The Abortion Debate

[PhaedraMcSpiffy]

kp is dcvi

It's not pathetic at all. You want to know the truth? Forgive the tone: It's me giving you a glimpse through my eyes of the bullshit you've asked me to swallow for the past four years.

Come on, now. Being willfully ignorant and creating strawmen is just plain immature. So is playing the martyr.

Quote:

A well known principle here, probably amongst all of us is the following: A human can be killed justifiably pending certain circumstances. This can be justified legally, morally... just pick a view.

Obviously, pro-choicers have to take a stance somewhere, just like lifers. Your ideology holds that fetuses are not people, plain and simple.

First of all, not all choicers hold this view. There are a few--a rare few-- that beleive fetuses are people, but that they are not entitled to live inside the body of another without their consent.

Second, for the most part, you are correct. Pro-choicers typically beleive that sentience is what makes humans people, while lifers would argue that it's DNA.

Quote:

You support this, in summary, by arguing that a fetus does not have the same mental capability as a born human being. Fetuses are humans without their "being" as some might put it. But here's the problem: As I said, a one year old (technically, a 1, 2, 3, and possibly 4 year old) are all... mentally under developed human beings. They are humans without the being. They are still very much potential people.

Yes, but my article explained why this is no excuse to kill them.

Quote:

Any position, any at all, that clearly draws a line between human and person will have to, inevitably support, that a human, sometime in their lifetime is/can be expendable. The comatose, the mentally handicapped, infants, fetuses... somewhere, a humans that is not a person is expendable. (If they weren't, why even make the distinction)?

You can't deny the above. You may find error, but the general idea that an infant is still very much an under developed human cannot be denied. From that you can argue they are the most expendable kind of human our species has to offer.

Why infants? Surely the braindead are, because they don't even have the potential for sentience.

Quote:

(Be mindful that I am not emotionally connected to these words, I just kind of rattle them off. I think it goes without saying that the truth does indeed... sound harsh).

I think you are very emotionally connected, actually. You certainly come off that way. Angry, saddened, frustrated.

Quote:

So now you have, basically, a human below common-value in an objective sense. How do you justify it's death?

Euthanasia patients are within the jurisdiction of their caregiver. In their case, one can argue any comatose body, without a living will that specifically declares their desires, is at the mercy of their caregiver. Euthanasia is legal in one state in this country, and in many other countries (so far as I know).

What does this have to do with anything? Burdening social responsibility can be removed. Since you can't (so far as I know) throw a comatose patient into the "system", many do infact choose to euthanize them. But... some may just find it gives the family more closure to simply, and painlessly, end their life.

Similarly, children can be burdensome.

Yes, but children are sentient.

Quote:

Because your ideology deals with the handling of things burdensome, and people's said right about what they can/cannot do, I just took the leap. Unwanted social responsibility merits action. An infant is, according to a more objective definition of a person, not a person. Conclusion? Pro-choice ideology merits infanticide.

It's a huge and ridiculous leap you just made, there. It's nothing but a pathetic strawman. And a slippery slope.

You may feel like your beliefs are being misunderstood, explained wrong, or taken out of context, but as far as I know, nobody's doing it on purpose. There's really no call for you to do it on purpose.

Quote:

But I'm not far off.

Yes, actually, you are.

Quote:

Whatever you say about BD s**t is regardless of the fact that drawing the line between person and human means some humans can be justifiably killed. That cannot be ignored. Worst case scenario here? I can dream, and you can all look away, but you can't dismiss me. I've already created an indisputable fact.

The basis of what you're saying is correct, but your "dream" was a logical fallacy and an intended insult.

Regarding The Bolded: Please don't show contempt for bodily domain. It's unbecoming, especially after you've shown signs that you don't fully understand it.

Quote:

But again... you were the one who posted the article about the difference between biological and social dependence. Which is correct, I won't deny. But if you truly believe in Domain as tightly as you do... I think you indirectly support that people have much more control over themselves and their property as you might think.

Explain, please.

Quote:

Any position that calls killing a human morally justifiable is saying a mouth-full. It isn't my responsibility to sort out the muck.

In a debate, you are responsible for understanding your opponents' argument. Otherwise, why should anyone listen to you if you don't even understand what you're arguing against?

[DCVI]

I withdraw my points.

When I post an argument I would like to meet dissent at the front of the argument, not at the roots. Until that, I have nothing else to say on the matter other then I do hold true, absolutely, to the point that to deny personhood to one member of the human species is to inevitably open the door for something much greater.

And that is all. Thank you Phaedra for your attention.

[La Veuve Zin]

PhaedraMcSpiffy

In a debate, you are responsible for understanding your opponents' argument. Otherwise, why should anyone listen to you if you don't even understand what you're arguing against?

There's a difference between comprehending a person's opinion and seeing it as a reasonable one. I think kp was referring to the latter, and he's right; he doesn't have to defend or even explain your position.

People with differing opinions are going to think in different terms. A supporter of supply-side economics is going to focus on the economic aspect, whereas someone opposed to it will likely focus on the sociological aspect. Pro-choicers talk about preserving an adult's bodily integrity, pro-lifers talk about preserving fetal human life.

[PhaedraMcSpiffy]

Oh. Thank you for the clarification, Zin.

And KP.... uh... well, I'm not sure what you mean by this:

Quote:

When I post an argument I would like to meet dissent at the front of the argument, not at the roots.

[DCVI]

PhaedraMcSpiffy

Oh. Thank you for the clarification, Zin.

And KP.... uh... well, I'm not sure what you mean by this:

Quote:

When I post an argument I would like to meet dissent at the front of the argument, not at the roots.

I want to meet dissent at the conclusion, not at the points leading up to it. Or something to that effect.

When I use terms (BD), I want my understanding/definition of them to go, generally, undisputed.

[Reiken no Tenshi]

La Veuve Zin

PhaedraMcSpiffy

In a debate, you are responsible for understanding your opponents' argument. Otherwise, why should anyone listen to you if you don't even understand what you're arguing against?

There's a difference between comprehending a person's opinion and seeing it as a reasonable one. I think kp was referring to the latter, and he's right; he doesn't have to defend or even explain your position.

People with differing opinions are going to think in different terms. A supporter of supply-side economics is going to focus on the economic aspect, whereas someone opposed to it will likely focus on the sociological aspect. Pro-choicers talk about preserving an adult's bodily integrity, pro-lifers talk about preserving fetal human life.

And both are very admirable goals except for the fact that pro-choicers hold more concern for the mother over the possibility of taking the life of something that hasn't even had the chance to live and the pro-lifers only seem to care about the human life so long as it's a fetus and then don't give it a second thought after it's born and chucked into a garbage bin because the mother didn't want it.

[DCVI]

Nobody Famous

La Veuve Zin

PhaedraMcSpiffy

In a debate, you are responsible for understanding your opponents' argument. Otherwise, why should anyone listen to you if you don't even understand what you're arguing against?

There's a difference between comprehending a person's opinion and seeing it as a reasonable one. I think kp was referring to the latter, and he's right; he doesn't have to defend or even explain your position.

People with differing opinions are going to think in different terms. A supporter of supply-side economics is going to focus on the economic aspect, whereas someone opposed to it will likely focus on the sociological aspect. Pro-choicers talk about preserving an adult's bodily integrity, pro-lifers talk about preserving fetal human life.

And both are very admirable goals except for the fact that pro-choicers hold more concern for the mother over the possibility of taking the life of something that hasn't even had the chance to live and the pro-lifers only seem to care about the human life so long as it's a fetus and then don't give it a second thought after it's born and chucked into a garbage bin because the mother didn't want it.

Was that doubt? Let me clear up the confusion.

That isn't the case. Many of us care about children before and after birth.

[Z3Ncat]

kp is dcvi

PhaedraMcSpiffy

Oh. Thank you for the clarification, Zin.

And KP.... uh... well, I'm not sure what you mean by this:

Quote:

When I post an argument I would like to meet dissent at the front of the argument, not at the roots.

I want to meet dissent at the conclusion, not at the points leading up to it. Or something to that effect.

When I use terms (BD), I want my understanding/definition of them to go, generally, undisputed.

But if your understanding/definition of the terms is plain wrong, it throws off any point you could be hoping to make, and, frankly, makes you look like someone who is purposely refusing to use the CORRECT understanding/definition just so you can push some feeble argument that has no basis without the incorrect understand/definition.

And, as shown, when you use a term incorrectly, people are going to correct you. Insisting that we have to respect your opinion is one thing, insisting that we have to respect and use your definition of terms even when that definition is wrong is something else entirely.

[Reiken no Tenshi]

kp is dcvi

Nobody Famous

La Veuve Zin

PhaedraMcSpiffy

In a debate, you are responsible for understanding your opponents' argument. Otherwise, why should anyone listen to you if you don't even understand what you're arguing against?

There's a difference between comprehending a person's opinion and seeing it as a reasonable one. I think kp was referring to the latter, and he's right; he doesn't have to defend or even explain your position.

People with differing opinions are going to think in different terms. A supporter of supply-side economics is going to focus on the economic aspect, whereas someone opposed to it will likely focus on the sociological aspect. Pro-choicers talk about preserving an adult's bodily integrity, pro-lifers talk about preserving fetal human life.

And both are very admirable goals except for the fact that pro-choicers hold more concern for the mother over the possibility of taking the life of something that hasn't even had the chance to live and the pro-lifers only seem to care about the human life so long as it's a fetus and then don't give it a second thought after it's born and chucked into a garbage bin because the mother didn't want it.

Was that doubt? Let me clear up the confusion.

That isn't the case. Many of us care about children before and after birth.

Not really doubt and there is no confusion. I just added that in there because otherwise people would be biting my head off for making "generalizations" rather than responding to the actual comment itself.

And, assuming that by "us", you mean pro-lifers, if you truly cared for all these poor children before AND after birth, then why do I never hear anything coming close to concern about the child's quality of life after birth from any of you? Instead, the most common response I hear from pro-lifers is "put them up for adoption". I don't hear anything from pro-lifers about how they'd be willing to take in the kid or pay for the mother's hospital stay so that the baby will have the best of care.

[DCVI]

Z3Ncat

kp is dcvi

PhaedraMcSpiffy

Oh. Thank you for the clarification, Zin.

And KP.... uh... well, I'm not sure what you mean by this:

Quote:

When I post an argument I would like to meet dissent at the front of the argument, not at the roots.

I want to meet dissent at the conclusion, not at the points leading up to it. Or something to that effect.

When I use terms (BD), I want my understanding/definition of them to go, generally, undisputed.

But if your understanding/definition of the terms is plain wrong, it throws off any point you could be hoping to make, and, frankly, makes you look like someone who is purposely refusing to use the CORRECT understanding/definition just so you can push some feeble argument that has no basis without the incorrect understand/definition.

And, as shown, when you use a term incorrectly, people are going to correct you. Insisting that we have to respect your opinion is one thing, insisting that we have to respect and use your definition of terms even when that definition is wrong is something else entirely.

...and I said I would like to come forward with terminology that goes undisputed.

[Z3Ncat]

kp is dcvi

Z3Ncat

kp is dcvi

PhaedraMcSpiffy

Oh. Thank you for the clarification, Zin.

And KP.... uh... well, I'm not sure what you mean by this:

Quote:

When I post an argument I would like to meet dissent at the front of the argument, not at the roots.

I want to meet dissent at the conclusion, not at the points leading up to it. Or something to that effect.

When I use terms (BD), I want my understanding/definition of them to go, generally, undisputed.

But if your understanding/definition of the terms is plain wrong, it throws off any point you could be hoping to make, and, frankly, makes you look like someone who is purposely refusing to use the CORRECT understanding/definition just so you can push some feeble argument that has no basis without the incorrect understand/definition.

And, as shown, when you use a term incorrectly, people are going to correct you. Insisting that we have to respect your opinion is one thing, insisting that we have to respect and use your definition of terms even when that definition is wrong is something else entirely.

...and I said I would like to come forward with terminology that goes undisputed.

I'm half asleep here, so forgive me my confusion. Do you mean that you want to use terms whose definitions are undisputed, or that you don't want anyone disputing YOUR usage of certain terms, even if your usage or understanding is incorrect?

[DCVI]

Z3Ncat

kp is dcvi

Z3Ncat

kp is dcvi

PhaedraMcSpiffy

Oh. Thank you for the clarification, Zin.

And KP.... uh... well, I'm not sure what you mean by this:

Quote:

When I post an argument I would like to meet dissent at the front of the argument, not at the roots.

I want to meet dissent at the conclusion, not at the points leading up to it. Or something to that effect.

When I use terms (BD), I want my understanding/definition of them to go, generally, undisputed.

But if your understanding/definition of the terms is plain wrong, it throws off any point you could be hoping to make, and, frankly, makes you look like someone who is purposely refusing to use the CORRECT understanding/definition just so you can push some feeble argument that has no basis without the incorrect understand/definition.

And, as shown, when you use a term incorrectly, people are going to correct you. Insisting that we have to respect your opinion is one thing, insisting that we have to respect and use your definition of terms even when that definition is wrong is something else entirely.

...and I said I would like to come forward with terminology that goes undisputed.

I'm half asleep here, so forgive me my confusion. Do you mean that you want to use terms whose definitions are undisputed, or that you don't want anyone disputing YOUR usage of certain terms, even if your usage or understanding is incorrect?

Yes to the first.

[Reiken no Tenshi]

Nobody Famous

kp is dcvi

Nobody Famous

La Veuve Zin

PhaedraMcSpiffy

In a debate, you are responsible for understanding your opponents' argument. Otherwise, why should anyone listen to you if you don't even understand what you're arguing against?

There's a difference between comprehending a person's opinion and seeing it as a reasonable one. I think kp was referring to the latter, and he's right; he doesn't have to defend or even explain your position.

People with differing opinions are going to think in different terms. A supporter of supply-side economics is going to focus on the economic aspect, whereas someone opposed to it will likely focus on the sociological aspect. Pro-choicers talk about preserving an adult's bodily integrity, pro-lifers talk about preserving fetal human life.

And both are very admirable goals except for the fact that pro-choicers hold more concern for the mother over the possibility of taking the life of something that hasn't even had the chance to live and the pro-lifers only seem to care about the human life so long as it's a fetus and then don't give it a second thought after it's born and chucked into a garbage bin because the mother didn't want it.

Was that doubt? Let me clear up the confusion.

That isn't the case. Many of us care about children before and after birth.

Not really doubt and there is no confusion. I just added that in there because otherwise people would be biting my head off for making "generalizations" rather than responding to the actual comment itself.

And, assuming that by "us", you mean pro-lifers, if you truly cared for all these poor children before AND after birth, then why do I never hear anything coming close to concern about the child's quality of life after birth from any of you? Instead, the most common response I hear from pro-lifers is "put them up for adoption". I don't hear anything from pro-lifers about how they'd be willing to take in the kid or pay for the mother's hospital stay so that the baby will have the best of care.

Hey, kp. I'm expecting a reply from you.

[Ametrin]

Most likely I wouldn't have an abortion myself. But I am definitely against outlawing it. The pro-lifers see everything so easily, not considering the women's situations that really may not be nice. It's not like they have an abortion for fun; they do as a way to solve their difficult and unplanned life situation.