denizenz

Subscribe!
Contacting denizenz
Send message Forward
Add to friends Favorites
Add to group Block user
Thursday, April 30, 2009

Why pro-abortionists are hypocrites

Views: 802
Comments: 151
I've made these arguments in a handful of threads, but I feel that they've not received the attention they deserve. 

There are a multitude of assumptions made within any argument in favor of abortion.  The pinnacle of which is that the zygote, blastocyst, or fetus is not human.  This of course begs the popular question, when exactly does humanity begin?  The answer varies from person to person, but most intelligent individuals will answer one of two ways.  They will claim that the fetus becomes human around 20-22 weeks, being that at this point the fetus has a fully functional central nervous system and at least some level of cognition.  We'll call this the 1st case, while others claim that humanity begins when the fetus or baby can survive independently of its mother and the placenta.  This, the 2nd case, is the view that a fetus is no more than a parasite or virus.  These premises are absolutely necessary in order to defend the conclusion that abortion is not murder and therefore morally sound. 

I always posit that human identity and existence is metaphysical in nature, and therefore not tied to intellect or pain response as is the 1st case.  Also this metaphysical or ontological view of humanity is not tied to independence or social identity as is the 2nd case.  In establishing my conclusion, it's helpful to consider these two cases as they apply to a broader definition of existence instead of merely to a fetus. 

If we maintain that the 1st case is accurate and that human existence begins with cognition, intellect, and a responsive nervous system, I find it impossible to not also accept that human existence or identity can not be terminated through the loss of these qualifiers.  By this I mean that someone who we once would have considered to be human could lose this identity through the loss of any or all of the aforementioned attributes.  Typical examples would include someone who has suffered a mentally debilitating injury, a psychologically traumatic event, damage to their nervous system, or has been placed into a coma either through trauma or medical induction.  In each of these cases, the victim would have lost, either in part or in whole, their intellect, cognition, and/or their ability to experience pain...even if only temporarily.  So, following the assumption that these things are necessary for human existence and identity, one must accept that someone who has lost any or all of these attributes is also no longer human. 

The 2nd case is similarly challenged as anyone who finds themselves dependent on another individual or device would also lose their humanity.  Arguably children or persons of any age can be considered dependent on a legal guardian or parent for survival.  However, even evaluating it in a strictly biological sense, one would have to accept that any person relying on a life support apparatus is exhibiting parasitic behavior and therefore no longer human. 

If you are unwilling or unable to accept these conclusions, or can not provide an argument against them, than you should also find any moral justification for abortion to be illogical and therefor objectionable or in the same manner rationalize the murder of any individual who lacks intellect, cognition, or pain receptors. 

As a side, I find it interesting the amount of individuals who disagree with animal cruelty, but find no problem with abortion, and I take particular offense to those who justify abortion past the 20th week.  Even only accepting a definition of human existence that is reliant on some external factor such as cognition you would find yourself making self defeating arguments considering the fact that animals have low levels of thought and cognition...if any self awareness at all.  The point of course being that most animals can easily be compared to a human fetus with the possible exception being that a fetus can not experience pain.  Of course, this argument is also self defeating because you would then find yourself arguing from a position that must justify murder granted that the victim experiences no pain or trauma.  A position I doubt many would be willing to defend. 

Allow me also to dispel some common points that many pro-choicers tend to get hung up on in an attempt to quickly justify or strengthen their position.  I'm talking mostly about the case of rape.  Pro abortionists are quick to point out the psychological trauma associated with rape, and the fact that this forced pregnancy is unwanted and will only serve as a reminder of that horrific event.  While this is true, they neglect to consider the emotional and psychological damage caused by undergoing an abortion.  A great percentage (some reports cite 65%) of women who even willingly receive an abortion experience acute or post traumatic stress disorder.  Another point is that these women would then be forced to raise an unwanted child.  Although I don't expect many reading this to share my sentiments, it's worth noting that love is deserved by every individual, especially (if you accept my previous arguments) an innocent human being, and that it should be given freely and unconditionally.  Assuming you lack the conviction to accept this, the option to place the baby up for adoption is always available. 

This is the point in which many will claim that if every unwanted child were placed for adoption, the state/government/local economy would be unable to sustain the burden.  To this I have two responses: in the immediate, this simply is not true.  I personally know many families who desired to adopt a baby born here in the US, only to find the 10 year waiting list less than favorable, and adopt instead from Guatemala.  Some of these families have done this multiple times...and this is only in my small circle of friends and acquaintances.  On the long term, as society rejects the notion of adoption as being a valid or acceptable practice, the number being undergone will diminish to a manageable level.  I'm not naive enough to expect that it would ever cease, but what crime has and how can anyone possibly view that as a rational reason to legalize something morally objectionable? 






3:49 pm - 151 comments - 0 Kudos - Report!
Comments
biga29 wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 8:16pm

I agree, Its cool to find someone else here who thinks like me...

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 9:23pm

As soon as I read the title, I knew this would be a horrible argument.
First of all, somebody who is pro-choice is not pro-abortion. There's a rather significant difference there. Somebody who is pro-choice thinks that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not they carry a child to term. Somebody who is pro-abortion believes that every pregnancy should end in abortion.
Second of all, abortion is not murder. Murder, by definition, is the unlawful killing of a person. While a fetus is a person, abortion is not illegal.
I fully accept that life begins at conception. Despite that, I am pro-choice. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, then a fetus that is occupying her body is violating her right to bodily integrity. Because of this, she has the right to use lethal force to defend her rights.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 9:23pm

(Cont'd)
The problem with saying, "...the option to place the baby up for adoption is always available," is that the purpose of abortion is not to avoid having to care for a child. The purpose of an abortion is to end a pregnancy.
While I am pro-choice, I am far from pro-abortion, and I'm offended that you would consider me so. Honestly, I find abortion horrifying. What I find more horrifying, however, are the consequences of making it illegal.
Now, do that you would probably just say this:
denizenz wrote
...how can anyone possibly view that as a rational reason to legalize something morally objectionable?

My response to that would be as follows:
The basis of the law is not morals. It never has been. The basis of the law is human rights. If your rights are violated, then you can use whatever force is necessary to stop that infringement, and legally so.

quote

Crazymike100 wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 9:23pm

tl;dr
:p

quote

denizenza wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 9:35pm

SOAD, I'm obviously not using the classic definition of pro-abortion, and I'm rather using it synonymously with pro-choice.

SOADrox429 wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 at 3:23pm :

Second of all, abortion is not murder. Murder, by definition, is the unlawful killing of a person. While a fetus is a person, abortion is not illegal.

This is incorrect. Murder is killing any innocent individual regardless of law. By your definition, any act of genocide or government sanctioned killing would be considered moral.

If you accept that life...innocent human life...begins at conception I don't see at all how you can accept the taking of that life as a civil right of the mother. You can lawfully take the life of another only when your survival is threatened...

quote

denizenza wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 9:36pm

SOADrox429 wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 at 3:23pm :

The basis of the law is not morals. It never has been. The basis of the law is human rights. If your rights are violated, then you can use whatever force is necessary to stop that infringement, and legally so.

I accept this and understand it entirely. However, I don't accept that the mother has a right to end an innocent life. You're making a logical leap and another (false) assumption.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 9:57pm

denizenz wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 at 3:35pm :
SOAD, I'm obviously not using the classic definition of pro-abortion, and I'm rather using it synonymously with pro-choice.

Don't. I find it grossly insulting.

denizenz wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 at 3:35pm :
This is incorrect. Murder is killing any innocent individual regardless of law. By your definition, any act of genocide or government sanctioned killing would be considered moral.

Legal =/= moral
This is a point reinforced by the basis of our laws, which is human rights, not morals.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 9:57pm

denizenz wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 at 3:35pm :
If you accept that life...innocent human life...begins at conception I don't see at all how you can accept the taking of that life as a civil right of the mother.

Because if a woman does not want another human in her body, then she has every right to force them out by whatever means are necessary.

denizenz wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 at 3:35pm :
You can lawfully take the life of another only when your survival is threatened...

No. When your rights are infringed upon, you can use whatever means are necessary to stop that violation.

quote

denizenza wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 11:03pm

SOADrox429 wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 at 3:57pm :

Don't. I find it grossly insulting.

Don't. They are only words...which are meaningless until you give them meaning. And the meaning that I've given them is the same as pro-choice.

Legal =/= moral
This is a point reinforced by the basis of our laws, which is human rights, not morals.

I understand this fully. What you don't understand is that no where does it say that if your rights are infringed upon can you kill someone. The next time someone infringes on my rights to bear arms or to free speech...I'm going to kill them. Think about what you're posting. You can't murder people just because it's convenient.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 1st, 2009 2:25am

denizenz wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 at 5:03pm :
Don't. They are only words...which are meaningless until you give them meaning. And the meaning that I've given them is the same as pro-choice.

Except that the prefix 'pro' has its own meaning, as does the word 'abortion.'
You're only using 'pro-abortion' rather than pro-choice because you want to make people like me out to be worse than we are, and it is extremely insulting.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 1st, 2009 2:26am

denizenz wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 at 5:03pm :
I understand this fully. What you don't understand is that no where does it say that if your rights are infringed upon can you kill someone. The next time someone infringes on my rights to bear arms or to free speech...I'm going to kill them. Think about what you're posting. You can't murder people just because it's convenient.

It doesn't work that way, and you know exactly what I meant. If somebody infringes upon those rights, then killing them would be a use of excessive force, which is a prosecutable offense. What other way is there to stop a fetus or an embryo from infringing upon a woman's rights?

quote

thExcomunicated wrote on May 1st, 2009 7:27am

SOADrox429 wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 6:23am :


If a woman does not want to be pregnant, then a fetus that is occupying her body is violating her right to bodily integrity. Because of this, she has the right to use lethal force to defend her rights.

Who had sex in the first place?
who chose to have that baby?
It is her fault alone that the baby came into being. She screwed her own life up so she has to screw someone elses up.

nice article btw

quote

denizenza wrote on May 1st, 2009 1:37pm

SOAD, Honestly, I had no intention to paint anyone with a broad brush through the use of the term pro-abortion. My desire was not to offend through the use of semantic misdirection. It was an entirely innocent misuse of the word as it is classically defined. My apologies.

SOADrox429 wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 at 8:26pm :

What other way is there to stop a fetus or an embryo from infringing upon a woman's rights?

What right are you referring to? I have absolutely no idea which civil right grants a woman the jurisdiction to murder her baby...simply because it is (as is biologically necessary, entirely natural, entirely a known and understood consequence, and entirely avoidable through other means) living inside her.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 1st, 2009 6:04pm

thExcomunicated wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 1:27am :
Who had sex in the first place?
who chose to have that baby?
It is her fault alone that the baby came into being. She screwed her own life up so she has to screw someone elses up.

nice article btw

Honestly, that's a pretty fucked up line of thinking. You're considering the baby a punishment, which really is screwed up.
A woman who has sex agrees to the risk of becoming pregnant. Not necessarily to remaining so.

denizenz wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 7:37am :
SOAD, Honestly, I had no intention to paint anyone with a broad brush through the use of the term pro-abortion. My desire was not to offend through the use of semantic misdirection. It was an entirely innocent misuse of the word as it is classically defined. My apologies.

Thank you. I apologize for assuming you were using the term simply to make my side look bad.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 1st, 2009 6:04pm

denizenz wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 7:37am :
What right are you referring to? I have absolutely no idea which civil right grants a woman the jurisdiction to murder her baby

The right to bodily privacy.
I've been calling it the right to bodily integrity. It means the same thing. There are also reproductive rights that everyone has, including "the basic right... to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so..."

denizenz wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 7:37am :
simply because it is (as is biologically necessary, entirely natural, entirely a known and understood consequence, and entirely avoidable through other means) living inside her.

Through what realistic means is it avoidable?

quote

denizenza wrote on May 1st, 2009 6:22pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 12:04pm :

The right to bodily privacy.

I've never heard of it...was it designed and implemented strictly for abortions? My basic argument is going to be that you're committing a fallacy by assuming your conclusion in your supporting premises. If this "right" was granted in order to make abortion legal...than you can't use it to draw the conclusion that abortion is legal or moral because they've already made the assumption that it is.

Through what realistic means is it avoidable?

First response is don't have sex. I managed to avoid it until married, and I know many other who have as well.

Secondly, any or all forms of contraception. Pills, condoms, surgery...all of the above.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 1st, 2009 6:28pm

denizenz wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 12:22pm :
I've never heard of it...was it designed and implemented strictly for abortions?

Not as far as I know. You could research it and find out if you want to do so.

denizenz wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 12:22pm :
My basic argument is going to be that you're committing a fallacy by assuming your conclusion in your supporting premises. If this "right" was granted in order to make abortion legal...than you can't use it to draw the conclusion that abortion is legal or moral because they've already made the assumption that it is.

I'm aware of the fallacy of that.

denizenz wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 12:22pm :
First response is don't have sex. I managed to avoid it until married, and I know many other who have as well.

That's why I said 'realistic.'

denizenz wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 12:22pm :
Secondly, any or all forms of contraception. Pills, condoms, surgery...all of the above.

And if they fail?

quote

denizenza wrote on May 1st, 2009 6:51pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 12:28pm :

And if they fail?

Than you should accept the consequences of your actions. I use the term consequence loosely here. Child birth is to be a blessing and not a burden...which is why the Bible prudently pleads for abstinence...a warning that you refuse to accept as viable so that is for another blog.

In any event, you should accept the responsibility and duties for your actions by loving and raising your child to the very best of your ability and with whatever resources at your disposal. Murder by abortion is an immoral and deplorable dismissal of your individual personal responsibilities.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 1st, 2009 6:58pm

denizenz wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 12:51pm :
Than you should accept the consequences of your actions. I use the term consequence loosely here. Child birth is to be a blessing and not a burden...which is why the Bible prudently pleads for abstinence...a warning that you refuse to accept as viable so that is for another blog.

In any event, you should accept the responsibility and duties for your actions by loving and raising your child to the very best of your ability and with whatever resources at your disposal. Murder by abortion is an immoral and deplorable dismissal of your individual personal responsibilities.
A woman who gets an abortion as a result of a failure of some form or contraception is dealing with the consequences of her actions. She is dealing with them in a way she finds appropriate, whether you agree with that decision or not. It's not your child, and it's not your body. You don't have a say in the matter.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 1st, 2009 9:26pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 12:58pm :
A woman who gets an abortion as a result of a failure of some form or contraception is dealing with the consequences of her actions.

I agree. However, my point is that murder is an immoral and invalid way to deal.

She is dealing with them in a way she finds appropriate, whether you agree with that decision or not.

The entire purpose of this blog is to establish that abortion=murder. I didn't think I had to defend the assumption that murder=immoral.

It's not your child, and it's not your body. You don't have a say in the matter.

Can your parents murder you? You're their child.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 1st, 2009 10:05pm

denizenz wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 3:26pm :
I agree. However, my point is that murder is an immoral and invalid way to deal.

It is. Killing somebody is not always murder, though.

denizenz wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 3:26pm :
The entire purpose of this blog is to establish that abortion=murder. I didn't think I had to defend the assumption that murder=immoral.

Murder is immoral, and so is abortion. Abortion is not, however, murder.

denizenz wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 3:26pm :
Can your parents murder you? You're their child.

No, they can not. I am not infringing upon their rights.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 1:37pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 4:05pm :

It is. Killing somebody is not always murder, though.

It is if they are innocent...and I don't see how some absolutely arbitrary, illogical, and prefabricated "right to bodily privacy" constitutes guilt or a lack of innocence.

Murder is immoral, and so is abortion. Abortion is not, however, murder.

Not if you're going to accept logical fallacy and/or completely fabricate reasons that it isn't.

No, they can not. I am not infringing upon their rights.

I'm sure they could just make something up at their leisure and for their convenience. How about their right to property? Most children are considered property in a court of law until the age of 18. The right to privacy? The completely open ended catchall, the right to the pursuit of happiness? If your parents truly desire to kill you...I'm sure their happiness is being impeded by your presence.

quote

Craigo wrote on May 4th, 2009 7:42pm

To dive in, bullshit to the first argument. I even use the argument you presented sometimes to shape up other people's arguments.

No memory, no awareness, no feeling, they have nothing to lose but potential. Which isn't something they really have, it's not something to be experienced. A cricket can claim to have more than a developing child.

And are you seriously comparing a vicious act of coercion to a voluntary act which they make themselves? Fuck you. Seriously. Do you have any idea of what you're saying?

quote

Craigo wrote on May 4th, 2009 7:42pm

And yeah, it's all fine and dandy to say 'just keep the baby for nine months' when the carrier is going to also be hurt by giving up the baby and holding it for nine months, let alone the social stigma against her which would hurt her. It's not just that black and white; quit counting the hedons. It doesn't work like that. There's going to be hurt in any scenario. No-one is 'pro-abortion'. That's utter bullshit. There's only 'pro-choicers'. Allow the woman to make the choice; she's suffered enough, so let her choose her own outlet rather than taking priority over something that has nothing.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 7:52pm

Craigo wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 1:42pm :

No memory, no awareness, no feeling, they have nothing to lose but potential.

Is killing coma patients justifiable? The entire point is that humanity is not a physical or mental attributed to be gained, and we know this in part because it can not be lost. Killing an innocent human is murder. So prove to me that a fetus isn't human or that murder is moral.

Fuck you. Seriously. Do you have any idea of what you're saying?

Did I somehow give you the impression that I don't know what I'm saying?

quote

Craigo wrote on May 4th, 2009 7:57pm

Is killing coma patients justifiable?

If they got nothing to gain, yeah. Similarly, developing children have nothing to lose.
Did I somehow give you the impression that I don't know what I'm saying?

Because it's a piss poor comparison which doesn't work, is insensitive and is wildly offensive.

quote

Craigo wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:02pm

Who had sex in the first place?
who chose to have that baby?
It is her fault alone that the baby came into being. She screwed her own life up so she has to screw someone elses up.

nice article btw

Playing sports can cause injuries. Therefore it is their fault if they get an injury.
Driving a car can cause an accident. Therefore it is their fault if they get into an accident.

See the bad logic?

Ohh yeah, go you by placing the emphasis, fault and blame on the woman. It's not as if the man had anything to do with it what so ever. Ohh wait...

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:11pm

Craigo wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 2:02pm :

Playing sports can cause injuries. Therefore it is their fault if they get an injury.
Driving a car can cause an accident. Therefore it is their fault if they get into an accident.

See the bad logic?

The bad logic is separating sex from its biological function and its natural conclusion. Car accidents are not a biological necessity.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:12pm

Craigo wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 1:57pm :

Similarly, developing children have nothing to lose.

But everything to gain...and you avoided a portion of my post.

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:13pm

[b]Craigo gave me this link, thought I might like to reply. Certainly would.

There are a multitude of assumptions made within any argument in favor of abortion. ...These premises are absolutely necessary in order to defend the conclusion that abortion is not murder and therefore morally sound.
[b]
Nice immediate use of 'if they don't think this way, they're probably stupid'. This doesn't work on two levels - 1. someone doesn't have to be intelligent to hold a cohesive and reasonable argument and 2. you're quite probably wrong.
These premises are also not necessary to defend abortion. I have numerous reasons for supporting abortion - and it is certainly possible to ignore deontological ethics (considering as I do an absolutist moral system practically useless) and, for example, argue from a consequentialist point of view that even if the foetus can be considered to constitute life, taking this life is not a necessarily bad action.

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:14pm

bloody markup. gimme some time whilst I work this out.

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:15pm


I always posit that human identity and existence is metaphysical in nature..... So, following the assumption that these things are necessary for human existence and identity, one must accept that someone who has lost any or all of these attributes is also no longer human.


I don't agree. They are still human. They do not, in my view, meet the definitions of experience required for a person.

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:16pm

i]The 2nd case... [/i]

There is an interesting example - I forget who by but Craigo may be able to find it in his philosophy file from last year - which draws an analogy of being woken up to find that someone is using you as a life support machine. You would be morally justified, in the view of this philosopher, in unhooking yourself and killing them, even if they are a concious thinking thing.

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:17pm

If you are unwilling or unable to accept these conclusions, or can not provide an argument against them, than you should also find any moral justification for abortion to be illogical and therefor objectionable or in the same manner rationalize the murder of any individual who lacks intellect, cognition, or pain receptors.

No, your argument is fallacious. If that is indeed your only justification for abortion then you would be given serious pause for thought. It is not, however, my justification for abortion.

[note I am entirely shite at copypastaing something I wrote out in notepad.]

quote

Craigo wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:17pm

The bad logic is separating sex from its biological function and its natural conclusion. Car accidents are not a biological necessity.

Accidents like pregnancy can be avoided with good intentions strangely enough, much like playing sports and driving a car.
But everything to gain...and you avoided a portion of my post.

Because I already went through it. The only thing they have is potential, and they haven't experienced that. They haven't missed out on anything.

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:18pm


As a side, I find it interesting the amount of individuals who disagree with animal cruelty...A position I doubt many would be willing to defend.


I don't even get where you're coming from here. Seriously. Either clear this up or give up on it.
As to the viability argument, it is extremely rare for a woman to have an abortion that late. Do you know why women have abortions this late? It came up in the media recently when Nadine Dorries was trying to have the limit reduced. A young teenager who had been raped and completely gone into denial, a woman who found her baby would be born with no brain, a couple more women who were suffering horrific domestic abuse and feared both for themselves and their children were they to have any more. Funnily enough, Dorries didn't bother to speak to a single one of these women.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:18pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 2:15pm :

I don't agree. They are still human. They do not, in my view, meet the definitions of experience required for a person.

So killing is only murder, and therefore immoral, if personal identity is established beforehand? Bring on the genocide.

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:19pm

Allow me also to dispel.. adoption is always available

This argument is genuinely ..vile, and I say that both as a woman who is possibly pregnant (and definitely aborting should that be the case) and a woman who has been both sexually abused and raped (at different parts of my life). I say this not for your sympathy, but to show you that I have first hand experience of the example you bring up, and think that quite frankly your argument is .. well, disgusting is a suitable word. You have no idea of the damage that rape does to a person; and if you wish to argue it on medical grounds I'll kindly point you to the fact that there are several variants of post traumatic stress disorder and personality disorders listed in the DSM-IV-TR as a result of sexual assault/rape wheras it is agreed post-abortion syndrome is a fallacy. I'd also really, really like sources for these statistics - sources WITHOUT BIAS.

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:19pm

[cont from previous paragraph]

It is also genuinely disturbing you equate the forcible violation of someone's body with a voluntary, informed decision made by the woman. I would consider forcing someone to continue a pregnancy they don't want to have a similar violation. In doing this, you reduce woman merely to the status of incubators.

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:20pm

This is the point...legalize something morally objectionable?


Interestingly, in all my years in various areas of feminism I have never, ever heard that used as a justification for abortion. What tends to be more important is the rights of the woman to be free from mental and physical harm - not the rights of a potential child. I am not some sort of incubator so that an infertile family can enjoy a nice white baby.

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:21pm

[cont from previous paragraph]
In a thread on another forum about this recently I also pointed out that being forced to continue the possible pregnancy I am undergoing to term would totally fuck up my life. I'm starting uni in September, I'm sorting out my relationships, I'm going to go and make something of my life. If I have this baby (let's assume I'm pregnant, for a minute) my life will be ruined. My parents will kick me out - I won't get to university - I'll be forced into council accommodation just so that I can birth a child I don't want (likely wrecking my body in the process, and certainly breaking my mind to the point I would consider suicide a highly viable option), would probably never make it to university and would definitely add to my woes by either failing to adopt the child (another fatherless council house baby raised in abject poverty! just what the world needs!) ..

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:21pm

..or spend the rest of my life wondering quite what that sqaualling sack of flesh I squeezed out of my vagina x number of years ago is doing these days. This potential pregnancy is also my own fault; it's not a pregnancy as a result of rape, or a drunken condom-splitting incident, or whatever. I screwed up on my contraceptive patch and didn't realise until the magic had already happened; I was then out of my local town for quite a while and couldn't afford the morning-after pill (so how the fuck could I afford a pregnancy or a child?)

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:22pm

What you also entirely, and tellingly, fail to address is:

The right of the woman to choose not to continue a pregnancy - no mention at all is made of the mental and physical damage inflicted by an unwanted, pregnancy and birth. I know if I was denied an abortion - being quite a smart woman with a self-destructive streak as long as your arm - I would work out a way to terminate the pregnancy. Probably quite damaging, certainly to the foetus if not to me. Aand I'm definitely not alone in that. Even on a basic level, if I'm pregnant and forced to carry the pregnancy to term I'm not quitting smoking. Cancer babies!

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:22pm

The fact an unwanted child will again be born into poverty. Adoption isn't really an answer - you assume that every potential mother will just hand over her potential child in an already overpopulated world. Not to mention the poverty and discrimination that pregnant women already face.

The potential ramifications for the mother's life. Kids get pregnant all the time; the woman's education would be entirely ruined. I'm nineteen and MY education would be ruined.
.

The man, in this, gets off entirely. The responsibility for pregnancy falls entirely on the woman. Ever heard of male privilege? It might just be time to reassess yours.


Your argument is entirely pro-foetus but anti woman. The rights, emotions, and health of the ACTUAL person just don't seem to figure. Abortion is a choice I have the right to make.

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:23pm

Note: I make apologies for my typing, which is erratic in places, my general stupidity in getting my head round this markup, and the fact the list of rebuttals is nowhere near comprehensive.

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:24pm

p.s. the term 'pro-abortionist' is ridiculous in itself - pro-CHOICE is the term; I might as well call you anti-woman.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:27pm

p.s. the term 'pro-abortionist' is ridiculous in itself - pro-CHOICE is the term; I might as well call you anti-woman.


I've already apologized and explained (as if it weren't clear in the text) that I use the two synonymously.
Also, holy shit Craigo...I hate you forever for unleashing this madness on my poor blog.

quote

Craigo wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:28pm

It was her choice, blame her.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:33pm

Craigo wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 2:28pm :


It was her choice, blame her.

Hah, ass.

This platform is dreadful for carrying on a real discussion.

quote

Craigo wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:35pm

Deni, she spent a good while working on that. At least pick out your biggest problems of her response and respond to them. Take a centre point to discuss if you can't take on the full text.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:40pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 2:15pm :

I don't agree. They are still human. They do not, in my view, meet the definitions of experience required for a person.
.
I had already rebutted this in saying that it's ridiculous that killing is moral so long as personal identity hasn't been established beforehand.

Let me read through some of these in greater detail and I'll post a few rebuttals.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:43pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 2:13pm :

(considering as I do an absolutist moral system practically useless) and, for example, argue from a consequentialist point of view that even if the foetus can be considered to constitute life, taking this life is not a necessarily bad action.

This seems a good place to start. What exactly would make it a good or justifiable action, and when does taking life become a bad action? I'm not familiar with consequentialism, but it sounds a great deal like utilitarianism...care to justify that for me?

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:45pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 2:16pm :

There is an interesting example - I forget who by but Craigo may be able to find it in his philosophy file from last year - which draws an analogy of being woken up to find that someone is using you as a life support machine. You would be morally justified, in the view of this philosopher, in unhooking yourself and killing them, even if they are a concious thinking thing.

That is an interesting philosophy, although I disagree. Especially if they are hooked to you as part of a naturally occurring and biologically necessary phenomenon.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:47pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 2:17pm :

No, your argument is fallacious. If that is indeed your only justification for abortion then you would be given serious pause for thought. It is not, however, my justification for abortion.

I don't recall you ever giving your justification, but I haven't invested a great deal of time to reading all of your posts...perhaps it will turn up.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:50pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 2:20pm :

Interestingly, in all my years in various areas of feminism I have never, ever heard that used as a justification for abortion. What tends to be more important is the rights of the woman to be free from mental and physical harm - not the rights of a potential child. I am not some sort of incubator so that an infertile family can enjoy a nice white baby.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think I justify rape or using women purely as incubators, and it certainly isn't my intent.

quote

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 8:58pm

My justification for abortion is simple: if the woman chooses that, it is her right to do so. I'll come back to this later, gonna go for tea and play lego star wars for a bit.

In v quick reply to the last one: if you are saying a woman hasn't got the control over her own body to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, you *are* using her as an incubator. You're entirely disregarding the feelings of a conscious, thinking person in order to force her to undergo an extremely painful, rather dangerous process.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 9:00pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 2:22pm :

I would work out a way to terminate the pregnancy. Probably quite damaging, certainly to the foetus if not to me. Aand I'm definitely not alone in that. Even on a basic level, if I'm pregnant and forced to carry the pregnancy to term I'm not quitting smoking. Cancer babies!

More choices with more consequences. I fail to see how any of this makes something moral simply because you would choose to approach the situation irresponsibly and arguably immorally. Although theft and murder are accepted as immoral and even illegal...they remain.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 9:04pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 2:22pm :

The man, in this, gets off entirely. The responsibility for pregnancy falls entirely on the woman. Ever heard of male privilege? It might just be time to reassess yours.

Let me give you a little background. I'm married. Lovingly...and have been for 5 years. Neither of us had sex prior to marriage, at age 22. Not because the situation never presented itself...because we understood the "consequence". My wife and I have a very progressive relationship, and I share in all responsibilities. We have no children, but at this point can at least provide a stable and loving environment when we do. I intend to similarly share in all responsibilities of child birth (as much as possible) and rearing just as I accept all other household duties currently.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 9:07pm

Your argument is entirely pro-foetus but anti woman. The rights, emotions, and health of the ACTUAL person just don't seem to figure. Abortion is a choice I have the right to make.

You've completely ignored my arguments and continue instead to assume that the fetus is not an "actual person" all while calling my arguments gross and vile or fallacious. The entire point is that abortion is murder...and with all due respect...terminating the existence of another human is not a right of yours or anyone's no matter how convenient it is.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 9:11pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 2:58pm :

My justification for abortion is simple: if the woman chooses that, it is her right to do so.

That statement makes about 100 assumptions and could be twisted to present contradictory statements that (I hope) would assault your moral sensibilities. Without any other premises...you've basically just stated that anything a woman chooses to do is absolutely hunky-dory. You've justified practically any and all actions...and now you're going for tea. Brilliant.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 4th, 2009 9:42pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 2:58pm :

if you are saying a woman hasn't got the control over her own body to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, you *are* using her as an incubator.

Not if I didn't force her into the pregnancy in the first place. I may be able to see this in the case of rape, but not at all if sex was a willing act. Pregnancy is a natural affect...there is a causality between having sex and getting pregnant. If the woman didn't desire to be pregnant, she should have considered her prior actions. Consider this, from where do we inherit our human rights? If they are inherent or from nature, than how can you possibly argue against the nature of childbirth and the womens responsibilities thereof? It seems entirely self defeating to me that you would complain about women's natural role as an "incubator" using our natural human rights.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 5th, 2009 2:57am

This has gotten quite large while I was gone. I think the Pit needs a thread for this. Really.

denizenz wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 3:11pm :
That statement makes about 100 assumptions and could be twisted to present contradictory statements that (I hope) would assault your moral sensibilities. Without any other premises...you've basically just stated that anything a woman chooses to do is absolutely hunky-dory. You've justified practically any and all actions...and now you're going for tea. Brilliant.

Way to take that statement out of context.

Most of your argument is based on the fallacious assumption that abortion is murder, and it is not.
Another large part of your argument is the sentiment that you seem to have that people need to be punished for having consensual sex, and screwing up with contraception. Why should somebody be punished for having sex for pleasure?

So, Denizenz, do you support the whole 'rape exception' thing?

quote

denizenza wrote on May 5th, 2009 1:38pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 8:57pm :

Most of your argument is based on the fallacious assumption that abortion is murder, and it is not.

Way to just...make an assumption. Also, I don't at all assume that anywhere in this blog. It's a conclusion that I logically draw and support.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 5th, 2009 1:49pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 8:57pm :

Another large part of your argument is the sentiment that you seem to have that people need to be punished for having consensual sex, and screwing up with contraception.

First, pregnancy from sex is a natural causality. CAUSALITY...there is an absolute relationship between the two. This is not a punishment...it is a responsibility to accept the "consequences"...the natural affects of your actions. Firing a gun in someone's direction makes you responsible for their death...although the bullet actually did the killing. Willingly putting your hand in a fire will cause you to be burned. These are causalities. They can not be avoided, and are not some punishment from God or me or "the man". Damn I hate how entrenched in social paradigms people get. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS INSTEAD OF DESIRING FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO CLEAN UP YOUR MESSES.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 5th, 2009 9:49pm

denizenz wrote on May 5th, 2009 at 7:38am :
Way to just...make an assumption. Also, I don't at all assume that anywhere in this blog. It's a conclusion that I logically draw and support.
That's not a conclusion you can logically draw at all.[/quote] Abortion is not murder, end of story. They are not the same thing.

denizenz wrote on May 5th, 2009 at 7:49am :
First, pregnancy from sex is a natural causality. CAUSALITY...there is an absolute relationship between the two.
Really?

denizenz wrote on May 5th, 2009 at 7:49am :
This is not a punishment...it is a responsibility to accept the "consequences"...the natural affects of your actions.
I'm pretty sure that pregnant women who want abortions are accepting the consequences of their actions. Abortion is a way to deal with those consequences, and it should be a viable option, whether you or I like it or not.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 5th, 2009 9:50pm

denizenz wrote on May 5th, 2009 at 7:49am :
Firing a gun in someone's direction makes you responsible for their death...although the bullet actually did the killing. Willingly putting your hand in a fire will cause you to be burned. These are causalities.
Do you really think you have to explain these things to me?

denizenz wrote on May 5th, 2009 at 7:49am :
They can not be avoided, and are not some punishment from God or me or "the man". Damn I hate how entrenched in social paradigms people get. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS INSTEAD OF DESIRING FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO CLEAN UP YOUR MESSES.
THEY ARE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS IN A MANNER THEY SEE FIT. Whether or not you agree with them has no bearing on that.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 5th, 2009 10:00pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 5th, 2009 at 3:49pm :

Abortion is not murder, end of story. They are not the same thing.

Why don't you attempt to prove it and/or rebut the arguments I've made? You keep saying this but never back it up logically. Your opinion doesn't change the fact that abortion is murder in my mind.

Abortion is a way to deal with those consequences.

Again...I agree, but it is not a responsible or moral way to deal with them. Stop merely giving me your opinion...make a logical claim or don't spam up my blog.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 6th, 2009 12:03am

denizenz wrote on May 5th, 2009 at 4:00pm :
Why don't you attempt to prove it and/or rebut the arguments I've made? You keep saying this but never back it up logically. Your opinion doesn't change the fact that abortion is murder in my mind.
The premises you spoke of are not required to deny that abortion is murder. Life begins at conception, and I don't see any way to argue against that, but that does not mean that abortion is murder.
Murder requires an intent to perform an illegal act. Since abortion is legal if done in a licensed clinic, abortion is not murder in the United States, since a woman intending to have an abortion is doing nothing illegal.
The innocence of an individual does not determine anything about whether or not that individual's death is murder. Maybe according to you, but not in a legal manner.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 6th, 2009 12:03am

denizenz wrote on May 5th, 2009 at 4:00pm :

Again...I agree, but it is not a responsible or moral way to deal with them. Stop merely giving me your opinion...make a logical claim or don't spam up my blog.
I did not say that it was responsible or moral in my opinion, only that it is one or both in the opinion of the person having the abortion.
My opinion on abortion doesn't matter here. What matters is the rights I spoke of earlier. Personally, I find abortion to be horrifying, but I find the implications of making it illegal far more so.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 6th, 2009 12:11pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 5th, 2009 at 6:03pm :

The innocence of an individual does not determine anything about whether or not that individual's death is murder. Maybe according to you, but not in a legal manner.

No shit. I've not once mentioned the word legal. We're dealing with moral issues and not legal ones. Moral innocence is not determined solely in a court of law. By your logic, you've just moralized an entire host of heinous acts, not least of which would be genocide.

quote

Boogie Man wrote on May 6th, 2009 12:52pm

You say quite often that murder is killing an "innocent" person. Does that mean, that according to your morals, if I went out and killed, say, Charles Manson, that it wouldn't be murder?
Also, according to commonly believed Christian doctrine no life is "innocent" because we all have the 'blemish', if you will, of the original sin on our immortal soul.

quote

Boogie Man wrote on May 6th, 2009 12:54pm

Boogie Man wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 10:52pm :


You say quite often that murder is killing an "innocent" person. Does that mean, that according to your morals, if I went out and killed, say, Charles Manson, that it wouldn't be murder?
Also, according to commonly believed Christian doctrine no life is "innocent" because we all have the 'blemish', if you will, of the original sin on our immortal soul.

Just another little thing to add, you say that "pro-abortionists" are hypocrites in the title of this thread, yet never mention the idea again throughout the blog, so, yeah, WTF??

quote

denizenza wrote on May 6th, 2009 4:22pm

Boogie Man wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 6:52am :

You say quite often that murder is killing an "innocent" person. Does that mean, that according to your morals, if I went out and killed, say, Charles Manson, that it wouldn't be murder?

I believe that you can morally kill in self defense. I also believe that there are situations in which the death penalty could be justly enforced.

Also, according to commonly believed Christian doctrine no life is "innocent" because we all have the 'blemish', if you will, of the original sin on our immortal soul.

Being born into sin and actually committing an immoral act are two entirely different things. The fact that I have the ability to do evil, does not mean that I have to.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 6th, 2009 9:26pm

denizenz wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 6:11am :
No shit. I've not once mentioned the word legal. We're dealing with moral issues and not legal ones.
Then is there any point in our arguing? We both agree that abortion is immoral.

denizenz wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 6:11am :
Moral innocence is not determined solely in a court of law. By your logic, you've just moralized an entire host of heinous acts, not least of which would be genocide.
What exactly did I say that would lead you to believe that I consider genocide a morally sound act?

quote

Boogie Man wrote on May 6th, 2009 11:45pm

denizenz wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 4:22pm :

shit about morally killing

So, you say, that you can kill some people, but not, a small patch of flesh, that's barely functioning? I'm sorry, I just don't get that, what gives you the right, to judge, when it is time to kill a fully functioning human being? Why do you have the right to 'judge"? Does the Bible not say, "Do not judge, lest you be judged"?
denizenz wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 4:22pm :
shit about committing, an "immortal act"

I'm sorry, but I just don't get that. According to the Bible, Adam's sin, affects us all, and we must seek "redemption" and that's the purpose of baptism, to wash away the original sin. Also, your second sentence has no relevancy to the point. And could address my third point?
BTW, you aren't by any chance Catholic are you?

quote

denizenza wrote on May 11th, 2009 2:10pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 3:26pm :

What exactly did I say that would lead you to believe that I consider genocide a morally sound act?

This:

Murder requires an intent to perform an illegal act. Since abortion is legal if done in a licensed clinic, abortion is not murder in the United States, since a woman intending to have an abortion is doing nothing illegal.


The logic you're employing would prove that any right or law granted by (any) government could determine morality. There are many governments that legally advocate genocide.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 11th, 2009 2:11pm

Boogie Man wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 5:45pm :

what gives you the right, to judge, when it is time to kill a fully functioning human being?

If someone disregards another's right to life, they suspend or forfeit their own. If someone attacks you with intent to kill, you have every right to defend yourself.

According to the Bible, Adam's sin, affects us all, and we must seek "redemption" and that's the purpose of baptism, to wash away the original sin.

I don't necessarily believe in "original sin", or that baptism has anything to do with it.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 11th, 2009 2:11pm

Also, your second sentence has no relevancy to the point. And could address my third point?

It absolutely has everything to do with it, you'd like to think it doesn't because it's devastating to your current line of thinking. You're trying to equate an immoral act that has actually been committed to the potential to commit the act. Stop it because it makes you sound foolish.

Your third point proves only that you either don't know what the fuck you're talking about...or that you know nothing of implication or inference.

BTW, you aren't by any chance Catholic are you?

No, sorry to disappoint. I know you'd love to get in a good jab about me being hypocritical.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 11th, 2009 6:11pm

denizenz wrote on May 11th, 2009 at 8:10am :
The logic you're employing would prove that any right or law granted by (any) government could determine morality. There are many governments that legally advocate genocide.

I kind of also said this as well:
SOADrox429 wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 at 3:57pm :
Legal =/= moral
This is a point reinforced by the basis of our laws, which is human rights, not morals.


denizenz wrote on May 11th, 2009 at 8:11am :
If someone disregards another's right to life, they suspend or forfeit their own. If someone attacks you with intent to kill, you have every right to defend yourself.
If someone uses your body against your will for their survival, you have every right to defend yourself.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 11th, 2009 6:23pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 11th, 2009 at 12:11pm :
Legal =/= moral
This is a point reinforced by the basis of our laws, which is human rights, not morals.

Which is why I'm arguing for logical reasons that abortion should be considered murder and therefore illegal by our judicial system. Consider this, is it illegal to kill coma patients, the mentally handicapped, individuals who are unconscious both temporary or otherwise?

If someone uses your body against your will for their survival, you have every right to defend yourself.

First, it isn't against your will. As previously discussed, pregnancy and sex form a causal relationship. Second, I don't believe that to be correct...especially in terms of parenthood. In fact, our legal system has multiple laws establishing responsibility and protecting children against negligence. If your child is ill and dies because you don't get them medical attention...you will be tried for negligence.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 11th, 2009 7:56pm

denizenz wrote on May 11th, 2009 at 12:23pm :
Which is why I'm arguing for logical reasons that abortion should be considered murder and therefore illegal by our judicial system.

But you've not been saying that abortion should be murder, you've been saying that it is murder.

denizenz wrote on May 11th, 2009 at 12:23pm :
Consider this, is it illegal to kill coma patients, the mentally handicapped, individuals who are unconscious both temporary or otherwise?

What does this have to do with the debate?

denizenz wrote on May 11th, 2009 at 12:23pm :
First, it isn't against your will. As previously discussed, pregnancy and sex form a causal relationship.

It would not be against the woman's will if reproduction was the only purpose of sex. Reproduction is not, however, the only reason for someone to have sex. You should know this.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 11th, 2009 7:56pm

denizenz wrote on May 11th, 2009 at 12:23pm :
Second, I don't believe that to be correct...especially in terms of parenthood. In fact, our legal system has multiple laws establishing responsibility and protecting children against negligence. If your child is ill and dies because you don't get them medical attention...you will be tried for negligence.

A fetus or an embryo and a child are different. Children do not live inside of their mothers. Fetuses and embryos do.

quote

Boogie Man wrote on May 12th, 2009 12:23am

denizenz wrote on May 12th, 2009 at 12:11am :


Boogie Man wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 5:45pm :
what gives you the right, to judge, when it is time to kill a fully functioning human being?
If someone disregards another's right to life, they suspend or forfeit their own. If someone attacks you with intent to kill, you have every right to defend yourself.

According to the Bible, Adam's sin, affects us all, and we must seek "redemption" and that's the purpose of baptism, to wash away the original sin.
I don't necessarily believe in "original sin", or that baptism has anything to do with it.

It's nice to see that you can chop and choose from your own religion, I commend you.

quote

Boogie Man wrote on May 12th, 2009 12:28am

denizenz wrote on May 12th, 2009 at 12:11am :


Firstly, you don't even know what my current line of thinking is, so suck my ever-loving cock.

Secondly, no, I was interested in whether you were a catholic, because I study religion.

Also, I have a question.

Do you believe, that you have the right to impose your morals on some one else?

quote

denizenza wrote on May 12th, 2009 2:10pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 11th, 2009 at 1:56pm :

But you've not been saying that abortion should be murder, you've been saying that it is murder.

Because I believe morality and the legal framework that upholds it to be objective, so I speak in absolutes. If it should be murder...than it is murder and always has been. Yours and my acknowledgment of that fact does not change the truth of it.

What does this have to do with the debate?

Everything because those beings are equal to a fetus in terms of cognition, intellect, and physical ability.

Reproduction is not, however, the only reason for someone to have sex. You should know this.

Reasons or intentions don't matter. There are more reasons to fire a gun than killing someone, but try the "accidents happen" defense in a court of law and see where it gets you.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 12th, 2009 2:18pm

Boogie Man wrote on May 11th, 2009 at 6:23pm :

It's nice to see that you can chop and choose from your own religion, I commend you.

Original sin and baptism are debated from doctrine to doctrine. If you'd like to argue your points on those topics...perhaps you should find me in the religion thread. Until then, kindly stfu.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 12th, 2009 2:18pm

Boogie Man wrote on May 11th, 2009 at 6:28pm :

Firstly, you don't even know what my current line of thinking is, so suck my ever-loving cock.

Unlike yourself, I happen to know a thing or two about inference.

Secondly, no, I was interested in whether you were a catholic, because I study religion.

Perhaps you should study harder. There are more Christian doctrines than Catholicism, and not all of them regard original sin the same way, and I'm not even aware that any of them consider that Baptism absolves it.

Do you believe, that you have the right to impose your morals on some one else?

No. That doesn't change the fact that they are objective.

quote

Boogie Man wrote on May 13th, 2009 12:11am

denizenz wrote on May 12th, 2009 at 2:18pm :

quote 1


You have no idea what my opinion is, don't attempt to tell me what I think.

[/quote]quote 2[/quote]

No shit Sherlock, I'm aware that there are several hundred different christian denominations. I wasn't interested in whether you were Catholic in regards to original sin, I was interested in relation to you mentioning an "immortal act" which I assume is the same as a "mortal sin" I'd be interested if you could clarify that.

[/quote]quote 3[/quote]

So, you're Pro Choice then? I agree with that, I personally don't like abortion, and I think it should be discouraged and avoided, however, in the end, I think it should be that persons choice.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 13th, 2009 2:08am

denizenz wrote on May 12th, 2009 at 8:10am :
Because I believe morality and the legal framework that upholds it to be objective, so I speak in absolutes. If it should be murder...than it is murder and always has been. Yours and my acknowledgment of that fact does not change the truth of it.

Legality and morality are two separate things. Didn't we already agree on this?

denizenz wrote on May 12th, 2009 at 8:10am :
Everything because those beings are equal to a fetus in terms of cognition, intellect, and physical ability.

Except they're not living inside of another person against the other person's will.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 13th, 2009 2:08am

denizenz wrote on May 12th, 2009 at 8:10am :
Reasons or intentions don't matter. There are more reasons to fire a gun than killing someone, but try the "accidents happen" defense in a court of law and see where it gets you.

The difference being that killing somebody is violating their rights. Conceiving somebody is not a violation of their rights.

You keep trying to make parallels between fetuses and others, or abortion and other situations. Stop it. They are not the same, and comparing them over and over does not make them the same.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 13th, 2009 12:50pm

Boogie Man wrote on May 12th, 2009 at 6:11pm :

I was interested in relation to you mentioning an "immortal act" which I assume is the same as a "mortal sin" I'd be interested if you could clarify that.

Yes, I think I can clear this one up. It stems from the fact that you can't read. I typed "immoral act", and if you need that defined we should be having an entirely different conversation.

So, you're Pro Choice then?

No, I merely understand the seperation between morality and law. There are many things that are immoral that are not and could not be made illegal e.g. white lies and cheating a girlfriend. However, I'm fairly certain that most would agree that murder is both illegal and immoral...which is the topic of the blog.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 13th, 2009 12:57pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 12th, 2009 at 8:08pm :

Legality and morality are two separate things. Didn't we already agree on this?

We did. However, in this case, we're arguing that murder is illegal for moral reasons. If morality is objective than murder is objectively wrong. Along the same lines, if something is logically proven or considered to be murder than it always has been murder. Again, our recognition of something doesn't alter the truth of it. If abortion is murder...it is murder whether you and I believe it or not.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 13th, 2009 1:05pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 12th, 2009 at 8:08pm :

Except they're not living inside of another person against the other person's will.

Do you accept that a fetus is a living and individual entity? Let's remove the fetus from the mother and assume it's alive inside a medical incubator. Could it then be morally and/or legally aborted?

I don't believe that I can extend or force my will on another living being, regardless of their dependence on me or my body. Considering that some would terminate the existence of another individual simply because they will to do so assaults my sensibilities.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 13th, 2009 1:09pm

SOAD, consider another scenario. You and another individual are in a car accident. You are both taken unconscious to the hospital where it is determined that the other person is in far worse condition than yourself. You are the same blood type, and they badly need your blood to survive. If you awoke to find that the other victim was depending on your body for their survival, could you morally (or even legally) decline to continue providing for them if you new it would result in their death?

quote

Dr.JBone wrote on May 13th, 2009 4:47pm

@SOAD
The point of the scenario, I think, was that the sex act can be performed with intentions other than conceiving just as one can shoot a gun without intending to kill someone. If someone is accidentally killed when someone else shoots a gun, that person is still held responsible for their actions (I think it would be manslaughter) and so, if a sexual act results in conception, the persons responsible for that act should be held responsible for the outcome.

Also, don't know if it was covered or not but I saw that you fully accept that life begins at conception. I assume therefore, that you consider a fetus a person for all legal purposes (though I may be wrong). You then said the mother has a right to her body and can refuse to support the fetus based on her rights under the law. This is an old pro-choice argument that I still don't understand. If you grant that the fetus is a person, does it not then have the right to life? How can the woman violate the fetus' right to life?

quote

Dr.JBone wrote on May 13th, 2009 5:11pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 3:16pm :


i]The 2nd case... [/i]

There is an interesting example - I forget who by but Craigo may be able to find it in his philosophy file from last year - which draws an analogy of being woken up to find that someone is using you as a life support machine. You would be morally justified, in the view of this philosopher, in unhooking yourself and killing them, even if they are a concious thinking thing.


Another old argument that holds no water. You don't just wake up one day to find yourself pregnant. It would be more accurate to say that you wake up one day, after previously agreeing to take a one in ten or one in a thousand or one in ten thousand chance that you will be used as life support for someone for about nine months, to find that you have indeed been hooked up to someone to be used as life support.

quote

Dr.JBone wrote on May 13th, 2009 5:29pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 3:19pm :

You have no idea of the damage that rape does to a person; and if you wish to argue it on medical grounds I'll kindly point you to the fact that there are several variants of post traumatic stress disorder and personality disorders listed in the DSM-IV-TR as a result of sexual assault/rape wheras it is agreed post-abortion syndrome is a fallacy. I'd also really, really like sources for these statistics - sources WITHOUT BIAS.


I don't know about the psychology of it specifically, but I could see how having an abortion might turn out to be an ineffective way of coping with sexual assault. Is the damage that rape does to a person lessened by having an abortion? This is a serious question that I don't expect you to be able to answer, but you are more than welcome to try. I don't know anything about "post-abortion syndrome", but if you are going to demand sources on the part of another debater, you should lead by example.

quote

Dr.JBone wrote on May 13th, 2009 5:54pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 3:21pm :

being forced to continue the possible pregnancy I am undergoing to term would totally fuck up my life. I'm starting uni in September, I'm sorting out my relationships, I'm going to go and make something of my life. If I have this baby (let's assume I'm pregnant, for a minute) my life will be ruined. My parents will kick me out - I won't get to university - I'll be forced into council accommodation just so that I can birth a child I don't want (likely wrecking my body in the process, and certainly breaking my mind to the point I would consider suicide a highly viable option), would probably never make it to university...
I know if I was denied an abortion I would work out a way to terminate the pregnancy. Probably quite damaging, certainly to the foetus if not to me. if I'm pregnant and forced to carry the pregnancy to term I'm not quitting smoking. Cancer babies!

quote

Dr.JBone wrote on May 13th, 2009 5:54pm

Please do not take this as insulting or in any other way offensive because that is not how it is intended. You said previously that you were sexually assaulted and raped at different points in your life. You also said that you may be pregnant. I will assume that this possible pregnancy was from a consensual act as you have not stated otherwise. You then state the fear that such a pregnancy would destroy you in mind and body and that you would consider suicide. With all due respect, I strongly urge you to seek psychological council. You have experienced sexual trauma, you have great fear of pregnancy (some of it irrational as there are a great many women whose bodies aren't "wrecked" and whose minds aren't "destroyed" after pregnancy), and yet you have partaken in risk seeking behavior that has possibly resulted in pregnancy.

quote

Dr.JBone wrote on May 13th, 2009 6:05pm

theconvalescent wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 3:22pm :


Not to mention the poverty and discrimination that pregnant women already face.

I'm nineteen and MY education would be ruined.
.

The man, in this, gets off entirely. The responsibility for pregnancy falls entirely on the woman. Ever heard of male privilege? It might just be time to reassess yours.



I saw that you accepted responsibility for the possible conception. I don't understand why someone in your position would take that chance. Also, pregnant women do not necessarily face poverty and discrimination. That is just incorrect. I personally know several women who attended college while pregnant, with infants at home, and after their children were old enough to look after themselves for awhile. Having children does not end your potential in other areas. Lastly, I don't think denz ever said that the male in the relationship was free of responsibility, and I would bet that he doesn't believe that at all.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 13th, 2009 7:26pm

Dr.JBone wrote on May 13th, 2009 at 12:05pm :

Lastly, I don't think denz ever said that the male in the relationship was free of responsibility, and I would bet that he doesn't believe that at all.

You would be absolutely correct.

Also, 100 comments and not a single Kudo...I'm going for the record here.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 13th, 2009 10:47pm

denizenz wrote on May 13th, 2009 at 6:57am :
We did. However, in this case, we're arguing that murder is illegal for moral reasons. If morality is objective than murder is objectively wrong. Along the same lines, if something is logically proven or considered to be murder than it always has been murder. Again, our recognition of something doesn't alter the truth of it. If abortion is murder...it is murder whether you and I believe it or not.

Murder is not illegal for moral reasons at all. It is illegal because it violates the rights of another person.

denizenz wrote on May 13th, 2009 at 7:05am :
Do you accept that a fetus is a living and individual entity? Let's remove the fetus from the mother and assume it's alive inside a medical incubator. Could it then be morally and/or legally aborted?

No, it could not.
Medical incubator =/= Woman
Maybe it does for you, but not for me.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 13th, 2009 10:47pm

denizenz wrote on May 13th, 2009 at 7:05am :
I don't believe that I can extend or force my will on another living being, regardless of their dependence on me or my body. Considering that some would terminate the existence of another individual simply because they will to do so assaults my sensibilities.

That has no bearing on the law.

denizenz wrote on May 13th, 2009 at 7:09am :
SOAD, consider another scenario. You and another individual are in a car accident. You are both taken unconscious to the hospital where it is determined that the other person is in far worse condition than yourself. You are the same blood type, and they badly need your blood to survive. If you awoke to find that the other victim was depending on your body for their survival, could you morally (or even legally) decline to continue providing for them if you new it would result in their death?

I could legally do so if I wished, but I would not.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 13th, 2009 10:47pm

Dr.JBone wrote on May 13th, 2009 at 10:47am :
The point of the scenario, I think, was that the sex act can be performed with intentions other than conceiving just as one can shoot a gun without intending to kill someone. If someone is accidentally killed when someone else shoots a gun, that person is still held responsible for their actions (I think it would be manslaughter) and so, if a sexual act results in conception, the persons responsible for that act should be held responsible for the outcome.

In one case, the death of someone is a direct result of shooting the gun. In the other case, the pregnancy was the direct result of having sex. The abortion is not a result of the person's actions, but another action taken by the woman.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 13th, 2009 10:47pm

Dr.JBone wrote on May 13th, 2009 at 10:47am :
Also, don't know if it was covered or not but I saw that you fully accept that life begins at conception. I assume therefore, that you consider a fetus a person for all legal purposes (though I may be wrong). You then said the mother has a right to her body and can refuse to support the fetus based on her rights under the law. This is an old pro-choice argument that I still don't understand. If you grant that the fetus is a person, does it not then have the right to life? How can the woman violate the fetus' right to life?

I do fully accept that a fetus is human, and it does have the right to life. If it violates another person's rights, however, and its death is necessary in order for that violation to stop, it forgoes its right to life.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 13th, 2009 11:03pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 13th, 2009 at 4:47pm :

I do fully accept that a fetus is human, and it does have the right to life. If it violates another person's rights, however, and its death is necessary in order for that violation to stop, it forgoes its right to life.

From where do we inherit our rights? On what authority was this right to bodily privacy founded?

Consider it...does it make sense to you? Why was it established?

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 14th, 2009 2:52am

denizenz wrote on May 13th, 2009 at 5:03pm :
From where do we inherit our rights? On what authority was this right to bodily privacy founded?

We don't inherit them at all. It all comes from the Constitution. Social contract theory and all of that.
It was founded on the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States. The right to privacy is derived form the fourteenth or ninth amendment. I can't exactly remember which. It may have been both.

denizenz wrote on May 13th, 2009 at 5:03pm :
Consider it...does it make sense to you? Why was it established?

Yes, it does make sense to me. It allows people to control what's going on with their body in order to protect their health.
Personal autonomy FTW.

quote

Dr.JBone wrote on May 14th, 2009 4:39pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 13th, 2009 at 5:47pm :


In one case, the death of someone is a direct result of shooting the gun. In the other case, the pregnancy was the direct result of having sex. The abortion is not a result of the person's actions, but another action taken by the woman.


I don't think the scenario was supposed to compare the two deaths but was posted in reply to your claim that sex can have other purposes besides conception.

Also, neither the fourteenth nor the ninth amendment say anything about the right to privacy the way you are talking about it. Please do show in the constitution where this right is granted. It is not a very long document and is widely available on the net.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 14th, 2009 9:30pm

Dr.JBone wrote on May 14th, 2009 at 10:39am :
Also, neither the fourteenth nor the ninth amendment say anything about the right to privacy the way you are talking about it. Please do show in the constitution where this right is granted. It is not a very long document and is widely available on the net.

The Supreme Court has broadly read the guarantee of 'liberty' in the Fourteenth Amendment to give a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. That reading began sometime in the early 20th century, before the Great Depression.
I don't feel like quoting it directly, but it's there in the first part of it. Because of the Supreme Court's interpretation, it is now a right.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 14th, 2009 9:31pm

(Continued)
The Supreme Court usually interprets the Constitution in a very broad manner, and, oddly enough, most Americans prefer a broad interpretation over a strict interpretation. Unless, of course, the Court happens to disagree with them, or so it seems.

Dr.JBone wrote on May 14th, 2009 at 10:39am :
I don't think the scenario was supposed to compare the two deaths but was posted in reply to your claim that sex can have other purposes besides conception.

It doesn't matter. If the woman does not want to be pregnant, and she is pregnant, then she is pregnant against her will. A woman who has sex agrees to the risk of becoming pregnant, but not necessarily to remaining so.

quote

thExcomunicated wrote on May 18th, 2009 8:22am

And after all that "pro-choice" peoples can't come up with a good excuse for murder.
SOADrox429 wrote on May 15th, 2009 at 6:31am :



It doesn't matter. If the woman does not want to be pregnant, and she is pregnant, then she is pregnant against her will. A woman who has sex agrees to the risk of becoming pregnant, but not necessarily to remaining so.

They continue to try and bring it back to the woman and cannot give a justifiable reason for killing a baby. Analyse what they say. They never face up to that fact that it is killing a human life.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 19th, 2009 3:16am

thExcomunicated wrote on May 18th, 2009 at 2:22am :
And after all that "pro-choice" peoples can't come up with a good excuse for murder.

I think it's been established that it's not murder.

thExcomunicated wrote on May 18th, 2009 at 2:22am :
They continue to try and bring it back to the woman and cannot give a justifiable reason for killing a baby. Analyse what they say. They never face up to that fact that it is killing a human life.

Have you not read what I've been saying? I fully accept that a fetus is living and that having an abortion is killing it.

quote

thExcomunicated wrote on May 19th, 2009 8:35am

mur-der n
the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense.

look it up in the dictionary. How does killing a fetus not fit into this?

look, I accept that you have no qualms about killing another human being. But I, for one, would never be able to accept the responsibility of choosing which of my equal human beings lives and dies. Doing so would make myself become the center of the universe (my universe). Unfortunately I know many people, and am friends with many people, who take the stand point of believing they are the center of the universe in their world. Whilst i respect this view point, how can these people truly enjoy life? or truly experience love? The pleasure of being at the center of the universe, and choosing who lives and dies, will never bring happiness (unless you have an extremely screwed mind and enjoy watching others die)

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 20th, 2009 2:49am

thExcomunicated wrote on May 19th, 2009 at 2:35am :
mur-der n
the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense.

look it up in the dictionary. How does killing a fetus not fit into this?

Since we're kind of arguing about the legality of abortion, should we not use the legal definition? That seems reasonable to me.

thExcomunicated wrote on May 19th, 2009 at 2:35am :
look, I accept that you have no qualms about killing another human being.

So now you know me better than I know myself? I wasn't aware that I had no problems with the killing of another human. Explain to me how you came to find this out, please.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 20th, 2009 2:49am

thExcomunicated wrote on May 19th, 2009 at 2:35am :
But I, for one, would never be able to accept the responsibility of choosing which of my equal human beings lives and dies.

Neither would I. So, what we do here is not get abortions. I don't think I can get pregnant, and you are probably a dude as well. We don't have to make a choice in the matter at all. Is it that difficult?

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 20th, 2009 2:50am

thExcomunicated wrote on May 19th, 2009 at 2:35am :
Doing so would make myself become the center of the universe (my universe). Unfortunately I know many people, and am friends with many people, who take the stand point of believing they are the center of the universe in their world. Whilst i respect this view point, how can these people truly enjoy life? or truly experience love? The pleasure of being at the center of the universe, and choosing who lives and dies, will never bring happiness (unless you have an extremely screwed mind and enjoy watching others die)

I kind of get what you were saying up until this point. I have one question: What the fuck are you talking about?

quote

thExcomunicated wrote on May 20th, 2009 9:07am

SOADrox429 wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 11:50am :



I kind of get what you were saying up until this point. I have one question: What the fuck are you talking about?


geez, thought you would follow. soz
when mankind (which in case you don't know includes women), kill another human they are saying that they are God. And that they have the power to choose who has life or death. Man playing God screws the world (look at Hitler for example) so when a woman has an abortion she is trying to be God and stating that the whole world revolves around herself and what she does with her life. And it doesn't matter if she kills people to succeed.


SOADrox429 wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 11:49am :



So now you know me better than I know myself? I wasn't aware that I had no problems with the killing of another human. Explain to me how you came to find this out, please.

quote

thExcomunicated wrote on May 20th, 2009 9:08am

You told us

SOADrox429 wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 6:49am :


I'm pretty sure that pregnant women who want abortions are accepting the consequences of their actions. Abortion is a way to deal with those consequences, and it should be a viable option





I apologise if i caused offence saying that you had no qualms killing another human, but from what you have said has led me to believe that in the case of abortion, you would kill another human if you were a woman. And that you support women who commit abortion.

The sole reason that women commit abortion is because the child will disrupt their life and destroy their career etc...They are supported when they abort because all the other people around them can see the devastation it will have on the womans life. But now, spare a thought for people that can't talk and can't be seen. Because they have no means of defending themselves they are butchered. Lives can be rebuilt but once dead there is no coming back.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 20th, 2009 6:55pm

SOAD,

The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that you do not have the right to take someone's life if they are infringing upon your rights. Not morally and not legally. The only time you can legally kill another individual is if they threaten your right to life...not if they threaten your right to "bodily privacy" (whatever the fuck that is), your right to free speech, your right to property, or any of our other civil rights. Abortion falls even under the most liberal definition of murder, but it remains a matter of choice and women's rights instead of the legal and moral atrocity that it truly is.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 21st, 2009 3:01am

thExcomunicated wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 3:07am :
geez, thought you would follow. soz

I sort of understood what you were getting at, but it doesn't apply to this discussion.

thExcomunicated wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 3:07am :
when mankind (which in case you don't know includes women), kill another human they are saying that they are God. And that they have the power to choose who has life or death.

Except that they aren't doing that at all. They are choosing who is or is not allowed to use their body to live. It's not simply choosing whether or not another person lives or dies.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 21st, 2009 3:02am

thExcomunicated wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 3:07am :
Man playing God screws the world (look at Hitler for example) so when a woman has an abortion she is trying to be God and stating that the whole world revolves around herself and what she does with her life. And it doesn't matter if she kills people to succeed.

A woman having an abortion is attempting to deify herself? So, everyone who has ever killed another person is trying to become God?

thExcomunicated wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 3:08am :
You told us

I said no such thing. Wanting abortion to remain legal does not mean that I don't consider killing to be a morally reprehensible thing.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 21st, 2009 3:03am

thExcomunicated wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 3:08am :
I apologise if i caused offence saying that you had no qualms killing another human, but from what you have said has led me to believe that in the case of abortion, you would kill another human if you were a woman. And that you support women who commit abortion.

If I was a woman, and I got pregnant, I would like to think that I would not have an abortion. If I knew a woman that wanted to get an abortion, I would try to discourage her from doing so, but ultimately, it is up to her, and I would indeed support her in whatever decision she made, as long as she made her decision with full knowledge of the consequences of whichever path she would choose.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 21st, 2009 3:03am

It seems that your only purpose was to offend. You at least didn't read very many of my previous posts, like this one, which is a bit annoying at the least:

SOADrox429 wrote on Apr 30th, 2009 at 3:23pm :
While I am pro-choice, I am far from pro-abortion... Honestly, I find abortion horrifying. What I find more horrifying, however, are the consequences of making it illegal.


thExcomunicated wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 3:08am :
The sole reason that women commit abortion is because the child will disrupt their life and destroy their career etc...They are supported when they abort because all the other people around them can see the devastation it will have on the womans life.

So now you know the exact reason that women get abortions, and it's the same reason in every case?

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 21st, 2009 3:04am

thExcomunicated wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 3:08am :
But now, spare a thought for people that can't talk and can't be seen. Because they have no means of defending themselves they are butchered. Lives can be rebuilt but once dead there is no coming back.

I have, and believe me when I say that I completely understand where you are coming from. I wish that abortions didn't need to be legal. I wish they didn't happen. I can not, however, support the criminalization of abortion with a clear conscience.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 21st, 2009 3:08am

denizenz wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 12:55pm :
The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that you do not have the right to take someone's life if they are infringing upon your rights. Not morally and not legally. The only time you can legally kill another individual is if they threaten your right to life... not if they threaten your right to "bodily privacy" (whatever the fuck that is), your right to free speech, your right to property, or any of our other civil rights.

Then how would you protect your right to bodily privacy (which is a right, whether you like it or not)?

denizenz wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 12:55pm :
Abortion falls even under the most liberal definition of murder,

Murder is a legal term. In terms of legality, abortion is not murder. We're just going back and forth with that. You keep saying the same thing, and, as a result, I keep saying the same thing as well. Just let that point go, please. It's a huge waste of space.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 21st, 2009 3:08am

denizenz wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 12:55pm :
but it remains a matter of choice and women's rights instead of the legal and moral atrocity that it truly is.

It should be a matter of choice and women's rights. I don't understand how you can say that it isn't a matter of women's rights, when women are the only ones that get pregnant (most of the time).

quote

denizenza wrote on May 21st, 2009 6:44pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 9:08pm :

Then how would you protect your right to bodily privacy?

The same way you protect your right to free speech or your right to own property...through other legal avenues. Although you've not convinced anyone that pregnancy even qualifies for an invasion of said privacy.

Murder is a legal term. In terms of legality, abortion is not murder.

My entire point is that it is...and should be regarded as such.

SOADrox429 wrote on May 20th, 2009 at 9:08pm :

It should be a matter of choice and women's rights. I don't understand how you can say that it isn't a matter of women's rights.

Because it isn't your right to take the life of another, and it's absolutely mindblowing that you fail to recognize this.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 21st, 2009 6:47pm

Let me again clarify that the only...ONLY...time that killing another individual MAY (as in perhaps as in not definitely) be justified by our legal system is when your own LIFE is directly and immediately threatened by your victim. Above and beyond that circumstance you have no legal (as per our judicial system) and certainly no moral authority to kill another individual. Period.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 21st, 2009 10:42pm

denizenz wrote on May 21st, 2009 at 12:44pm :
The same way you protect your right to free speech or your right to own property...through other legal avenues.

So, women are going to begin suing their unborn children or having them arrested when they are born?

denizenz wrote on May 21st, 2009 at 12:44pm :
Although you've not convinced anyone that pregnancy even qualifies for an invasion of said privacy.

So, if one person is using another's body for survival against the other's will, it is not a violation of any rights?

denizenz wrote on May 21st, 2009 at 12:44pm :
My entire point is that it is...and should be regarded as such.

Abortion is murder because abortion is murder because abortion is murder because abortion is murder... because abortion is murder, etc.
If abortion is murder, then a fetus living inside of a woman against her will is rape.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 21st, 2009 10:42pm

denizenz wrote on May 21st, 2009 at 12:44pm :
Because it isn't your right to take the life of another, and it's absolutely mindblowing that you fail to recognize this.

So, in this matter, this legal matter, the Supreme Court is wrong about the law?

denizenz wrote on May 21st, 2009 at 12:47pm :
Let me again clarify that the only...ONLY...time that killing another individual MAY (as in perhaps as in not definitely) be justified by our legal system is when your own LIFE is directly and immediately threatened by your victim. Above and beyond that circumstance you have no legal (as per our judicial system) and certainly no moral authority to kill another individual. Period.

As per our judicial system, women clearly have the right to kill an unborn child if they feel the need to do so.

quote

thExcomunicated wrote on May 22nd, 2009 7:47am

SOAD,
If a woman can kill her child because it is invading her 'bodily privacy,' why cannot the child kill the mother because it is invading their bodily privacy? The woman deserves to be murdered just as much as the child does, if not more so because it was her who concieved in the first place. If there really was equality of human beings there should rather be a law to kill the mother. Yes I know that is outrageous, but logically that is how it should work.
SOADrox429 wrote on May 21st, 2009 at 12:03pm :



So now you know the exact reason that women get abortions, and it's the same reason in every case?


Give me another reason why women have abortions other than the fact it will disrupt their current life.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 22nd, 2009 9:14pm

thExcomunicated wrote on May 22nd, 2009 at 1:47am :
SOAD,
If a woman can kill her child because it is invading her 'bodily privacy,' why cannot the child kill the mother because it is invading their bodily privacy?

Because the fetus is the one who committed the original violation. It is not a violation of somebody's rights to protect your rights against them.

thExcomunicated wrote on May 22nd, 2009 at 1:47am :
The woman deserves to be murdered just as much as the child does, if not more so because it was her who concieved in the first place.

Which one of us is the horrible person again? You're the one saying that people deserve to be murdered. I've said nothing nearly as horrible.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 22nd, 2009 9:14pm

thExcomunicated wrote on May 22nd, 2009 at 1:47am :
If there really was equality of human beings there should rather be a law to kill the mother. Yes I know that is outrageous, but logically that is how it should work.

That's not logical at all.

thExcomunicated wrote on May 22nd, 2009 at 1:47am :
Give me another reason why women have abortions other than the fact it will disrupt their current life.

'Disrupt their current life' is a rather broad way to put it. If the pregnancy is causing health problems, and a woman needs an abortion to live, then not getting an abortion would kind of disrupt her current life.
Either way, absolutes are bad, generalizations are bad, and absolute generalizations are worse than both.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 22nd, 2009 10:09pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 21st, 2009 at 4:42pm :

So, women are going to begin suing their unborn children or having them arrested when they are born?

That's more logical to me than allowing them to commit justified killings for a breach of privacy. By your reasoning, every parent in the civilized world and half of the word's governing officials are free game. The next time someone eavesdrops on your conversation...I think you should kill them.

So, if one person is using another's body for survival against the other's will, it is not a violation of any rights?

You can never establish that pregnancy is "against your will".

Answer me this...exactly how does pregnancy violate a right to privacy?

quote

denizenza wrote on May 22nd, 2009 10:11pm

SOADrox429 wrote on May 21st, 2009 at 4:42pm :

So, in this matter, this legal matter, the Supreme Court is wrong about the law?

If you don't believe that our government can be wrong about something then we need to be having a different conversation, and I suggest you read a history book or two or three.

As per our judicial system, women clearly have the right to kill an unborn child if they feel the need to do so.

And our system is flawed. As per the logic employed in my blog...which you have yet to refute directly...abortion is clearly murder.

quote

thExcomunicated wrote on May 23rd, 2009 3:49am

SOADrox429 wrote on May 23rd, 2009 at 6:14am :



Because the fetus is the one who committed the original violation. It is not a violation of somebody's rights to protect your rights against them.


So because the woman allows (unless raped) the child into her it is violating? If she didn't want the child why didn't she use anti conception pills and the like, or better yet not have sex. "It is not a violation of somebody's rights to protect your rights against them" you do realise that that just highlights my point. If the womans "bodily privacy" is being invaded then the childs is as well. So what makes you support the woman more than the child? your whole argument is crap

quote

thExcomunicated wrote on May 23rd, 2009 3:55am

SOADrox429 wrote on May 23rd, 2009 at 6:14am :

Which one of us is the horrible person again? You're the one saying that people deserve to be murdered. I've said nothing nearly as horrible.

No I never said that a woman deserves to die, I was just explaining the logical conclusion of your belief that the child is invading the womans "bodily privacy" surely even you followed that.
SOADrox429 wrote on May 23rd, 2009 at 6:14am :

That's not logical at all.

Thats the exact logic that you used. The woman is invading the childs "bodily privacy" just as much as the child is invading her. And the child had no say to being there, where there are many things the woman could have done.

quote

thExcomunicated wrote on May 23rd, 2009 4:00am

SOADrox429 wrote on May 23rd, 2009 at 6:14am :

'Disrupt their current life' is a rather broad way to put it. If the pregnancy is causing health problems, and a woman needs an abortion to live, then not getting an abortion would kind of disrupt her current life.
Either way, absolutes are bad, generalizations are bad, and absolute generalizations are worse than both.

Did I ever say that I didn't support abortion when the womans life is at risk? Surely you are intelligent enough to know that his whole argument has been about abortion because the baby is unwanted. Way to avoid the question...

quote

denizenza wrote on May 28th, 2009 3:24pm

Gettin quiet around here. I hope it was something I said.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 28th, 2009 7:32pm

I've thought about replying, but it would serve no purpose. My reason for debating it to either learn something, or teach something. I am doing neither here, so I see no point in continuing this.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 29th, 2009 1:47pm

If you've not learned anything, it's no one's fault but your own. Although my conclusion stands, I am constantly learning and growing through the course of any debate...even if it is merely within my current system of beliefs. If by learning and teaching you mean "have my mind changed" or "change the minds of others", you're truly missing out and entirely missing the point.

quote

SOADrox429 wrote on May 29th, 2009 5:54pm

denizenz wrote on May 29th, 2009 at 7:47am :


If you've not learned anything, it's no one's fault but your own. Although my conclusion stands, I am constantly learning and growing through the course of any debate...even if it is merely within my current system of beliefs. If by learning and teaching you mean "have my mind changed" or "change the minds of others", you're truly missing out and entirely missing the point.

That's not what I mean at all. The reason I'm not learning anything is because I've heard everything you've said before, not to mention that this argument is going in circles.

quote

denizenza wrote on May 29th, 2009 6:19pm

Das cool. I've got better things to do than maintain this single blog all day anyhow. I just use it as an outlet in order to organize my jumbled thoughts, with the added bonus of causing a raucous on the internet.

quote

Eggmond wrote on Aug 18th, 2009 9:37pm

first of all i dont like to be called pro abortion.i prefer the term anti life


just as an argument against the first case where u say that someone who has lost cognizance due to an accident etc... they still have memories of cognizance

quote

denizenza wrote on Aug 19th, 2009 1:45pm

Eggmond wrote on Aug 18th, 2009 at 3:37pm :
first of all i dont like to be called pro abortion.i prefer the term anti life


just as an argument against the first case where u say that someone who has lost cognizance due to an accident etc... they still have memories of cognizance


So you think that someone in a coma, or someone who has suffered brain damage, retains their memory of high level thought?

quote

LordPino wrote on Sep 1st, 2009 11:21am

You know who I think should've been pro-abortion?

Your mom.

I read that entire wall of text and still didn't find it convincing..

* Don't take it personal btw, it's just for teh l0lz.*

quote

denizenza wrote on Sep 2nd, 2009 1:52am

Don't worry, I don't take offense from morons.

quote

Yeti This wrote on Sep 22nd, 2009 6:50am

nice article, denizenz, i agree with you entirely and it is 2 bad that people feel the need 2 snake around certain points in your argument that are very valid :D nice job yall

quote

SkepsisMetal wrote on Jun 2nd, 2010 4:43pm

Years too late, but I have noticed a lack of coherent debate. Scenarios nothing to do with the topic etc.
On the line of consequences and dealing with them...what about rape? Say, a female who chose from a young age that she should be chaste, and not have any form of sexual relations until she was married and willing to have children. However, one day, she becomes the victim of rape, and concieves a child. Is it then her consequence to bear? By all that she has grown up to, it is not a blessing
Also the parents...2 parents having debilitating a heriditary illness, and they concieve a child; it is certain that the baby will be born into suffering much worse than it could experience before 20 weeks. Which brings about the argument which views such an abortion as euthanasia rather than murder. And, I know, there are those that see euthanasia as murder, however, if we're going on morals rather than legality here, would any decent human being disagree that it best to end a life of suffering before it begins?

quote

SkepsisMetal wrote on Jun 2nd, 2010 4:43pm

Years too late, but I have noticed a lack of coherent debate. Scenarios nothing to do with the topic etc.
On the line of consequences and dealing with them...what about rape? Say, a female who chose from a young age that she should be chaste, and not have any form of sexual relations until she was married and willing to have children. However, one day, she becomes the victim of rape, and concieves a child. Is it then her consequence to bear? By all that she has grown up to, it is not a blessing
Also the parents...2 parents having debilitating a heriditary illness, and they concieve a child; it is certain that the baby will be born into suffering much worse than it could experience before 20 weeks. Which brings about the argument which views such an abortion as euthanasia rather than murder. And, I know, there are those that see euthanasia as murder, however, if we're going on morals rather than legality here, would any decent human being disagree that it best to end a life of suffering before it begins?

quote

StillSublime wrote on Dec 31st, 2011 5:57am

I posted a blog about this.

quote

Post your comment
Expand