|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:10 pm
I was debating, and the guy comes up with this: Quote: That STILL doesn't deal with the fact that children's rights OVERRIDE parental rights. Because that's right; children DO have rights nobody else has. No contradiction there. Hate to break it to you, but children can even force you to spend money on food and shelter you wouldn't otherwise buy even for yourself. Basically, by your "stripping of rights" standards, pro-choice supporters are sexists who want to provide women a way out of responsibility, but not the men. If a woman can abort a baby, a man should be able to terminate the life he started as well. However, this is not the case. If the woman chooses to have the baby when the man wanted her to murder it, then he should be free from any obligation, but instead gets stuck paying child support and is jailed if he refuses. Sounds sexist to me. And accusing a fetus of rape is a disgusting, cowardly way to try to push a point. Fetuses are incapable of rape by government standards: (A) the carnal knowledge, oral sodomy, sexual assault with an object, or sexual fondling of a person, forcibly or against that person's will; (B) the carnal knowledge, oral sodomy, sexual assault with an object, or sexual fondling of a person not forcibly or against the person's will, where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his or her youth or his or her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity; or (C) the carnal knowledge, oral sodomy, sexual assault with an object, or sexual fondling of a person achieved through the exploitation of the fear or threat of physical violence or bodily injury. Babies are incapable of carnal knowledge, oral sodomy, sexual assault, and sexual fondling. They don't even understand the concept that objects out of sight do not cease to exist, much less the concept of sex or sensuality. Although since babies are, according to you, capable of such things, then women who breastfeed should be put in jail, since that is statutory rape that qualifies as forcing a child to sexually fondle an adult. Looks a bit like the law creates a catch-20, or a lose-lose situation for ya there, since you're so caught up in winning and losing. Either fetuses are innocent, or the mother taints them. Either way, you lose. I'm not very experienced with debating, and I'm not sure how to counter this. Any advice?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:39 pm
Quote: That STILL doesn't deal with the fact that children's rights OVERRIDE parental rights. Name one case in which this is true. Quote: Because that's right; children DO have rights nobody else has. Really? I can't seem to think of one... Quote: Hate to break it to you, but children can even force you to spend money on food and shelter you wouldn't otherwise buy even for yourself. Untrue. A child cannot walk into a bank, provide a birth certificate proving him/herself to be your child, and take your money. Your property is entirely yours. If you do not wish to spend your money on your children, there is that lovely system called "adoption" that relieves you of all responsibility. In fact, if you don't even feel like going through all the trouble of finding an adoption agency, all you have to do is cut off funding to your child and the adoption agencies (in the form of social workers) come right to you! Quote: Basically, by your "stripping of rights" standards, pro-choice supporters are sexists who want to provide women a way out of responsibility, but not the men. Really? I didn't know men needed protection, being as they, at no point, carry the fetus inside their body. Quote: If a woman can abort a baby, a man should be able to terminate the life he started as well. Sure. When the man has that life inside HIS body, HE can terminate it. Likewise, when a woman has that life inside HER body, SHE can terminate it. Once outside, however, termination is no longer an option for either sex. You cannot claim sexism that we aren't allowing men to abort their pregnancies when there are no pregnancies to abort. Not to mention that I doubt any of us is fighting for a special provision be put into laws specifying that men not be allowed to abort. Quote: If the woman chooses to have the baby when the man wanted her to murder it, then he should be free from any obligation, but instead gets stuck paying child support and is jailed if he refuses. Sounds sexist to me. Something many pro-choicers (myself included) want to change. But you know, putting arguments into the mouths of others has always shown to be so effective in debates... Quote: And accusing a fetus of rape is a disgusting, cowardly way to try to push a point. Lupine, I don't know if you did this. However, no pro-choicer should logically accuse a fetus of rape. We accuse the fetus of being inside the woman's body, therebye interfering with her bodily domain. The comparison ends at the fact that a rapist, through different means, also interferes with a woman's (or a man's) bodily domain. The rest all has to do with rape and blah blah blah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:40 pm
Where is it? I want a go at it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:13 pm
Kukushka Quote: Quote: And accusing a fetus of rape is a disgusting, cowardly way to try to push a point. Lupine, I don't know if you did this. However, no pro-choicer should logically accuse a fetus of rape. We accuse the fetus of being inside the woman's body, therebye interfering with her bodily domain. The comparison ends at the fact that a rapist, through different means, also interferes with a woman's (or a man's) bodily domain. The rest all has to do with rape and blah blah blah. Uh, I said that forcing a woman to carry the fetus was like rape, because it's using her body against her will. redface Won't do it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:46 pm
Lupine Pyrefly Uh, I said that forcing a woman to carry the fetus was like rape, because it's using her body against her will. redface Won't do it again.Aaah, in which case you are correct, but your wording was off. It is LIKE rape, as you said, but that needs more emphasis (as well as WHY it's like rape), otherwise it can be argued that you made the comparison as a plea to people's emotions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:34 pm
Deformography Where is it? I want a go at it! He's right here, if you want a stab at him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:58 pm
My reply:
“That STILL doesn't deal with the fact that children's rights OVERRIDE parental rights. Because that's right; children DO have rights nobody else has. No contradiction there. Hate to break it to you, but children can even force you to spend money on food and shelter you wouldn't otherwise buy even for yourself.”
Name one scenario in which this is true.
“Basically, by your "stripping of rights" standards, pro-choice supporters are sexists who want to provide women a way out of responsibility, but not the men. If a woman can abort a baby, a man should be able to terminate the life he started as well. However, this is not the case.”
The fetus is not inside the man’s body and is, therefore, not his decision.
“If the woman chooses to have the baby when the man wanted her to murder it, then he should be free from any obligation, but instead gets stuck paying child support and is jailed if he refuses. Sounds sexist to me.”
It is.
“And accusing a fetus of rape is a disgusting, cowardly way to try to push a point. Fetuses are incapable of rape by government standards:
(A) the carnal knowledge, oral sodomy, sexual assault with an object, or sexual fondling of a person, forcibly or against that person's will;
(B) the carnal knowledge, oral sodomy, sexual assault with an object, or sexual fondling of a person not forcibly or against the person's will, where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his or her youth or his or her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity; or
(C) the carnal knowledge, oral sodomy, sexual assault with an object, or sexual fondling of a person achieved through the exploitation of the fear or threat of physical violence or bodily injury.”
The argument is that it’s LIKE rape, not that it is rape.
The fetus may not be sexually assaulting anyone, but it IS using another human being’s body and needs the consent of that person to do so. Bodily domain gives a person the right to do ANYTHING to defend themself from having their body used without consent, even if it involves killing or injuring the person. Even if the person violating the other is doing it to save his/her own life. For example, I can deny giving someone an organ transplant that they need even if it kills them and won’t harm me.
It may seem unfair, but it is a basic human right to control what happens to/who uses/what goes into and out of their own body.
“Babies are incapable of carnal knowledge, oral sodomy, sexual assault, and sexual fondling. They don't even understand the concept that objects out of sight do not cease to exist, much less the concept of sex or sensuality. Although since babies are, according to you, capable of such things, then women who breastfeed should be put in jail, since that is statutory rape that qualifies as forcing a child to sexually fondle an adult. Looks a bit like the law creates a catch-20, or a lose-lose situation for ya there, since you're so caught up in winning and losing. Either fetuses are innocent, or the mother taints them. Either way, you lose.”
Not only is that insulting and absurd, it makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:00 pm
Quote: Oh, I get it. If someone does something wrong to you, or if you screw up, then it's perfectly fine to pass the consequences on to someone who did nothing wrong. Well, foo. Looks like I've been wasting my life taking responsibility for my mistakes and accepting misfortune instead of passing it off on whoever was least deserving of it. Yeah, funny I didn't mention those things. Oh wait, I did mention rapists because it's ironic that they go to jail for their crimes while the murderers involved get off completely justified for their actions. Huh. That might be a good point. If there's plenty of kids to adopt, we should kill off all the extras. Pity we can't do that with all the spare cats and dogs we have without people raising hell, though. I guess animals are more important then humans, after all. Oh wait, but if that were true, then women shouldn't get a choice anyway, since they're less valuable than the animals we neuter, breed, or put down at our leisure. Although I guess we already practice the putting down part, albeit only on a select few of the population. ..... PLEASE don't tell me this sick, bitter misogynst ******** just compared woman to animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:39 pm
PhaedraMcSpiffy Quote: Oh, I get it. If someone does something wrong to you, or if you screw up, then it's perfectly fine to pass the consequences on to someone who did nothing wrong. Well, foo. Looks like I've been wasting my life taking responsibility for my mistakes and accepting misfortune instead of passing it off on whoever was least deserving of it. Yeah, funny I didn't mention those things. Oh wait, I did mention rapists because it's ironic that they go to jail for their crimes while the murderers involved get off completely justified for their actions. Huh. That might be a good point. If there's plenty of kids to adopt, we should kill off all the extras. Pity we can't do that with all the spare cats and dogs we have without people raising hell, though. I guess animals are more important then humans, after all. Oh wait, but if that were true, then women shouldn't get a choice anyway, since they're less valuable than the animals we neuter, breed, or put down at our leisure. Although I guess we already practice the putting down part, albeit only on a select few of the population. ..... PLEASE don't tell me this sick, bitter misogynst ******** just compared woman to animals. And does he know that they do kill off all the unwanted pets? That bugs me a lot more than abortion ever will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:48 pm
PhaedraMcSpiffy Quote: Oh, I get it. If someone does something wrong to you, or if you screw up, then it's perfectly fine to pass the consequences on to someone who did nothing wrong. Well, foo. Looks like I've been wasting my life taking responsibility for my mistakes and accepting misfortune instead of passing it off on whoever was least deserving of it. Yeah, funny I didn't mention those things. Oh wait, I did mention rapists because it's ironic that they go to jail for their crimes while the murderers involved get off completely justified for their actions. Huh. That might be a good point. If there's plenty of kids to adopt, we should kill off all the extras. Pity we can't do that with all the spare cats and dogs we have without people raising hell, though. I guess animals are more important then humans, after all. Oh wait, but if that were true, then women shouldn't get a choice anyway, since they're less valuable than the animals we neuter, breed, or put down at our leisure. Although I guess we already practice the putting down part, albeit only on a select few of the population. ..... PLEASE don't tell me this sick, bitter misogynst ******** just compared woman to animals. Then, that person is a troll. Let's not bother feeding the trolls. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:09 pm
Quote: she's such a cute fetus! Yeah, I agree with you, Prolife man, and its the only thing I really stand strong on politically. hehe, funny thing, a friend of mine saw this on car the other day. A sticker on top said STOP WAR and then the sticker right below it said PRO CHOICE...kinda ironic, isn't it? sigh...the stupid world of today, no respect for the human life. ........AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:28 pm
Lord Setar Quote: she's such a cute fetus! Yeah, I agree with you, Prolife man, and its the only thing I really stand strong on politically. hehe, funny thing, a friend of mine saw this on car the other day. A sticker on top said STOP WAR and then the sticker right below it said PRO CHOICE...kinda ironic, isn't it? sigh...the stupid world of today, no respect for the human life. ........AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGH LIKE OMGWTF! scream scream scream AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGH! INDEED!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:54 pm
PhaedraMcSpiffy Quote: Oh, I get it. If someone does something wrong to you, or if you screw up, then it's perfectly fine to pass the consequences on to someone who did nothing wrong. Well, foo. Looks like I've been wasting my life taking responsibility for my mistakes and accepting misfortune instead of passing it off on whoever was least deserving of it. Yeah, funny I didn't mention those things. Oh wait, I did mention rapists because it's ironic that they go to jail for their crimes while the murderers involved get off completely justified for their actions. Huh. That might be a good point. If there's plenty of kids to adopt, we should kill off all the extras. Pity we can't do that with all the spare cats and dogs we have without people raising hell, though. I guess animals are more important then humans, after all. Oh wait, but if that were true, then women shouldn't get a choice anyway, since they're less valuable than the animals we neuter, breed, or put down at our leisure. Although I guess we already practice the putting down part, albeit only on a select few of the population. ..... PLEASE don't tell me this sick, bitter misogynst ******** just compared woman to animals. It seems he also compared women who abort to rapists, serial killers, and child molestors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:52 am
Anyway, in the case of providing for a born child an adult can easily separate themselves from him by using the adoption system lifers love so much, or if the child is young enough (few days where I used to live), he could be dropped off at a hospital or firehouse.
Nobody is under any ongoing obligation to provide for a born child, and if there was a way to be free of a pregnancy without killing that would be in place.
For a guy complaining about sexism, he certainly likes his stereotypes. neutral I'm pro-choice yet I don't believe men should be forced to pay child support. I'm sure I'm not alone on that either, though I'm well aware there are choicers who would disagree with me on that. Christ, he might as well just bash all white people because of the minority that are racist.
An unwanted pregnancy is like rape. Both are unwanted use of sexual organs. They're about as comparable as Mormonism to Christianity.
His breastfeeding analogy is asinine. Breastmilk is recommended in young babies for developmental reasons. There are no similar developmental benefits for a 14-year-old if you have sex with her. What
s next with this guy, having mothers imprisoned for sexual assault after changing their diapers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:57 am
Quote: Oh, I get it. If someone does something wrong to you, or if you screw up, then it's perfectly fine to pass the consequences on to someone who did nothing wrong. Well, foo. Looks like I've been wasting my life taking responsibility for my mistakes and accepting misfortune instead of passing it off on whoever was least deserving of it. Hey genius, lifers like to push for such a concept all the time. It's called the adoption system. Let's ban it! Quote: Yeah, funny I didn't mention those things. Oh wait, I did mention rapists because it's ironic that they go to jail for their crimes while the murderers involved get off completely justified for their actions. So now killing in self-defense should be illegal by this kid's logic. There are plenty of justifications for killing. However, I've yet to see a valid justification for rape. Quote: Huh. That might be a good point. If there's plenty of kids to adopt, we should kill off all the extras. You're forgetting the point of abortion. Quote: Pity we can't do that with all the spare cats and dogs we have without people raising hell, though. I guess animals are more important then humans, after all. Take it up with PETA, not me. Quote: Oh wait, but if that were true, then women shouldn't get a choice anyway, since they're less valuable than the animals we neuter, breed, or put down at our leisure. What kind of half-wit logic is that? Quote: Although I guess we already practice the putting down part, albeit only on a select few of the population. There are reasons for both "putting down" scenarios.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
