argument applies to an embryo/fetus... not an infant, child, adolescent, et cetera. It does not include anything related to thought processes, neurological development/capabilities, and so on. Once she gives birth, the baby cannot really infringe upon her right to BD.

That isn't my pro-choice thinking. In fact, I doubt you'd find a choicer that TRULY thinks like that. If you want to misrepresent our arguments in what is essentially mudslinging, you should take it elsewhere. This, what you just wrote here, is low.

Wait...

and calling me a misogynist is thinking highly?

Deformorgraphy, here's a checklist:
-Take about two steps down from the Moral Highground.
-Let out your breath.
-Remove the razor blade from the wrist.
-Find the "Condescending Tone" on your hands and switch it to the OFF position.
-Smoke a few packs, do a few shots, your poison of choice, m'dear.

Then... get back to me and we'll discuss this as intelligent adults, not children incapable of comprehending.

She didn't call you a misogynist anywhere in there.

KP a cheklist for you:
- Take a few steps down from the moral highgorund
- get your head out of other people's uteri
-Stop generalizing and misrepresenting choicers.
- address her argument (something you failed to do.)

That was a pretty hackeyed attempt at copying my wit. But whatever.

NO. She did NOT call me a misogynist. Has she? I don't recall. Might have. Has she been in the presence of others, who have, and not stopped them? That may be a big yes. Does she agree with said individuals? Again... possibly. If she doesn't think that I am, she has every right to tell me. I will stand corrected.

In any attempt, I am not going to dignify anyone by answering their points if they are just... in what seems like a pissy mood.

[DCVI]

Spiral Out

kp is dcvi

But intellectually, a one year old is a human with the upper brain functions still in their infancy. Actually, one might argue, a baby is the closest thing to a human "zombie" we might ever have (that is to say, a human without the being).

Just saw this post... and I have to say, as the parent of an 11 month old girl, she's nothing like a 'zombie.' She's ridiculously smart, can solve puzzles, find things that have been hidden, laugh, play, demand food or attention, clap her hands when she's happy, wave goodbye when she knows someone is leaving... she's fully aware of what's going on around her.

I've never seen(heard about, read documentation of) a fetus do anything like that. One-year olds aren't like zombies at all.

First of all: Congratulations on your child.

Second of all: I'm reading about the developmental process as we speak. Technically speaking, your child won't remember a thing. (Shouldn't, at least). She's probably working off instinctive senses of... basic intuition? Not quite sure. But if you like, I'd be glad to actually post an outline of the four major stages of child development (Piaget's, I believe).

There's no shame in it. Your child, my future children, you, and I all started out... pretty basic. Besides... even if your child IS that intelligent... so? My cats and dogs I know of are just as smart. Perhaps more so.

[Spiral Out]

kp is dcvi

I have heard of, one, that openly admits infanticide is perfectly justifiable, but one doesn't cut the bill. I am not saying Pro-choicers support infanticide. I'm pointing our that your arguments support it and, unless you want that to become a reality, you might as well do something about it.

But I don't agree that the argument for bodily integrity could be used to support infanticide, because an infant cannot violate your body any more than you let it. While they're smarter than a lot of people give them credit for... you can always shut a door with a handle that's too high, or... stand on a chair. I mean, even older children just aren't physically capable of violating an adult... unless I completely missed a point somewhere.

[DCVI]

Spiral Out

kp is dcvi

I have heard of, one, that openly admits infanticide is perfectly justifiable, but one doesn't cut the bill. I am not saying Pro-choicers support infanticide. I'm pointing our that your arguments support it and, unless you want that to become a reality, you might as well do something about it.

But I don't agree that the argument for bodily integrity could be used to support infanticide, because an infant cannot violate your body any more than you let it. While they're smarter than a lot of people give them credit for... you can always shut a door with a handle that's too high, or... stand on a chair. I mean, even older children just aren't physically capable of violating an adult... unless I completely missed a point somewhere.

...and if they die in that locked room, the burden is YOURS. YOU will get charged with abandonment.

The child is your legal and social responsibility. Even out of the womb, they are shackled to you.

[Spiral Out]

kp is dcvi

First of all: Congratulations on your child.

Second of all: I'm reading about the developmental process as we speak. Technically speaking, your child won't remember a thing. (Shouldn't, at least). She's probably working off instinctive senses of... basic intuition? Not quite sure. But if you like, I'd be glad to actually post an outline of the four major stages of child development (Piaget's, I believe).

There's no shame in it. Your child, my future children, you, and I all started out... pretty basic. Besides... even if your child IS that intelligent... so? My cats and dogs I know of are just as smart. Perhaps more so.

Thank you! 3nodding

I would be interested in that, actually... post or pm.

I agree that she's not smarter than most cats or dogs at this point, however I don't condone killing cats or dogs either, so... there's that.

[E-Z-MONEY]

kp is dcvi

Y'know i've been wondering: Most of you inadvertently defend infanticide.

No.

kp is dcvi

You say that anything infringing upon Autonomy can be killed without a good reason. Some of you, further your points, by saying that a fetus/zygote/embryo cannot think or feel. To many of you, you define personhood as something that must, first and foremost, think and feel.

Invading autonomy is a good reason. Rape anyone?

kp is dcvi

But as I just read, research holds that infants up to as young as 3 and sometimes, 4, do not have the neurological capability to remember anything, nor truly reason, logic, or "think", in the conventional sense.

That is not my reasoning. It is not invading anyones autonomy.

kp is dcvi

So essentially, what you have is this tiny, albeit, cute, piece of human flesh that happens to be animated. But intellectually, a one year old is a human with the upper brain functions still in their infancy. Actually, one might argue, a baby is the closest thing to a human "zombie" we might ever have (that is to say, a human without the being).

NOT INVADING.

kp is dcvi

So by this reasoning: What stops a mother from killing her one year old if she argues that it was inconveniencing and living on her property?

Adoption. The only way to remove a fetus is to kill it ( I think). It dies by being removed. If the woman puts her baby up for adoption then it is no longer invading her.

kp is dcvi

According to pro-choice thinking: Nothing. The women is well within her rights to kill her born children. The only thing that protects them is the law, and for any of you Choicers well into your prime before '73, you would know that the law has been "wrong" before.

Acording to ONE TRAIN OF THOUGHT. Stop saying we have one argument and one reason for abortion.

[Spiral Out]

kp is dcvi

...and if they die in that locked room, the burden is YOURS. YOU will get charged with abandonment.

The child is your legal and social responsibility. Even out of the womb, they are shackled to you.

Well, I would (obviously) suggest adoption above abandonment.

I'll try to clarify. If you don't want a born child, you can give it up for adoption or 'abandon' it at a hospital or police station. An infant is physically unable to violate your body. However, if you don't want a fetus, you can't get rid of it in any way that doesn't result in death. If you don't want it, it's kind of unable to not violate your body, and unfortunately, at this time there is no alternative that stops the violation while preserving the fetus.

[E-Z-MONEY]

kp is dcvi

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

Deformography

kp is dcvi

Y'know i've been wondering: Most of you inadvertently defend infanticide.

You say that anything infringing upon Autonomy can be killed without a good reason. Some of you, further your points, by saying that a fetus/zygote/embryo cannot think or feel. To many of you, you define personhood as something that must, first and foremost, think and feel.

But as I just read, research holds that infants up to as young as 3 and sometimes, 4, do not have the neurological capability to remember anything, nor truly reason, logic, or "think", in the conventional sense.

So essentially, what you have is this tiny, albeit, cute, piece of human flesh that happens to be animated. But intellectually, a one year old is a human with the upper brain functions still in their infancy. Actually, one might argue, a baby is the closest thing to a human "zombie" we might ever have (that is to say, a human without the being).

So by this reasoning: What stops a mother from killing her one year old if she argues that it was inconveniencing and living on her property?

According to pro-choice thinking: Nothing. The women is well within her rights to kill her born children. The only thing that protects them is the law, and for any of you Choicers well into your prime before '73, you would know that the law has been "wrong" before.

...what did you just do to the BD argument? That is so horrendously wrong, at least from my POV, that I hardly know where to start.

The bodily domain argument applies to an embryo/fetus... not an infant, child, adolescent, et cetera. It does not include anything related to thought processes, neurological development/capabilities, and so on. Once she gives birth, the baby cannot really infringe upon her right to BD.

That isn't my pro-choice thinking. In fact, I doubt you'd find a choicer that TRULY thinks like that. If you want to misrepresent our arguments in what is essentially mudslinging, you should take it elsewhere. This, what you just wrote here, is low.

Wait...

and calling me a misogynist is thinking highly?

Deformorgraphy, here's a checklist:
-Take about two steps down from the Moral Highground.
-Let out your breath.
-Remove the razor blade from the wrist.
-Find the "Condescending Tone" on your hands and switch it to the OFF position.
-Smoke a few packs, do a few shots, your poison of choice, m'dear.

Then... get back to me and we'll discuss this as intelligent adults, not children incapable of comprehending.

She didn't call you a misogynist anywhere in there.

KP a cheklist for you:
- Take a few steps down from the moral highgorund
- get your head out of other people's uteri
-Stop generalizing and misrepresenting choicers.
- address her argument (something you failed to do.)

That was a pretty hackeyed attempt at copying my wit. But whatever.

NO. She did NOT call me a misogynist. Has she? I don't recall. Might have. Has she been in the presence of others, who have, and not stopped them? That may be a big yes. Does she agree with said individuals? Again... possibly. If she doesn't think that I am, she has every right to tell me. I will stand corrected.

In any attempt, I am not going to dignify anyone by answering their points if they are just... in what seems like a pissy mood.

Ah. So when you say we want infanticide you are debating but when she refutes it she is beign pissy. Then when you ignore her refuting it and insult her then you are being witty? Wow.

[Plummy Lovelace]

kp is dcvi

So by this reasoning: What stops a mother from killing her one year old if she argues that it was inconveniencing and living on her property?

According to pro-choice thinking: Nothing. The women is well within her rights to kill her born children. The only thing that protects them is the law, and for any of you Choicers well into your prime before '73, you would know that the law has been "wrong" before.

Incorrect.

If someone were to come up and start punching me, they would be infringing on my bodily domain. I could only kill them if thats the only thing that would take to get them to stop.

Tell me, is killing her born child the only way a women get rid of him/her? No, there's adoption.

Is there anyway for a women to safely remove the fetus from her uterus without killing it? No, which means abortion is her only option if she wants the fetus to stop infringing on her beliefs.

Trust me, if abortion/killing the fetus wasn't the only way to stop a fetus from infringing on a women's Bodily domain, then I wouldn't support it.

[/can't stay and argue, has chem to study for >.x ]

Edit: I think Spiral said it better than I did >.>;

[DCVI]

Spiral Out

kp is dcvi

First of all: Congratulations on your child.

Second of all: I'm reading about the developmental process as we speak. Technically speaking, your child won't remember a thing. (Shouldn't, at least). She's probably working off instinctive senses of... basic intuition? Not quite sure. But if you like, I'd be glad to actually post an outline of the four major stages of child development (Piaget's, I believe).

There's no shame in it. Your child, my future children, you, and I all started out... pretty basic. Besides... even if your child IS that intelligent... so? My cats and dogs I know of are just as smart. Perhaps more so.

Thank you! 3nodding

I would be interested in that, actually... post or pm.

I agree that she's not smarter than most cats or dogs at this point, however I don't condone killing cats or dogs either, so... there's that.

Well, I don't either.

Heresa go:
Piage's Stages (Which are now, slowly, being debated by Developmental Psychologists)
Birth to 2 yrs.: Sensorimotor (experiencing the world largely through looking, touching, mouthing, and grasping)
Up until 8 months, infants lack object permanence: If it is out of sight, it is out of mind.
There is also evidence to SUGGEST children have some capability with numbers. They were able to notice when a group of objects was added to or taken away from, but, they may have also just been noticing that the size of the pile was shrinking or growing.

2 to 6-7 yrs.: Preoperational (represeting things with words and images; use intuitive rather than logical reasoning)
Children lack the concept of conservation (principle that quantity remains same despite shape); don't ask a two year old to pour milk from a tall glass, full, into a shorter glass. They won't realize it'll overflow.
They have trouble with mental processes, such as symbolic thinking. (If there was a doll hiding behind a couch in a small model room, the child didn't notice it in the life-size version)
Also, children are egocentric. If a child is asked if he has a brother, he'll say yes. If he's asked if his BROTHER has a brother (himself), he says no.
At 3-4.5, children begin to realize there are false concepts/statements

7-11 years: Concrete Operational (thinking logically about conrete events; grasping concrete analogies and performing arithmetical operations)
They grasp conservation at this point.
Begins to understand math.

By age 12: Formal Operational Stage
Children begin the lifelong process of understanding, and creating, logical patterns/statements etc.

(Myers, 2007)

It's a survey course so, it's basic. But Wikipedia is your friend for any type of information, i'm sure. :XP:

[DCVI]

Plummy Lovelace

kp is dcvi

So by this reasoning: What stops a mother from killing her one year old if she argues that it was inconveniencing and living on her property?

According to pro-choice thinking: Nothing. The women is well within her rights to kill her born children. The only thing that protects them is the law, and for any of you Choicers well into your prime before '73, you would know that the law has been "wrong" before.

Incorrect.

If someone were to come up and start punching me, they would be infringing on my bodily domain. I could only kill them if thats the only thing that would take to get them to stop.

Tell me, is killing her born child the only way a women get rid of him/her? No, there's adoption.

Is there anyway for a women to safely remove the fetus from her uterus without killing it? No, which means abortion is her only option if she wants the fetus to stop infringing on her beliefs.

Trust me, if abortion/killing the fetus wasn't the only way to stop a fetus from infringing on a women's Bodily domain, then I wouldn't support it.

[/can't stay and argue, has chem to study for >.x ]

Edit: I think Spiral said it better than I did >.>;

That is not what my hypothetical allows. I said: "A women can justify the murder of a 1 year old." It doesn't matter her alternatives.

Good luck on the Chem.

[DCVI]

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

Deformography

kp is dcvi

Y'know i've been wondering: Most of you inadvertently defend infanticide.

You say that anything infringing upon Autonomy can be killed without a good reason. Some of you, further your points, by saying that a fetus/zygote/embryo cannot think or feel. To many of you, you define personhood as something that must, first and foremost, think and feel.

But as I just read, research holds that infants up to as young as 3 and sometimes, 4, do not have the neurological capability to remember anything, nor truly reason, logic, or "think", in the conventional sense.

So essentially, what you have is this tiny, albeit, cute, piece of human flesh that happens to be animated. But intellectually, a one year old is a human with the upper brain functions still in their infancy. Actually, one might argue, a baby is the closest thing to a human "zombie" we might ever have (that is to say, a human without the being).

So by this reasoning: What stops a mother from killing her one year old if she argues that it was inconveniencing and living on her property?

According to pro-choice thinking: Nothing. The women is well within her rights to kill her born children. The only thing that protects them is the law, and for any of you Choicers well into your prime before '73, you would know that the law has been "wrong" before.

...what did you just do to the BD argument? That is so horrendously wrong, at least from my POV, that I hardly know where to start.

The bodily domain argument applies to an embryo/fetus... not an infant, child, adolescent, et cetera. It does not include anything related to thought processes, neurological development/capabilities, and so on. Once she gives birth, the baby cannot really infringe upon her right to BD.

That isn't my pro-choice thinking. In fact, I doubt you'd find a choicer that TRULY thinks like that. If you want to misrepresent our arguments in what is essentially mudslinging, you should take it elsewhere. This, what you just wrote here, is low.

Wait...

and calling me a misogynist is thinking highly?

Deformorgraphy, here's a checklist:
-Take about two steps down from the Moral Highground.
-Let out your breath.
-Remove the razor blade from the wrist.
-Find the "Condescending Tone" on your hands and switch it to the OFF position.
-Smoke a few packs, do a few shots, your poison of choice, m'dear.

Then... get back to me and we'll discuss this as intelligent adults, not children incapable of comprehending.

She didn't call you a misogynist anywhere in there.

KP a cheklist for you:
- Take a few steps down from the moral highgorund
- get your head out of other people's uteri
-Stop generalizing and misrepresenting choicers.
- address her argument (something you failed to do.)

That was a pretty hackeyed attempt at copying my wit. But whatever.

NO. She did NOT call me a misogynist. Has she? I don't recall. Might have. Has she been in the presence of others, who have, and not stopped them? That may be a big yes. Does she agree with said individuals? Again... possibly. If she doesn't think that I am, she has every right to tell me. I will stand corrected.

In any attempt, I am not going to dignify anyone by answering their points if they are just... in what seems like a pissy mood.

Ah. So when you say we want infanticide you are debating but when she refutes it she is beign pissy. Then when you ignore her refuting it and insult her then you are being witty? Wow.

I am dealing with many people attempting to refute it. All of them are being quite civil. Take a look around!

I don't have the patience for intolerant people. If someone wants to act like a b***h or b*****d to me, they can take their "intelligence" elsewhere.

[DCVI]

Spiral Out

kp is dcvi

...and if they die in that locked room, the burden is YOURS. YOU will get charged with abandonment.

The child is your legal and social responsibility. Even out of the womb, they are shackled to you.

Well, I would (obviously) suggest adoption above abandonment.

I'll try to clarify. If you don't want a born child, you can give it up for adoption or 'abandon' it at a hospital or police station. An infant is physically unable to violate your body. However, if you don't want a fetus, you can't get rid of it in any way that doesn't result in death. If you don't want it, it's kind of unable to not violate your body, and unfortunately, at this time there is no alternative that stops the violation while preserving the fetus.

And I would suggest adoption over abortion. But women can choose whatever they want.

The question here is not "What can she do" The question is "What has she done". She's murdered her 1 year old child. I'm telling you, by pro-choice reasoning, she can justify. Maybe she just did not want to put it up for adoption. How do you know?

But it doesn't matter: It isn't what she will or can do, it's what she HAS done.

[E-Z-MONEY]

kp is dcvi

Plummy Lovelace

kp is dcvi

So by this reasoning: What stops a mother from killing her one year old if she argues that it was inconveniencing and living on her property?

According to pro-choice thinking: Nothing. The women is well within her rights to kill her born children. The only thing that protects them is the law, and for any of you Choicers well into your prime before '73, you would know that the law has been "wrong" before.

Incorrect.

If someone were to come up and start punching me, they would be infringing on my bodily domain. I could only kill them if thats the only thing that would take to get them to stop.

Tell me, is killing her born child the only way a women get rid of him/her? No, there's adoption.

Is there anyway for a women to safely remove the fetus from her uterus without killing it? No, which means abortion is her only option if she wants the fetus to stop infringing on her beliefs.

Trust me, if abortion/killing the fetus wasn't the only way to stop a fetus from infringing on a women's Bodily domain, then I wouldn't support it.

[/can't stay and argue, has chem to study for >.x ]

Edit: I think Spiral said it better than I did >.>;

That is not what my hypothetical allows. I said: "A women can justify the murder of a 1 year old." It doesn't matter her alternatives.

Good luck on the Chem.
I don't think you understand. That is like saying a person can justify the murder of anyone because she can justify the murder of an attacker. You can kill an attacker when there are no other obvious alternative and when he is trying to kill you. The fact that there are alternatives means that the loss of life isn't neccesary and therefore unjustifiable.

[DCVI]

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

Plummy Lovelace

kp is dcvi

So by this reasoning: What stops a mother from killing her one year old if she argues that it was inconveniencing and living on her property?

According to pro-choice thinking: Nothing. The women is well within her rights to kill her born children. The only thing that protects them is the law, and for any of you Choicers well into your prime before '73, you would know that the law has been "wrong" before.

Incorrect.

If someone were to come up and start punching me, they would be infringing on my bodily domain. I could only kill them if thats the only thing that would take to get them to stop.

Tell me, is killing her born child the only way a women get rid of him/her? No, there's adoption.

Is there anyway for a women to safely remove the fetus from her uterus without killing it? No, which means abortion is her only option if she wants the fetus to stop infringing on her beliefs.

Trust me, if abortion/killing the fetus wasn't the only way to stop a fetus from infringing on a women's Bodily domain, then I wouldn't support it.

[/can't stay and argue, has chem to study for >.x ]

Edit: I think Spiral said it better than I did >.>;

That is not what my hypothetical allows. I said: "A women can justify the murder of a 1 year old." It doesn't matter her alternatives.

Good luck on the Chem.

I don't think you understand. That is like saying a person can justify the murder of anyone because she can justify the murder of an attacker. You can kill an attacker when there are no other obvious alternative and when he is trying to kill you. The fact that there are alternatives means that the loss of life isn't neccesary and therefore unjustifiable.


By that stretch?

No abortion is necessary.

Actually... nothing is necessary. Necessity is a human concept.