The Abortion Debate

[Spiral Out]

kp is dcvi

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.

I have to disagree. Currently, there is no alternative to killing a fetus to remove it. If there were alternatives, this would likely be a VERY different debate. Honestly, if we could remove an embryo or fetus without killing it (granted of course that there was a family who would take care of it, or if they were being frozen somehow to... repopulate the earth if there was a catastrophic nuclear event or any other far fetched futurist scenario) I would absolutely suggest that. But, without an alternative, I suggest what I believe is 'adequate;' allowing abortion to remain legal for women who do not want to be pregnant or give birth.

Well, I guess since it's your hypothetical, it doesn't matter if I disagree, but it makes it a more fair analogy when you consider that there are simply no alternatives to unwanted pregnancy, whereas unwanted parenting has several options.

[E-Z-MONEY]

kp is dcvi

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

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.

But that post wasn't rude except for maybe the last part. You are misrepresenting us and generalizing. Plus you had the patience to use your "wit" to insult her.

[DCVI]

Spiral Out

kp is dcvi

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.

I have to disagree. Currently, there is no alternative to killing a fetus to remove it. If there were alternatives, this would likely be a VERY different debate. Honestly, if we could remove an embryo or fetus without killing it (granted of course that there was a family who would take care of it, or if they were being frozen somehow to... repopulate the earth if there was a catastrophic nuclear event or any other far fetched futurist scenario) I would absolutely suggest that. But, without an alternative, I suggest what I believe is 'adequate;' allowing abortion to remain legal for women who do not want to be pregnant or give birth.

Well, I guess since it's your hypothetical, it doesn't matter if I disagree, but it makes it a more fair analogy when you consider that there are simply no alternatives to unwanted pregnancy, whereas unwanted parenting has several options.

There is an alternative: Let it run its course.

But you're still disregarding my hypothetical. She doesn't need reasons. She's killed her 1yr. old child. Now... she has justified it with Pro-choice thinking. Can she do that?

[DCVI]

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

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.

But that post wasn't rude except for maybe the last part. You are misrepresenting us and generalizing. Plus you had the patience to use your "wit" to insult her.

And the consideration that Deformography insulted ME was taken in... where?

[E-Z-MONEY]

kp is 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.
Necessary to maintain bodily integrity.

[Spiral Out]

I suppose I'm just not getting your scenario. I can't really compare abortion to the murder of a one year old. While a one year old can't hurt you, a fetus can no matter how low the risk is, it is still possible. When I got pregnant, it was assumed that I would be in excellent condition for childbirth because I was twenty, strong, active and healthy. I still wound up on bed rest for the last trimester, and still lost consciousness and stopped breathing during delivery. So I suppose my personal experience has made me a much firmer believer that pregnancy can indeed threaten a woman's life, even in the United States, even in the twenty-first century, even in a squeaky clean hospital, on a night when I was the only patient in the maternity ward, and had three doctors and more nurses than I can count attending to me and only me.

[DCVI]

E-Z-MONEY

kp is 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.

Necessary to maintain bodily integrity.
No, it isn't. Bodily integrity doesn't exist! These are all human constructs. These are all thoughts that we have given words too. They are principles.

You don't need to protect anything. We protect things we value, and things do not intrinsically have value (in a rather materialist way of thinking, though).

[E-Z-MONEY]

kp is dcvi

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

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.

But that post wasn't rude except for maybe the last part. You are misrepresenting us and generalizing. Plus you had the patience to use your "wit" to insult her.

And the consideration that Deformography insulted ME was taken in... where?

The only thing that can be an insult int hat post is calling what you wrote low. And I think that fact that you said we support infanticide is even with that. So she didn't insult you.

[Spiral Out]

kp is dcvi

No, it isn't. Bodily integrity doesn't exist! These are all human constructs. These are all thoughts that we have given words too. They are principles.

You don't need to protect anything. We protect things we value, and things do not intrinsically have value (in a rather materialist way of thinking, though).

Right to life doesn't exist! This is a human construct. You don't need to protect the unborn, etc.

Come on, that was too easy surprised

[DCVI]

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

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.

But that post wasn't rude except for maybe the last part. You are misrepresenting us and generalizing. Plus you had the patience to use your "wit" to insult her.

And the consideration that Deformography insulted ME was taken in... where?

The only thing that can be an insult int hat post is calling what you wrote low. And I think that fact that you said we support infanticide is even with that. So she didn't insult you.

The statement was not personal, it was objective. I'm through arguing with this.

[Denzorz]

Hold on a second...

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I really don't see how the argument that a woman's right of bodily integrity means she can abort works for an 11 month old child.

A fetus is physically/biologically attached and dependent on the woman's body. An 11 month old is not. The 11 month old isn't violating her ********-.

Even if an 11 month old somehow was violating her BD, last I checked, you were only able to use lethal force to defend your BD if that was the only option. If the 11 month old was violating your BD, you could drop her at a safe surrender site, or give him up for adoption.

You really can't do that with a Z/E/F since abortion is the only way (as fo yet) to get the fetus out fo the woman's body when it becomes unwanted. Not nine months later.

That argument of "She could go through the pregnancy and give birth and the fetus would be out, so her violation would be over" doesn't fly. We don't have to let rapists keep violating our body until they're done, if the only way to get them out is to kill them, then it's allowed to end the violation as son as we can.


The BD argument only extends to bodily domain. You can't justify murdering a one year old (because in that instance, it would be murder) with the BD argument, because a one year old isn't violating your BD.

[DCVI]

Spiral Out

kp is dcvi

No, it isn't. Bodily integrity doesn't exist! These are all human constructs. These are all thoughts that we have given words too. They are principles.

You don't need to protect anything. We protect things we value, and things do not intrinsically have value (in a rather materialist way of thinking, though).

Right to life doesn't exist! This is a human construct. You don't need to protect the unborn, etc.

Come on, that was too easy surprised

Technically speaking, yes. We are not owed anything, by anyone.

The most natural way to live, it would seem, would be anarchy, without clothes, where we hunted for food, and drank from streams, having sex wherever, with whomever we pleased. (But, being humans, we would solve an occasional math or logic problem, here or there).

[E-Z-MONEY]

kp is dcvi

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

E-Z-MONEY

kp is dcvi

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.

Necessary to maintain bodily integrity.

No, it isn't. Bodily integrity doesn't exist! These are all human constructs. These are all thoughts that we have given words too. They are principles.

You don't need to protect anything. We protect things we value, and things do not intrinsically have value (in a rather materialist way of thinking, though).

So are morals and laws. What is your point? Just because we thought of it does not mean it does not exist. What about the value of working in a team. We do it and animals do it. Does it exist or not?

I am sick of people putting humans above nature. It is reall annoying. We ain't that special.

[Denzorz]

kp is dcvi

Spiral Out

kp is dcvi

No, it isn't. Bodily integrity doesn't exist! These are all human constructs. These are all thoughts that we have given words too. They are principles.

You don't need to protect anything. We protect things we value, and things do not intrinsically have value (in a rather materialist way of thinking, though).

Right to life doesn't exist! This is a human construct. You don't need to protect the unborn, etc.

Come on, that was too easy surprised

Technically speaking, yes. We are not owed anything, by anyone.

The most natural way to live, it would seem, would be anarchy, without clothes, where we hunted for food, and drank from streams, having sex wherever, with whomever we pleased. (But, being humans, we would solve an occasional math or logic problem, here or there).

I really don't understand peopel who want to live in an anarchist society (not saying you do, just people who do). Just because that's apparently how the natural world (ie, anything that isn't human) lives doesn't make it better.

I like having electricty. And cars. And frozen pizza. And policemen to save my skinny a** from someone trying to mug me.

[Spiral Out]

Den, that was a much less confusing version of my own thoughts. So thank you!