The Abortion Debate

[Denzorz]

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.

There isn't justification for the argument. I don't know what BS KP is trying to pull this time. I've got one more post on this topic in me before I go catch up on webcomics though, but after that you guys are on your own with the silliness.

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.

Should have clarified, my bad.

The murderer shooting you from a mile away with some uber-awesome-sniper-rifle is still violating your BD because he doesn't have permission to do that. Same thing with a rapist. It's an infringement on your body, something being done to it that you did/do not cconsent to.

So the BD argument works for rapists and murderers, but not for a one year old.

Quote:

2) Domain is domain.

No. Your bodily domain is different from your social domain, in that it pertains to your body, not some social linkage crap.

Quote:

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.

Not biologically. If I remove the child from my body (assuming he had a grip on my hand or something) he won't die. He is not physically dependent on my body for survival.

Quote:

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.

The child is not bound physically to my body ad ddependent upon it for life, it isn't using my body without my permission.

You need to stop trying to compare a born child with a fetus, KP. They're not the same, the situations are not the same, from the simple matter of one being born, the other not.

Quote:

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.

That's not what the BD argument is, KP, and you should well know it. You're not this ******** dumb.

A woman who aborts a fetus is protecting her BD by expelling the offending fetus from her body.

A one year old is not inside the woman's body, and the situations are thus not the same.

There are ways to get rid of the legal/social responsiblity of caring for a child that do not include mruderering it.
There are no such ways for getting rid of an unwanted fetus. Were there, I wouldn't support abortion, because one is only allowed the use of lethal methods when there are no other ways to end the violation. If there was like, a test tube they coudl put the extracted fetus into to keep it alive, then killing the fetus would no longer be necessary, and thus not support by teh BD argument, which is that you have the right to defend your BD from violations with the means necessary.

Killing your one year old is not necessary and isn't supproted by this argument.

Quote:

Your adoption agency argument is none For one: I can just argue you should never abort, you should always put up for adoption.

Except that adoption requires a continuation of the violation of the woman's body and so isn't a viable solution.

Quote:

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.

Ugh.
It doesn't matter whether she wants to kill her child, it isn't legal and isn't necessary to protect her BD.

Pro-choice is about the choice to have an abortion, not to kill a born kid.

[Spiral Out]

kp is dcvi

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.

I don't think I did further your point on the first part, because unless the one year old is living in, raping or murdering someone, it's not infringing on bodily domain.

And on the second point... I also disagree. Like I've said a couple times, there's currently no way to remove a fetus that doesn't result in its death. There are plenty of ways to avoid parenting that don't involve killing a kid. So I still don't see how they relate at all.

[Denzorz]

Spiral Out

kp is dcvi

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.

I don't think I did further your point on the first part, because unless the one year old is living in, raping or murdering someone, it's not infringing on bodily domain.

And on the second point... I also disagree. Like I've said a couple times, there's currently no way to remove a fetus that doesn't result in its death. There are plenty of ways to avoid parenting that don't involve killing a kid. So I still don't see how they relate at all.

Pssssssssst.
They don't.
ninja

Ok, seriously, I'm gone now.

[Kata Samoes]

lymelady

But Kata, by the same logic that it can be argued that what he wants is "******** degrading," it can be argued that what you want is cruel.

Only if you can explain, logically, how.

How is what I want (freedom of choice) cruel, by offending your stance? Your feelings? The fetus feels and experiences nothing. How is that cruel, outside of being offended?

lymelady

Just because it can be argued doesn't mean it's not an appeal to emotion

Nor does it mean it is.

lymelady

and just because you disagree doesn't mean it can't be argued or proven, especially since your opinion that it's degrading can't honestly be proven since that's opinion based.

It is? See, I thought it was theoretical objective statement. Not necessarily opinion. "Cruel" is an opinion. Degrading? Not so much.

Especially since it'd make women 2nd class citizens.

lymelady

You've made the argument before that forcing women to be incubators for 9 months is degrading.

And?

lymelady

Yes, it's an appeal to emotion.

I disagree, and you have not backed your statement.

lymelady

I'm sorry if that offends you. Good day to you as well, and pleasant dreams.

Reflection argument.

[Lord Setar]

_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?

Nine...days? Whoa there [insert Hobbes ASCII art here], got a source?

Also, is it murder if I give a robot a heartbeat then destroy the robot? How about if I take someone who is dead, as in, dead, with all their brain cells dead, and use an electric current to restart their heart. Then I tape a stick - no, ten sticks - of dynamite to them and detonate it. Is that murder? What if I blast them with a cero?

Finally, the teen pregnancy rate is higher...why? Oh no, it can't be that in school all that teens are being taught is "DON'T HAVE SEX! YOU WILL GET AIDS AND DIE!" Nooo, it has to be because they're having sex! Blame the evil comprehensive sex education that might actually work by teaching teens that contraceptives exist and, contrary to popular belief, work!

Say, how is consent to sex (and as established consent to the risk of pregnancy) irrevocable consent to carrying any resulting pregnancy to term?

[Kata Samoes]

kp is dcvi

Spiral Out

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.

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.

Infanticide involves a born infant, whom is NOT physically attached and dependent to the woman. Abortion involves a fetus that IS.

So, can you prove this to be true, then? Or continue with the straw man arguments?

[Deformography]

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.

There is nothing at ALL wrong with what I had to say. That checklist is for you, bud.

I don't believe I've ever called you a misogynist. Take it up with the people who have. You need to stop applying your personal gripes (which you should be dealing with in PMs) to the general pro-choice community.

[Penamian]

Lord Setar

Penamian

Lord Setar

Penamian

Trite~Elegy

Penamian

Thanks for the rude quip and not hearing me out.

I didnt get to make a point yet. It was a question.

Ok, here's the thing. Biologists say that the point of life is to pass down the current generation's DNA to the next generation. And when this is done doesnt it benefit the parent generation?

It only benefits the parent's generation from the evolutionary stand point.
As in there is a higher chance our species is not just going to up and go extinct because we have produced more of us who have the ability to reproduce themselves.

Humans are odd when it comes to the animal world, as they can reproduce in times when food/shelter/other basic necessities are scare, unlike other animals in which reproduction is the last thing they are worrying about. So you could consider that not a benefit for humans, as we can reproduce continuously until we wipe ourselves out.

What is your point?

I thank you for giving me some intelligent conversation instead of being a d**k like the other guy.

So...mind getting to the point? Also, Denzyz was not being a d**k, your question alone did lack relevance to the debate.

I did, go back 2 posts. Also this is the abortion thread right? Anything abortion goes. I dont have to be discussing your current debate. I can start my own debate with other users. Comeon dude, think outside the box please.

The parasite argument is not only inaccurate, it is moot. The feuts is residing in the woman's body without the woman's consent. It is thus violating the woman's right to security of the person (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3) and thus it is justified self-defense for the woman to obtain an abortion and end the violation.

So a woman should just have her uterus ripped out then right? (Not trying to fight here)
Every female is born with a uterus and Ovum...so I guess being born automatically violates the baby's right to security?

Half of the fetus is the ovum so half the violation was simply being born.

[Penamian]

Lord Setar

_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?

Nine...days? Whoa there [insert Hobbes ASCII art here], got a source?

Also, is it murder if I give a robot a heartbeat then destroy the robot? How about if I take someone who is dead, as in, dead, with all their brain cells dead, and use an electric current to restart their heart. Then I tape a stick - no, ten sticks - of dynamite to them and detonate it. Is that murder? What if I blast them with a cero?

Finally, the teen pregnancy rate is higher...why? Oh no, it can't be that in school all that teens are being taught is "DON'T HAVE SEX! YOU WILL GET AIDS AND DIE!" Nooo, it has to be because they're having sex! Blame the evil comprehensive sex education that might actually work by teaching teens that contraceptives exist and, contrary to popular belief, work!

Say, how is consent to sex (and as established consent to the risk of pregnancy) irrevocable consent to carrying any resulting pregnancy to term?

Sitar, you should not even respond to posts like that. I doubt that the poster will comprehend all of what you are saying.

[Trite~Elegy]

PhoenixDenz

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.

BOTH OF YOU! scream
Need to read up on anarchy.
Anarchy has nothing to to with shitting in the woods or going without your microwave.

AS AN ANARCHIST, I am appalled. surprised

[Penamian]

Trite~Elegy

PhoenixDenz

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.

BOTH OF YOU! scream
Need to read up on anarchy.
Anarchy has nothing to to with shitting in the woods or going without your microwave.

AS AN ANARCHIST, I am appalled. surprised

Anarchism is just as hopeless as Communism...but thats a debate for another day and thread.....

[Penamian]

hosttop

(I'm just tryin to find the woman in me, yeah)
biggrin

DONT FEED THE TROLL GUYS! MUST RESIST THE URGE!!!

domokun cheese_whine

[lymelady]

Kata Samoes

lymelady

But Kata, by the same logic that it can be argued that what he wants is "******** degrading," it can be argued that what you want is cruel.

Only if you can explain, logically, how.

How is what sad I want (freedom of choice) cruel, by offending your stance? Your feelings? The fetus feels and experiences nothing. How is that cruel, outside of being offended?

lymelady

Just because it can be argued doesn't mean it's not an appeal to emotion

Nor does it mean it is.

lymelady

and just because you disagree doesn't mean it can't be argued or proven, especially since your opinion that it's degrading can't honestly be proven since that's opinion based.

It is? See, I thought it was theoretical objective statement. Not necessarily opinion. "Cruel" is an opinion. Degrading? Not so much.

Especially since it'd make women 2nd class citizens.

lymelady

You've made the argument before that forcing women to be incubators for 9 months is degrading.

And?

lymelady

Yes, it's an appeal to emotion.

I disagree, and you have not backed your statement.

lymelady

I'm sorry if that offends you. Good day to you as well, and pleasant dreams.

Reflection argument.

1. By your logic of "It can't feel anything" (which isn't entirely true depending on when in the pregnancy abortion is done. If you support pregnancy for bodily domain, usually it makes sense to support abortion all throughout pregnancy, including the 3rd trimester. It's also not even conclusively true, you're just assuming it is. By the same token I wouldn't assume a fetus feels pain given the lack of scientific evidence and the fact that doctors debate it both ways, I wouldn't assume a fetus doesn't feel pain, but feel free to stick to whichever one helps you sleep at night. The assumption that it can't experience anything is entirely untrue. It cannot experience things the way an adult can, but that can be said about other human stages of development as well.) I can kill a sleeping person in a painless manner and that wouldn't be cruel.

2. Saying that something is degrading is first of all, opinion based, secondly, yes, it's an appeal to emotion to try and make people who disagree with you look like they're out to degrade women, just as much as it's an appeal to emotion to use words that make pro-choice people look like they're out to kill fetuses.

3. Degrading is an opinion. It's quite possible I find it degrading that you feel women need to be able to kill their children in order to be equal to men, but I somehow feel that you don't share that opinion. Likewise, I don't share you opinion that it is degrading to say women can't kill their offspring for any reason whatsoever as long as that offspring is at a certain stage of development. Please back your statement that it is degrading without using emotions or opinions. You could fall back on appeal to authority, that would be entertaining.

You dream of reflection arguments? That's quite interesting.