Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[Silent Hunter]

Same. I think it's sad that an entire thread has been devoted to discussing the murder of babies by arguing when, exactly, it is acceptable to murder them.

. . . actually READING the OP might have given you a clue . . . that the thread is not addressed to anti-abortionists . . . cowgirl . . . er, boy.

 

[vegascowboy]

. . . actually READING the OP might have given you a clue . . . that the thread is not addressed to anti-abortionists . . .

Works both ways, friend. Actually READING what I said may give you a clue that I understood the OP and was indicating that I think it's sad that such a thread exists. It was very clear that it wasn't addressed to folks who value the life of babies.

cowgirl . . . er, boy.

Wow, name calling. That's grown up of you.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Works both ways, friend. Actually READING what I said may give you a clue that I understood the OP and was indicating that I think it's sad that such a thread exists. It was very clear that it wasn't addressed to folks who value the life of babies.

Well, you made a comment on W's dilemma of a lack of choice supporting his view in the "poll" then went on to claim abortion is murder . . . based on nothing greater than your personal preference.

Sans evidence to the contrary of said assertion I recommend this article for your consideration.

Wow, name calling. That's grown up of you.

. . . which wasn't the intent . . . friend (which is an insult in this neck of the woods when used . . . in "polite" conversation) . . . cow - person :crackup:.

 

[Cracked]

cow - person :crackup:.

Yes, the PC version. Cowperson, and in groups - cowpeople. We could say things like, "cowperson up!" and sing songs like, "Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowpersons."

 

[Silent Hunter]

Yes, the PC version. Cowperson, and in groups - cowpeople. We could say things like, "cowperson up!" and sing songs like, "Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowpersons."

. . . cows are people too . . . but that doesn't seem to stop the vc from butchering them for his own pleasure . . . :think: . . . :rotfl:.




(take a joke vc . . . you'll live longer.)

 

[Layla]

I'm alright with viability as a line.

Well, I'm less concerned with value and more with rights. I believe the unborn child has a right to life that trumps whatever rights the mother might claim(unless her life is threatened, in which case I have a rather different line of reasoning). You were the one who brought up value. So my question to you is: Is it arbitrary to attribute rights to the unborn from the moment of fertilization, and, if so, is it equally arbitrary to attribute rights to anyone at all?

Yes. Of course it is.

Do you hold that persons have a right to life simply because the law in this jurisdiction says so?

Yep. Rights are a societal construct that we uphold because it suits us. Having a right to life is a good thing, cause it means other people can't kill us. But we have exceptions to this rule, in cases where we'd be better off without certain people (in war, death penalty states/countries, self defense, etc). Abortion is no different.

Rights are not inalienable constants. They're whatever we deem valuable as a society. Shrug.

 

[vegascowboy]

Well, you made a comment on W's dilemma of a lack of choice supporting his view in the "poll" then went on to claim abortion is murder . . . based on nothing greater than your personal preference.

I was acknowledging that my reason for not voting in the poll was the same as his. It was a stupid thing to say, I realize. That's just how may brain works sometimes. :dead:

. . . which wasn't the intent . . . friend (which is an insult in this neck of the woods when used . . . in "polite" conversation) . . . cow - person :crackup:.

It wasn't your intent to call me girl?

There aren't many woods around here, but mine wasn't intended to insult either. When I say friend, I mean it.

 

[vegascowboy]

Yes, the PC version. Cowperson, and in groups - cowpeople. We could say things like, "cowperson up!" and sing songs like, "Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowpersons."

Saying cow is so crude. Bovine is preferred term. Bovineperson. :cow:

 

[Silent Hunter]

I was acknowledging that my reason for not voting in the poll was the same as his. It was a stupid thing to say, I realize. That's just how may brain works sometimes.

Well . . . get in line behind . . . me.

It wasn't your intent to call me girl?

I was funning with cow - boy, girl, poke, pox, ard, abunga . . . I guess obvious isn't so obvious . . . :dunce:

There aren't many woods around here, but mine wasn't intended to insult either. When I say friend, I mean it.

It's not an insult . . . most of the time.

 

[vegascowboy]

Well . . . get in line behind . . . me.

I was funning with cow - boy, girl, poke, pox, ard, abunga . . . I guess obvious isn't so obvious . . . :dunce:

It's not an insult . . . most of the time.

I shall now be known as He Who Corralled Bovines.

 

[Samstarrett]

I'm alright with viability as a line.

And I'm not. Since you admit below it's arbitrary, you must confess that I'm no less right than you are.

Yes. Of course it is.

It's one thing to say 'yes', and quite another thing to say 'of course it is'. Do you believe it's obvious that rights are arbitrary? Because I don't; but then, I'm a theist. If I were a non-theist, I might be forced to draw the same conclusion.

Yep. Rights are a societal construct that we uphold because it suits us. Having a right to life is a good thing, cause it means other people can't kill us. But we have exceptions to this rule, in cases where we'd be better off without certain people (in war, death penalty states/countries, self defense, etc). Abortion is no different.

Rights are not inalienable constants. They're whatever we deem valuable as a society. Shrug.

If you truly believe that, I can't really argue with you. To debate, you need some common ground, a shared standard to which to appeal to settle your disagreement. As far as I can see, you and I have none. I believe that rights(at least some rights) are given by God and cannot rightfully be violated by a mere societal consensus. You believe societal consensus determines rights. We're not even speaking the same language when it comes to this issue.

 

[WizardofOz]

Having a right to life is a good thing, cause it means other people can't kill us. But we have exceptions to this rule, in cases where we'd be better off without certain people (in war, death penalty states/countries, self defense, etc). Abortion is no different.

War, death penalty, self defense, abortion.

Only one deals with actively seeking out an innocent for the sole purpose of ending its life. Which is it? That's how abortion is different.

 

[WizardofOz]

If you (anyone) believe that abortion is murder, why aren't you taking up arms to prevent abortions from happening?

Abortions would still take place, even if it was made illegal.

These are honestly two of the worst arguments I've read in a while.

First, you question why people are not stopping killers by murdering them and yet seem to see no hypocrisy in such action as if a rational and effective response to stopping abortion.

Second, everything that is illegal still takes place. Is that somehow a reason for the legalization of any said act?

:sigh:

 

[Layla]

And I'm not. Since you admit below it's arbitrary, you must confess that I'm no less right than you are.

Indeed. But I'm in the majority, which is what counts.

It's one thing to say 'yes', and quite another thing to say 'of course it is'. Do you believe it's obvious that rights are arbitrary? Because I don't; but then, I'm a theist. If I were a non-theist, I might be forced to draw the same conclusion.

Ok, that was maybe too strong. It's perhaps not as obvious as I implied.

If you truly believe that, I can't really argue with you. To debate, you need some common ground, a shared standard to which to appeal to settle your disagreement. As far as I can see, you and I have none. I believe that rights(at least some rights) are given by God and cannot rightfully be violated by a mere societal consensus. You believe societal consensus determines rights. We're not even speaking the same language when it comes to this issue.

Fair enough.

 

[Samstarrett]

This begs the question of whether ontology can exist sans circumstance. But regardless, there is nothing that stops us from choosing a definition based on what a thing can do given a circumstance.

But this definition is based on what a thing can do without giving a circumstance. No 'given' circumstance is provided, that's the problem. Because of that, a thing that is a person here and now might not be a person if it is in a third-world country tomorrow. Doesn't that seem wrong to you?

The innocence of the fetus is not a factor here. Regardless of it's lack of guilt or intent, it is still using the mother's body against her will. Abortion is not a punishment to the fetus because of its guilt.

Well, the fetus's innocence is a factor inasmuch as it's ordinarily not considered moral or legal to kill an innocent person.

I find it similar to a case of sexsomnia, or sleep sex. Similar to sleep walking, this condition causes people to unconsciously rape others. They are innocent, yet from the point of view of the women who have their bodies used against their will, there is still a wrong done to them.

This comparison seems problematic to me. Tell me, if a woman's child has already been born, and no source of food for the child is available other than her own breast milk for a period of time, is she entitled to kill her child rather than allow it access to her body?

 

[Silent Hunter]

But this definition is based on what a thing can do without giving a circumstance. No 'given' circumstance is provided, that's the problem. Because of that, a thing that is a person here and now might not be a person if it is in a third-world country tomorrow. Doesn't that seem wrong to you?

Why should it be wrong? Llimit your objections to the non-question begging and non-emotional.

Well, the fetus's innocence is a factor inasmuch as it's ordinarily not considered moral or legal to kill an innocent person.

. . . you still don't get it. You can't kill (murder) what is not a "person." Absent a realistic definition of "person" (one everyone can agree on) your disagreement is moot.

Tell me, if a woman's child has already been born, and no source of food for the child is available other than her own breast milk for a period of time, is she entitled to kill her child rather than allow it access to her body?

. . . well, that would depend on the culture . . . but since we both agree that "one who has been born and has drawn a breath" (common law) is a person, the protection afforded by law now applies.

Did you read this article by chance?

 

[Samstarrett]

Why should it be wrong? Llimit your objections to the non-question begging and non-emotional.

Actually, my argument is an appeal to intuition rather than emotion.

. . . you still don't get it. You can't kill (murder) what is not a "person." Absent a realistic definition of "person" (one everyone can agree on) your disagreement is moot.

Actually...Mr. Ellipsis...YOU...still don't get it. If you'd read mighty_duck's original post, you would see that the question under consideration was whether the moment of personhood(whatever that might be) ought to be the moment that abortion is no longer legal. Mighty_duck seemed to hold the position that it ought not; that even if a fetus is a person, it is still intruding on the mother's rights and thus abortion is legit.

. . . well, that would depend on the culture . . . did you read this article by chance?

I hadn't read it before. I've read it now, but I still maintain that personhood is not determined by societies or cultures, but by God. Naturally, I don't expect you to agree.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Actually, my argument is an appeal to intuition rather than emotion.

How you feel about something (independent of reason) IS an appeal to emotion . . . :dunce:

Actually...Mr. Ellipsis...YOU...still don't get it. If you'd read mighty_duck's original post, you would see that the question under consideration was whether the moment of personhood(whatever that might be) ought to be the moment that abortion is no longer legal. Mighty_duck seemed to hold the position that it ought not; that even if a fetus is a person, it is still intruding on the mother's rights and thus abortion is legit.

Well, since I'm sure I'm more familiar with duck's argument that you are . . . this is NOT his stance on the issue at all . . . rather than steal his fire I will allow him to explain should he choose to do so.

I hadn't read it before. I've read it now, but I still maintain that personhood is not determined by societies or cultures, but by God.

. . . you have YET to establish when, with certainty, that "personhood" begins . . . absent your own "intuition."

Naturally, I don't expect you to agree.

Naturally.

 

[Samstarrett]

How you feel about something (independent of reason) IS an appeal to emotion . . . :dunce:

Show me where I appealed to feelings. I appealed to intuition(doesn't this seem wrong to you?), not emotion(doesn't this make you upset?).

Well, since I'm sure I'm more familiar with duck's argument that you are . . . this is NOT his stance on the issue at all . . . rather than steal his fire I will allow him to explain should he choose to do so.

In the meantime, I'll maintain my stance. I assumed that everyone agreed we could not legitimately abort persons, and that we were only arguing about what 'persons' are. Duck claimed, however, that to viability supporters, personhood is a non-issue, strongly implying that abortion would be OK based on a perceived violation of the mother's rights even if the fetus were deemed a person. That is what the discussion was about.

. . . you have YET to establish when, with certainty, that "personhood" begins . . . absent your own "intuition."

Whereas you...

 

[Samstarrett]

Well, since I'm sure I'm more familiar with duck's argument that you are . . .

Yes, yes, and the Constitution, and the Bible. We know you're sure you're more familiar with everything than am I. This surety is largely baseless, however.