The Abortion Debate

[DCVI]

PhoenixDenz

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.

How is it not?

It is in your jurisdiction. I've been saying this for the past three pages. It is your responsibility, more so then it ever has been. Drop it off somewhere without proper care and you can be charged with abandonment. The child is legally and socially linked to you. Most women, at that point in motherhood, accept the child. Some, every now and then, reject it. Why? They want to shirk off the burden. They recognize that the child is infringing upon their domain as a human being. They have a right to be free of obligation from another... isn't that what BD is about?

So to reject the burden of an infant child, according to choicers, is completely, fine.

[t0Ri_niCoLE]

ok rilly. ok if u are going to do that stuff you have to deal w/ the problems following. at least have it and give it up for adoption , after 9 days the baby has a heartbeat. so that really would be considered MURDER. ok... ok.

If u dont want a kid DONT DO THAT STUFF! the teen pregnacy rate is higher than it has ever been so Dont do that stuff and we rilly wont have to deal with that stuff will we?

[Demokritos]

_ToRi_GrL_909_

ok rilly. ok if u are going to do that stuff you have to deal w/ the problems following. at least have it and give it up for adoption , after 9 days the baby has a heartbeat. so that really would be considered MURDER. ok... ok.

If u dont want a kid DONT DO THAT STUFF! the teen pregnacy rate is higher than it has ever been so Dont do that stuff and we rilly wont have to deal with that stuff will we?

Translation: "We should punish those who had sex for the wrong reasons with having to go through pregnancy."

That makes oodles of sense.

[E-Z-MONEY]

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).

Two things.

First of all that is ironically impossible. Being natural would be against human nature. Also it is natural for us to be unnatural.

Secondly, naturalistic fallacy FTL. Who needs bathing in rivers. Eeew. There are like pointy rocks and stuff.

[Denzorz]

kp is dcvi

PhoenixDenz

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.

How is it not?

Because a one year old isn't attached to my body, KP.

Quote:

It is in your jurisdiction. I've been saying this for the past three pages. It is your responsibility, more so then it ever has been. Drop it off somewhere without proper care and you can be charged with abandonment. The child is legally and socially linked to you. Most women, at that point in motherhood, accept the child. Some, every now and then, reject it. Why? They want to shirk off the burden. They recognize that the child is infringing upon their domain as a human being. They have a right to be free of obligation from another... isn't that what BD is about?

No, KP, that isn't what BD is about. BD is about your bodily domain, not your social domain.

Quote:

So to reject the burden of an infant child, according to choicers, is completely, fine.

Sure, to reject the burden of an infant child is fine (well, not personally to me, but legally it is) as long as you do so in a manner that is legal and doesn't infringe the rights of the kid.

You can 'reject' the burden of the kid like this:
Murderering them, which would be illegal since they're not violating your BD and you don't have the right to kill people because they're 'legally and socially linked to you'.

Or

You can drop them off at a safe surrender site or toss them into the adoption system, which would be rejecting your responsibility of them in a manner that doesn't infringe their rights.

Please tell me you're just debating this point for the sake of debating, and dont' actually buy the argument you're giving...

[Spiral Out]

Kp, I was under the belief that pro-choice only refers to abortion in this topic... (lets please not go down that silly path of 'you must be pro-every-choice-ever-made-by-anyone or you're not pro-choice' again)

[Denzorz]

_ToRi_GrL_909_

ok rilly. ok if u are going to do that stuff you have to deal w/ the problems following. at least have it and give it up for adoption , after 9 days the baby has a heartbeat. so that really would be considered MURDER. ok... ok.

No, ti wouldn't be considered murder, since a fetus isn't a person and abortion isn't illegal, so it doesn't meet the prerequisites for murder.

Cows have heartbeats too, sweetheart. Killing them for hamburgers isn't murder, though.

Quote:

If u dont want a kid DONT DO THAT STUFF!

Sorry, but not wanting a kid (or, in my case, not wanting to risk my life) doesn't mean I shouldn't ********. Sex isn't just for procreation.

Quote:

the teen pregnacy rate is higher than it has ever been so Dont do that stuff and we rilly wont have to deal with that stuff will we?

Out of curiousity, you got a source for the 'higher than ever' claim?

Even if women abstained form sex because they didn't want kids, there's always the rape factor.

[Denzorz]

Spiral Out

Kp, I was under the belief that pro-choice only refers to abortion in this topic... (lets please not go down that silly path of 'you must be pro-every-choice-ever-made-by-anyone or you're not pro-choice' again)

I thought that argument was dropped a couple days ago...has it been brought up again?

[Spiral Out]

PhoenixDenz

Spiral Out

Kp, I was under the belief that pro-choice only refers to abortion in this topic... (lets please not go down that silly path of 'you must be pro-every-choice-ever-made-by-anyone or you're not pro-choice' again)

I thought that argument was dropped a couple days ago...has it been brought up again?

No, it hasn't, I'm just hoping that it doesn't. I'm just not understanding the 'pro-choicers could justify murder of an infant' thing, so I'm trying to clarify.

[DCVI]

PhoenixDenz

kp is dcvi

PhoenixDenz

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.

How is it not?

Because a one year old isn't attached to my body, KP.

Quote:

It is in your jurisdiction. I've been saying this for the past three pages. It is your responsibility, more so then it ever has been. Drop it off somewhere without proper care and you can be charged with abandonment. The child is legally and socially linked to you. Most women, at that point in motherhood, accept the child. Some, every now and then, reject it. Why? They want to shirk off the burden. They recognize that the child is infringing upon their domain as a human being. They have a right to be free of obligation from another... isn't that what BD is about?

No, KP, that isn't what BD is about. BD is about your bodily domain, not your social domain.

Quote:

So to reject the burden of an infant child, according to choicers, is completely, fine.

Sure, to reject the burden of an infant child is fine (well, not personally to me, but legally it is) as long as you do so in a manner that is legal and doesn't infringe the rights of the kid.

You can 'reject' the burden of the kid like this:
Murderering them, which would be illegal since they're not violating your BD and you don't have the right to kill people because they're 'legally and socially linked to you'.

Or

You can drop them off at a safe surrender site or toss them into the adoption system, which would be rejecting your responsibility of them in a manner that doesn't infringe their rights.

Please tell me you're just debating this point for the sake of debating, and dont' actually buy the argument you're giving...

1) So domain extends onto to things physically attached to you? Rapists and murders are not attached to you. A murderer, in particular, can kill you from a distance. But you don't talk about that do you? Your BD still protects you from him. Even if he does what he does, from a distance.
Domain, Autonomy, is a concept that goes past physical linkage.

2) Domain is domain. Moreover, the child is quite physically dependent on you. Given that you can't interact with the child and nourish him WITHOUT contact, you are with the child quite often.

3) Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

A newborn child is incapable of its surroundings. Infants are unaware... they are very simply minded! That simply. They are legally and socially bound to you, the caretaker. You are bonded, no longer physically, but by ties unseen. That child is your responsibility.

A mother who chooses to relinquish that responsibility by painlessly killing her child is, according to your side, well within her right. Why?
1) Because she's relinquishing HER responsibility. Getting rid of HER burden.
2) Killing something that is not and cannot contribute back to society in any significant way.

Your adoption agency argument is none For one: I can just argue you should never abort, you should always put up for adoption. For two: I can just argue that she wants to kill her child. Pro-choice isn't about motives, it's about choice. This is this, hypothetical woman's choice.

[ShadowIce]

kp is dcvi

How is it not?

It is in your jurisdiction. I've been saying this for the past three pages. It is your responsibility, more so then it ever has been. Drop it off somewhere without proper care and you can be charged with abandonment. The child is legally and socially linked to you. Most women, at that point in motherhood, accept the child. Some, every now and then, reject it. Why? They want to shirk off the burden. They recognize that the child is infringing upon their domain as a human being. They have a right to be free of obligation from another... isn't that what BD is about?

So to reject the burden of an infant child, according to choicers, is completely, fine.

But the whole reason that you are required to drop the child off somewhere safe is because you can in fact drop the child off somewhere safe. We live in an age where women don't have to choose between killing an 11 month old and being a mother. Women do have to choose between killing a fetus and being a mother. EDIT: Furthermore, in the case of an 11 month old infant, we don't require less of any random individual than we would of the biological mother. For example, let's say a random woman shoved an infant into my arms and ran off. I never, at any point, consented to take care of the infant. Would the law allow me to dump the kid on the roadside and leave because I had never taken on responsibility for the child? I think not.

Another difference is that requiring someone to drop a child off somewhere doesn't infringe on their bodily integrity. Certainly it infringes on their autonomy, but that's not the same thing. There is a difference between declaring that you must provide for someone and saying that you must let someone use your body. This is why parents can be forced to pay child support, but cannot be forced to give up bone marrow and the like.

In all seriousness, can anyone give me one example apart from pregnancy where we require people to give up use of their bodies for the gain of another person?

[Spiral Out]

kp is dcvi

1) So domain extends onto to things physically attached to you? Rapists and murders are not attached to you. A murderer, in particular, can kill you from a distance. But you don't talk about that do you? Your BD still protects you from him. Even if he does what he does, from a distance.
Domain, Autonomy, is a concept that goes past physical linkage.

Oh dear.
In the rape scenario. Excuse my inability to censor my words, but your mouth, v****a and a**s are attached to you. They are a part of your body. If someone decides to be inside of any of those orifices, they are violating your body.

kp is dcvi

2) Domain is domain. Moreover, the child is quite physically dependent on you. Given that you can't interact with the child and nourish him WITHOUT contact, you are with the child quite often.

But a child isn't solely dependent on ONE person. A child can be nourished and cared for by anyone really. A fetus can only be nourished by the woman who's body it lives inside of.

[DCVI]

ShadowIce

kp is dcvi

How is it not?

It is in your jurisdiction. I've been saying this for the past three pages. It is your responsibility, more so then it ever has been. Drop it off somewhere without proper care and you can be charged with abandonment. The child is legally and socially linked to you. Most women, at that point in motherhood, accept the child. Some, every now and then, reject it. Why? They want to shirk off the burden. They recognize that the child is infringing upon their domain as a human being. They have a right to be free of obligation from another... isn't that what BD is about?

So to reject the burden of an infant child, according to choicers, is completely, fine.

But the whole reason that you are required to drop the child off somewhere safe is because you can in fact drop the child off somewhere safe. We live in an age where women don't have to choose between killing an 11 month old and being a mother. Women do have to choose between killing a fetus and being a mother.

Another difference is that requiring someone to drop a child off somewhere doesn't infringe on their bodily integrity. Certainly it infringes on their autonomy, but that's not the same thing. There is a difference between declaring that you must provide for someone and saying that you must let someone use your body. This is why parents can be forced to pay child support, but cannot be forced to give up bone marrow and the like.

In all seriousness, can anyone give me one example apart from pregnancy where we require people to give up use of their bodies for the gain of another person?

And again, I'm arguing that from Pro-choice ideology: That's all a waste of time.

[DCVI]

Spiral Out

kp is dcvi

1) So domain extends onto to things physically attached to you? Rapists and murders are not attached to you. A murderer, in particular, can kill you from a distance. But you don't talk about that do you? Your BD still protects you from him. Even if he does what he does, from a distance.
Domain, Autonomy, is a concept that goes past physical linkage.

Oh dear.
In the rape scenario. Excuse my inability to censor my words, but your mouth, v****a and a**s are attached to you. They are a part of your body. If someone decides to be inside of any of those orifices, they are violating your body.

kp is dcvi

2) Domain is domain. Moreover, the child is quite physically dependent on you. Given that you can't interact with the child and nourish him WITHOUT contact, you are with the child quite often.

But a child isn't solely dependent on ONE person. A child can be nourished and cared for by anyone really. A fetus can only be nourished by the woman who's body it lives inside of.

Thank you for furthering my point. On your second point I say: Infantificide can be justified by the immediate caretaker child, not just the mother, all, according to Pro-choice ideology.

[ShadowIce]

kp is dcvi

And again, I'm arguing that from Pro-choice ideology: That's all a waste of time.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you're representation of Pro-Choice ideology is viable. If you want, I can explain why again.

EDIT: or not. I have to write a paper now. See you later!