Contingent upon how precise you'd like to stay with the definition of "objective", I would say yes. I would say that we already do: it's called legislation.
'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'
- Thread starter visceral_instinct
- Start date
Contingent upon how precise you'd like to stay with the definition of "objective", I would say yes. I would say that we already do: it's called legislation.
From an ethical perspective? Yes, of course.
Obviously.
???
Not at all.
You're completely misunderstanding what ethics is concerned with.
You are selectively focusing on meta-ethics, as opposed to the real intent behind ethics per se: the establishment of normative guidelines.
You're being even more disingenuous than normal LG...
tsk tsk..
Again with the selective interpretation....
sigh
I didn't say that at all did I?
It is neither more nor less 'ethically treading' than any other issue...
dude if that wasn't misogyny I don't know what is
a fetus is nothing more than a fucking parasite. the moment you demand rights for them you demand rights for a host of other parasites. its not murder to get rid of a fetus. abortion is older than history. contraceptives almost as long. deal with it.
So you are with your spouse for sex? (rhetorical question)
And no offense, but how do you know what animals get pleasure from sex? I think that is...where did you get this information from?
LOL...yeah for ten minutes...or so.
dolphins masturbate or something akin to it as they have no hands.
lol
I guess in some circles that might come across as friendly online banter
perhaps that would make sense if people have serious problems distinguishing between their child and a tape worm
as is rape, theft, murder and possibly cannibalism too ...
the female praying mantis dines on the male after sex too.
whats your point?
medically speaking based on the harmful effect to the host their is no difference.
not the point.
the point is no matter how time preachy bastards like you try to take the moral high ground and berate others over this issue its not going to happen. for as long as humans have been having sex we have tried to get around the whole baby problem.
you did say that if it was laid on the table that "yes this is killing" it would force the opposition to come up with a better argument.
This leads me to believe that you don't think pointing out that someone is killing another is a good foundation for an argument in the strong opposition.
so the question of killing and parking in a disabled zone are more or less much of a muchness?
that they wouldn't jack off if it didn't feel good.
and socially speaking .....?
well sure, murder (and rape and theft too I might add) has always proven itself as a great problem solver ... makes you wonder why society just doesn't get real with the times and just give it the green light ... I mean how long have they been trying to regulate or legislate these inherent behaviors?
Last edited:
nibbling on your vertebrae could make someone feel all tingly too
Bells
Staff member
That still does not take away the fact that the mothers rights do not disappear because she is pregnant.
You have thus far tried the 'black people' argument, which failed badly. Now you switch to corporations and corporate law and trade practices laws? Ermm okay.. Companies that poisoned women and pregnant women, which resulted in birth defects were found liable because they never informed their employees of the potential dangers and knowingly placed those people in situations that would adversely affect their health and their abilities to reproduce. That is why they were sued and why the families and the children born with birth defects would win.
Unless of course you wish to argue that women are like companies and that any potential zygote must be treated as employees and thus be given the same protection? Does not exactly work..
What makes your morals superior to mine or to the mother who may wish to abort? Why does the mother's morals and sense of justice over what happens to her body suddenly disappears when she's pregnant? Why should a potential human being have more rights to her body that her?
Is it because you consider her to be a whore?
I'll put it to you this way.. Who are you to impose your morals on my reproductive system? Why should you be given the right to impose your morals on my reproductive system?
And his religious beliefs have what to do with this topic? And what is pro-abortion?
I have never met someone who is pro-abortion, have you? I have met people who are pro-choice, which deems the woman free to choose. Vastly different.
Using such emotive language shows a grasping at straws..
Really?
Calling someone 'a two faced whore' is considered 'friendly online banter'? Since when?
A developing child in the mother is a parasite. There is no other way to describe it. It takes everything from the mother.. everything and if the mother does not eat the proper foods in correct and vast quantities and/or take supplements, she will face a wide range of health issues in the future..
All of which infringe on the rights of an actual person. You, however, seem to feel that women should be morally obligated and forced to have children against their will, making them incubators.. Apparently that is acceptable? Do you consider rape, theft and murder to be bad? If so, why? If you are willing to force women to continue with unwanted pregnancies, to her detriment and possibly to her health and well being, against her explicit wishes, how can you say that rape is bad? Both deny the woman the rights to choose about her own body. Both involve the infringing on the woman's body against her wishes. Yet you seem to think that it is acceptable for women to be denied the right to an abortion?
Signal said:
Do you think that men should be free to call a woman a 'two faced whore' and then claim it is was normal friendly online banter? If yes, why?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Sure it does. You just have to argue that the employee was being fired for low productivity and stealing the company resources.
This leads me to believe that you don't think pointing out that someone is killing another is a good foundation for an argument in the strong opposition.
Then you would be confused.
Given the curiously vague terms, I can only say "yes".
Like the right to inflict whatever damages she likes on the child?
The black person argument still holds.
Proponents insist on using the language of unconsciousness to relegate another to terms of abuse.
My point of bringing in corporate law was to show how even law is capable of problemizing your thinking on the issue (ie there is no question of bringing issues of justice to an entity that doesn't have a body independent of the mother).
But if the whole point of being liable to pursue any sort of rights is to have body outside and independent of the mother, technically they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
I am talking about companies being made to pay out to persons who technically do not exist in your books.
Most of these questions I could ask straight back at you. How does a women who is suddenly in a position of having others dependent of her take the moral high ground by taking recourse to killing?
lol
Because its not simply an argument of "my, my, my" when a second defenseless life comes on the scene.
Kind of like a cotton plantation owner saying what right do you have to legally intercede on my assets and livestock.
IOW in both cases there is a strong use of the language of unconsciousness to relegate the argument purely to a question of "my".
explaining why he can't do anything but goad and troll - IOW "your values are opposed to mine therefore, much like anyone else who has a substantial disagreement with my values, your posts and your person are (insert your favorite host of ad homs)"
someone who relegates a fetus to the status of a parasite
I mean who feels magnanimously disposed towards a tapeworm?
since its followed by the request that one follow suit and insult one's genealogy I guess.
I trust you have been on sci long enough to recognize unbridled goading when you see it
you do realize that describing the relationship as such continues even after birth? (and some would even argue until the child reaches their early twenties)
and there you have it!
classic case of the language of unconsciousness
the problem is when another (innocent) person comes on the scene, it is no longer purely an argument of "my body" or "my convenience" ... hence the ethics of the issue are opened up.
If one can read all this without batting an eyelid, what else could it be but a joyful exchange between colleagues?
No?
Last edited: