'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'

[quadraphonics]

welcome to the club

Thanks. Should I expect my membership card in the mail soon?

 

[Bells]

Like the right to inflict whatever damages she likes on the child?

What "child"?

A zygote and embryo is not a "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).

Your black person argument does not hold. It just shows you are a tad twisted and clutching at straws.

As for corporate law.. Heh.. A company is nothing like an individual person. Employees and zygotes are not the same. Laws that govern companies to protect the employees against unfair dismissal and scrupulous work practices that places their lives in danger is not the same as a woman drinking or smoking during pregnancy or having an abortion. No where near the same. When you learn to recognise individual rights over one's body you'll come to understand that difference.

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.

Unscrupulous work practices with intent to harm and the workers, actual real people, not consenting to it or even been made aware of it.. think about it. A zygote is not a person and is not classified as a person. Nor is an embryo.

I am talking about companies being made to pay out to persons who technically do not exist in your books.

But they do exist. The children who sued were born and are deemed as individuals with rights. They were successful because the organisations knowingly poisoned others which led to their being born with severe health issues. Those others, the mothers primarily, never consented to the damage done to their reproductive organs (their eggs and ovaries).. Do you understand now?

lol

Ah yes, the inane 'lol'. What will be next? OMFGWTFLMFAO?

Because its not simply an argument of "my, my, my" when a second defenseless life comes on the scene.

It still does not answer the question. Why do your morals and beliefs mean more than my own when it comes to my reproductive organs, for example?

If I wished to expell the contents of my uterus, why should your morals come into play? Why do you think you should have the right to determine what grows in my uterus? Why should your morals determine what stays in my uterus or any other woman's uterus?

In short, what makes you God?

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".

You consider women to be like livestock and assets? Or just the contents of their uterus?

It is my uterus and I will do with it what I choose. The same goes for its contents. Just as I have no say how you wish to dispose of the contents of your gonads. Because they are yours. You keep bringing up the black person argument.. But you fail to notice that you wish to impose the same sort of rules that plantation owners had on their slaves on women's reproductive organs and whatever potential human they may be carrying.

Do you see why your black person argument fails now?

You are treating the mother like she is the black slave and denying her the right to her own body.

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)"

One could say that you are trolling and goading.

It is a case of your values against mine and since it is my body for example, if I wished to have an abortion, my values would win out against yours. Do you understand now?

someone who relegates a fetus to the status of a parasite
I mean who feels magnanimously disposed towards a tapeworm?

Having carried two children, both of whom to the utter detriment of my physical health, I can assure you, even my doctors and specialists refer to them as parasites. But I wanted them so I kept them and they are now my born feral parasites and I would die for them in an instant. A foreign body in your own that drains you of everything is a parasite, by any definition of the word.

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

I would say that you were goading her.

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)

Yes, very much so.

and there you have it!
classic case of the language of unconsciousness

A fertilised egg is not an "actual person". It has the potential to be a person if it is not expelled from the mother's body either naturally or unnaturally.

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.

A fertilised egg is not a "person". And it is "my body" and "my convenience" over yours. There is no ethical issue here. There can be an ethical issue if you deem your morals and values to be more important than a woman's over her body".

But since you are nothing, the reality is that there can be no ethical issue.

If one can read all this without batting an eyelid, what else could it be but a joyful exchange between colleagues?

You called her a "two faced whore". In my opinion, you are a "fucking retard".

Friendly banter of course.

 

[lightgigantic]

What "child"?

A zygote and embryo is not a "child".

Please be consistent.
If you are going to continue with the language of unconsciousness, you will also need a special term for the mother (to be a mother, one must have a child, yes?)

Your black person argument does not hold. It just shows you are a tad twisted and clutching at straws.

On the contrary, the more you try to justify your argument, the more you seem to require an expanded repertoire of special terms ....

As for corporate law.. Heh.. A company is nothing like an individual person. Employees and zygotes are not the same. Laws that govern companies to protect the employees against unfair dismissal and scrupulous work practices that places their lives in danger is not the same as a woman drinking or smoking during pregnancy or having an abortion. No where near the same. When you learn to recognise individual rights over one's body you'll come to understand that difference.

I think you miss the point.

An unscrupulous company can be liable to pay damages (in the case of toxicity that causes birth defects) to an entity who, in your books, doesn't have recourse to a scrap of justice issues

Unscrupulous work practices with intent to harm and the workers, actual real people, not consenting to it or even been made aware of it.. think about it. A zygote is not a person and is not classified as a person. Nor is an embryo.

yet damages can still be meted out on account of the experiences of the said embryo ... so go figure
:shrug:

But they do exist. The children who sued were born and are deemed as individuals with rights. They were successful because the organisations knowingly poisoned others which led to their being born with severe health issues. Those others, the mothers primarily, never consented to the damage done to their reproductive organs (their eggs and ovaries).. Do you understand now?

But how can they make claim to a state when they, according to your analysis, don't exist?

IOW why do you require a separate kind of thinking in the case of abortion?
If an entity can be awarded damages to experiences in the womb, why can't you see abortion also as a greater type of damages, namely murder?

(BTW as is the case of murder, usually the recipient isn't around to receive the damages, yet that doesn't halt the host of justice and ethical issues that come to bear on the perpetrator)

It still does not answer the question. Why do your morals and beliefs mean more than my own when it comes to my reproductive organs, for example?

If I wished to expell the contents of my uterus, why should your morals come into play? Why do you think you should have the right to determine what grows in my uterus? Why should your morals determine what stays in my uterus or any other woman's uterus?

I did answer the question of why, namely because its not purely a question of "my" genitals

In short, what makes you God?

You are free to do what ever you want, but you are not free of the consequences. Society is kind of like that in general, regardless whether you want to draw the final tier of authority at state run legislation or not.

You consider women to be like livestock and assets? Or just the contents of their uterus?

no
if you read it again, its more that you consider the reproductive consequences of your uterus livestock and assets

It is my uterus and I will do with it what I choose.

Take it you also don't have problems with pregnant mums smoking 6 packs a day or using heroin or crack ....

The same goes for its contents.

Technically, no.

If you decide to have a late term abortion, you will get yourself in a lot of hot water in most parts of the world

Just as I have no say how you wish to dispose of the contents of your gonads.

again, technically no.

If I am the father of a child, I will be legally forced to confirm to a host of regulations for the financial upkeep of it (again, in most parts of the world)

Because they are yours.

again, technically no.

The moment a second person comes on teh scene, it is no longer purely a question of "my, my my"

You keep bringing up the black person argument.. But you fail to notice that you wish to impose the same sort of rules that plantation owners had on their slaves on women's reproductive organs and whatever potential human they may be carrying.

How can you be so cruel as to neglect the hardship plantation owners had to undergo as a consequence of being legally forced to abide by legislation giving blacks equal rights?

Do you see why your black person argument fails now?

Do you see why you have more in common with the plantation owners and the like?

You are treating the mother like she is the black slave and denying her the right to her own body.

You are treating the child in the womb worse than a black slave, but by using the same essential tools of the era - namely using the language of unconsciousness to defend an indefensible position

One could say that you are trolling and goading.

feel free to indicate the ad homs (I don't think calling Lucy a two faced whore in the midst of her hate spiel is valid, particularly if it is tagged with a request to please continue the ad homming)

It is a case of your values against mine and since it is my body for example, if I wished to have an abortion, my values would win out against yours. Do you understand now?

The argument of the strong over powering the weak isn't necessarily a valid victory of values.

I mean back in the day, many new settlers in colonial settings also had a similar victory of "values"

Having carried two children, both of whom to the utter detriment of my physical health, I can assure you, even my doctors and specialists refer to them as parasites.

So if a woman comes to them bearing a child or a tape worm, their initial response is to offer suggestions on how to get rid of it?

And if a woman decides to keep the child, their reaction is the same as if the woman had decided to harbor the tape worm?

But I wanted them so I kept them and they are now my born feral parasites and I would die for them in an instant.


A foreign body in your own that drains you of everything is a parasite, by any definition of the word.

children continue to be parasites (ie sucking the resources of finance, health and personal freedom of their parents) for a long time after they are born so it doesn't really hold - we do however have the situation where you are prepared to die for them in an instant, yet kill them in another so something else is at play other than their (so-called) mere status as a parasite.

I would say that you were goading her.

why yes, I certainly have a hide letting that gem drop after her liturgy of personal insult

Yes, very much so.

then you might as well drop the whole "its a parasite so it has no rights" deal

A fertilised egg is not an "actual person". It has the potential to be a person if it is not expelled from the mother's body either naturally or unnaturally.

a "fertilized egg" that suffers from the misconduct of a company with a toxic workplace still stands to receive a pay out however

A fertilised egg is not a "person". And it is "my body" and "my convenience" over yours.

Its not so much my convenience that is at stake, any more than a discussion on the ethics of black slavery revolves around my convenience

There is no ethical issue here. There can be an ethical issue if you deem your morals and values to be more important than a woman's over her body"

But since you are nothing, the reality is that there can be no ethical issue..

I think in the twilight of your mind you know you have done something wrong

You called her a "two faced whore". In my opinion, you are a "fucking retard".

Friendly banter of course.

congrats on resolving the matter

 

[lightgigantic]

Thanks. Should I expect my membership card in the mail soon?

According to the blurb on your heading, you are already a "registered senior user"


quadraphonics
Registered Senior User (5,594 posts)

 

[Asguard]

Concidering it is just a paricite the term could well be "infected women" or "infected pt"

 

[lightgigantic]

Concidering it is just a paricite the term could well be "infected women" or "infected pt"

hmmm
sounds like it would revolutionize the greeting card industry

 

[Asguard]

They already exist

 

[lightgigantic]

They already exist

actually the images and the typography tend to be found on totally different cards

 

[Big Chiller]

*tsk tsk*

For all usual practical intents and purposes,
logical consistency = OCD (also sociopathy(-like), psychopathy(-like))

Untrue, that doesn't have anything to do with logical consistency e.g. we are mechanical, physical but still we're different from the machines we build.

 

[Bells]

Please be consistent.
If you are going to continue with the language of unconsciousness, you will also need a special term for the mother (to be a mother, one must have a child, yes?)

A woman who lives down the road has dogs and she calls herself mummy. A woman can be a mother without physically having children.

On the contrary, the more you try to justify your argument, the more you seem to require an expanded repertoire of special terms ....

Not at all. I don't give legal and equal rights to a zygote. You seem to believe they should have such rights.

I think you miss the point.

An unscrupulous company can be liable to pay damages (in the case of toxicity that causes birth defects) to an entity who, in your books, doesn't have recourse to a scrap of justice issues

Those who sue are entities and do exist.

yet damages can still be meted out on account of the experiences of the said embryo ... so go figure

Nope. Those who sue are not embryos but actual people.

Do you know the difference between the two?

But how can they make claim to a state when they, according to your analysis, don't exist?

IOW why do you require a separate kind of thinking in the case of abortion?
If an entity can be awarded damages to experiences in the womb, why can't you see abortion also as a greater type of damages, namely murder?

They are awarded damages because the companies damaged the mother/father's bodies which resulted in their being born with physical or mental difficulties and the companies who harmed their parents knew of the damage that would occur to those people and any offspring they may have in the future.

I did answer the question of why, namely because its not purely a question of "my" genitals

Do you think your balls belong to the greater community?

You are free to do what ever you want, but you are not free of the consequences. Society is kind of like that in general, regardless whether you want to draw the final tier of authority at state run legislation or not.

What consequences?

Abortion is legal. So what consequences? God will smite them? Since there is no God, that is kind of a moot point. Will they be turned into smurfs maybe? Again, pure fantasy..

Or are you going to run around and brand women who have had abortions as "whores", etc..?

So what consequences?

no
if you read it again, its more that you consider the reproductive consequences of your uterus livestock and assets

Again, do you think the contents of women's uterus' are owned collectively so that she should be held to account for what she does to its contents?

Can a woman not own her own reproductive organs?

Take it you also don't have problems with pregnant mums smoking 6 packs a day or using heroin or crack ....

What do you expect me to do to such women LG? Beat them with a big stick to force them to stop? Spurn them as "whores"?

Technically, no.

If you decide to have a late term abortion, you will get yourself in a lot of hot water in most parts of the world

Nope. Women get late term abortions all the time. And it is completely legal. So what is your point? What trouble will these women get in? Which parts of the world?

again, technically no.

If I am the father of a child, I will be legally forced to confirm to a host of regulations for the financial upkeep of it (again, in most parts of the world)

And?

Once that child is out, then yes, you are required to financially maintain it. But only once it is out. You have no legal obligations to it until it is outside of her womb.

again, technically no.

The moment a second person comes on teh scene, it is no longer purely a question of "my, my my"

A zygote is not a person.

How can you be so cruel as to neglect the hardship plantation owners had to undergo as a consequence of being legally forced to abide by legislation giving blacks equal rights?

Troll.

A black person is a legal entity and thus, has equal rights. A zygote is not a legal entity and thus, has no rights.

Do you see why you have more in common with the plantation owners and the like?

You are the one saying that women should not be allowed to determine their rights over their own reproductive organs. Not me.

You are treating the child in the womb worse than a black slave, but by using the same essential tools of the era - namely using the language of unconsciousness to defend an indefensible position

You are treating the woman like an incubator and denying her any say over her own body. In short, it is another form of rape.. the denial of a woman's right to consent to what happens to her own body.

feel free to indicate the ad homs (I don't think calling Lucy a two faced whore in the midst of her hate spiel is valid, particularly if it is tagged with a request to please continue the ad homming)

You said it to her. You are now in this thread saying that a woman cannot say 'her uterus'.. In short, I think you are a control freak and a misogynist to the point where you think a woman should have no rights over her own body once she conceives.. as if she is only there as a breeder..

A woman who is, as you term it, "pro abortion" (when I have never once met a person who is pro-abortion in my life) is thus a "whore".

The argument of the strong over powering the weak isn't necessarily a valid victory of values.

I mean back in the day, many new settlers in colonial settings also had a similar victory of "values"

Poor you. The great white male not able to force your beliefs on women.. The horror..

So if a woman comes to them bearing a child or a tape worm, their initial response is to offer suggestions on how to get rid of it?

And if a woman decides to keep the child, their reaction is the same as if the woman had decided to harbor the tape worm?

They were very supportive and helpful when I decided to keep the two tape worms. In fact, they saved our lives to ensure they were born and I was alive to see them afterwards.

children continue to be parasites (ie sucking the resources of finance, health and personal freedom of their parents) for a long time after they are born so it doesn't really hold - we do however have the situation where you are prepared to die for them in an instant, yet kill them in another so something else is at play other than their (so-called) mere status as a parasite.

Once they are born, they become a person, a legal entity who is entitled to rights and to be kept from all harm.. While they are little parasites, loving little parasites who run their parents into the ground, they are born and thus, our children.

why yes, I certainly have a hide letting that gem drop after her liturgy of personal insult

Having seen you post on this site LG, you are hardly innocent. So please, stop claiming you are.

I think in the twilight of your mind you know you have done something wrong

What have I done wrong?

 

[Asguard]

bells I'm still waiting for your responce to my post

 

[lightgigantic]

A woman who lives down the road has dogs and she calls herself mummy. A woman can be a mother without physically having children.

:bugeye:
so the women who has dogs doesn't think of them as her children?

Those who sue are entities and do exist.

but the basis for their case is a stage when technically they didn't exist, at least in your books

Nope. Those who sue are not embryos but actual people.

Do you know the difference between the two?

if they are suing due to damages to their person when they didn't even exist, how is that possible?

They are awarded damages because the companies damaged the mother/father's bodies which resulted in their being born with physical or mental difficulties and the companies who harmed their parents knew of the damage that would occur to those people and any offspring they may have in the future.

hence the actual people who actually existed got actually damaged ... not some non existent person

Do you think your balls belong to the greater community?

If I beget offspring, then I certainly have commitments to the greater community (even if its only in terms of child support)

What consequences?

Abortion is legal. So what consequences?
God will smite them? Since there is no God, that is kind of a moot point. Will they be turned into smurfs maybe? Again, pure fantasy..

getting implicated in ethical issues of course.

I mean at a certain time, shooting natives was legal - this didn't mean that the perpetrators didn't face consequences from others didn't think it was ethically valid.

Again, do you think the contents of women's uterus' are owned collectively so that she should be held to account for what she does to its contents?

Can a woman not own her own reproductive organs?

depends whether they are reproducing or not - btw same holds with a man's genitals, or even a dog's in many cases for that matter

What do you expect me to do to such women LG? Beat them with a big stick to force them to stop? Spurn them as "whores"?

Actually at the moment I am just asking whether you have ethical reservations about such scenarios.

If you bothered to read previous posts with lucy (aside from the isolated instance of calling her a two faced whore in jest amidst her fury of ad homs ... which is something you seem to have grown very attached on for some reason), you would understand my opinions on the establishing legislation divorced from a foundation in social consensus.

So yes or no?

Do you have problems with mums doing heroin etc?
(Just to be clear, I am not asking you for opinions on what should be done to prevent, stop or otherwise deal with pregnant mums using heroin - I am just asking whether you have any problems with it).

Nope. Women get late term abortions all the time. And it is completely legal. So what is your point? What trouble will these women get in? Which parts of the world?

I'm not sure which part of the world you are from, but in most parts, if you decide to have an abortion 3 days before its due, you will have quite a lot of red tape to surmount

And?

I can't pass this lame arsed excuse that its just me and my reproductive organs

Once that child is out, then yes, you are required to financially maintain it.
But only once it is out. You have no legal obligations to it until it is outside of her womb.

You said you have no issue on what happens if I dispose of the contents of my organs - that's all I did. I mean its not like I gave birth to the thing. Its got nothing to do with me, whether its in or out.

A zygote is not a person.

neither is a black, according to some particular time, places and circumstances

Troll.

A black person is a legal entity and thus, has equal rights.

Please don't play coy.
Legal terms are for the most part arbitrary.
I mean an argument from yesteryear about whether blacks should receive civil liberties being dismissed on the grounds that it has no legal precedent is kinda piss weak, don't you think?

If you simply want to play the game of being satisfied with whatever legal definitions are in vogue, you have no grounds for protest if it is deemed illegal or contesting for social change int hose places where it already is

A zygote is not a legal entity and thus, has no rights.

yet even a person can be awarded damages on account of their experiences as a zygote ... which kind of begs the question why the damages of abortion a zygote experiences doesn't read on the radar of the minds of persons like yourself

You are the one saying that women should not be allowed to determine their rights over their own reproductive organs. Not me.

much like there were protagonists saying similar things about the rights plantation owners had over their livestock and assets

You are treating the woman like an incubator and denying her any say over her own body. In short, it is another form of rape.. the denial of a woman's right to consent to what happens to her own body.

You are treating a person worse than an incubator, by sentencing them to death without the slightest inquiry going on beyond the whim of the person whom they are dependent on

You said it to her.

after she said several things to me

thats generally how goading works, isn't it?
(how long have you been here on sci again?)

You are now in this thread saying that a woman cannot say 'her uterus'..

sure she can say it.
My point is that its not a very apt term when you have another entity on the table... much like there a few unsound aspects at work in a plantation owners use of "my assets" in regards to the blacks he has in slavery

In short, I think you are a control freak

Actually I would say that killing another for the sake of convenience is kind of a control freak thing

and a misogynist to the point where you think a woman should have no rights over her own body once she conceives.. as if she is only there as a breeder..

the notion of being a mother (even if its only in regards to raising dogs) brings a few key issues of obligation to the discussion.

IOW its a general notion that once one is awarded a position of being dependent on, it means one is also met by a few issues of obligation.
In fact you could say that its a key aspect of making the transition to adult life.

A woman who is, as you term it, "pro abortion" (when I have never once met a person who is pro-abortion in my life) is thus a "whore".

Worse I am afraid.
A woman who is pro-abortion doesn't see any inherent distinction between a parasite and a child in the womb.
Whores don't exclusively partake of such a degraded view.

Poor you. The great white male not able to force your beliefs on women.. The horror..

actually, having made the grade to an exterior womb existing type of living entity, I am not the victim of your beliefs

Once they are born, they become a person, a legal entity who is entitled to rights and to be kept from all harm..

yet they can be awarded damages on account of experiences before they were a (so-called) legal entity, so something else gives

While they are little parasites, loving little parasites who run their parents into the ground, they are born and thus, our children.

I've got news for you.
They were on the make a whole 9 months before

Having seen you post on this site LG, you are hardly innocent.

feel free to find any evidence to back up your claims

So please, stop claiming you are.

If you judge Lucy's lead up as friendly banter, its not clear why you have problems with it

What have I done wrong?

I think you know

 

[Tiassa]

SCUM-E aesthetics

neither is a black, according to some particular time, places and circumstances

Stupid people, stupid times, stupid places, and stupid circumstances.

Look, one thing that puzzles me about the anti-abortion outlook is that the prohibitionists don't seem to acknowledge the fact that they have navels.

This is actually a very important consideration that seems rather quite deliberately overlooked.

Setting aside skin color, is there no difference between a human being existing in the world in general and an organism wholly dependent on the human being it leeches from?

And, yes, that does seem a callous word—leeches.

Is there no practical difference between being inside another person's body and existing outside that other person's body?

By overlooking this consideration, the prohibitionists construct an either/or assertion, and in doing so argue to degrade the humanity of women in general—pregnant or otherwise.

This is the simple reason why I apply a dryfoot policy. You make it to the world, welcome to the world. As long as you're squatting inside another person's body, though, that person gets a say.

The more complex reasons, though, derive from the paucity and desperation of the prohibitionist argument, and also from its general futility.

Who among us would apply for the job of Section Chief for Uterine and Menstrual Enforcment? You know, "Hello, my name is Bob Bobberson. I am the SCUM-E for the Seattle Police Department."

Ye gads, can you imagine that in Britain? "Afternoon, ma'am. Time for the Pokies. Please lift your dress."

And, of course, the prohibitionists naturally don't want to be viewed in such a light, but that's the problem with the rape exception. The prohibitionists are simply admitting that their whole argument is a matter of aesthetics.

 

[wynn]

I mean who feels magnanimously disposed towards a tapeworm?

One of the first chants that Buddhist novies in Thailand learn is the one on spreading goodwill to snakes.
And apparently, it makes a world of difference in that the snakes rarely bite monks ...
I presume this works for tapeworms too ...

 

[lightgigantic]

Stupid people, stupid times, stupid places, and stupid circumstances.

Look, one thing that puzzles me about the anti-abortion outlook is that the prohibitionists don't seem to acknowledge the fact that they have navels.

This is actually a very important consideration that seems rather quite deliberately overlooked.

Setting aside skin color,

if you are prepared to set aside skin colour, why aren't you prepared to set aside your belly button?

is there no difference between a human being existing in the world in general and an organism wholly dependent on the human being it leeches from?

as mentioned several times earlier, declaring that one must be dependent in order to have access to justice issues simply empowers those already with power. In civilized society however, a primary function for justice is to protect those who are defenseless or dependent

And, yes, that does seem a callous word—leeches.

sure
in the same sense, society tends to relegate everyone to a position of leeching of another body or individual.

Of course the reason that we do tend to lobby societal powers to provide things for their members is because the word "dependence" evokes the notion of "the strong protecting the weak." Granted that in more barbaric cultures the word "dependent" tends to evoke the meaning "therefore you have no rights and i can do to you whatever I please".

Is there no practical difference between being inside another person's body and existing outside that other person's body?

If you also don't have problems with late term abortion or pregnant mums smoking 6 packs a day or using crack, then no.

By overlooking this consideration, the prohibitionists construct an either/or assertion, and in doing so argue to degrade the humanity of women in general—pregnant or otherwise.


This is the simple reason why I apply a dryfoot policy. You make it to the world, welcome to the world. As long as you're squatting inside another person's body, though, that person gets a say.

On the contrary, this either/or policy is obvious arbitrary and absurd since there are obvious ethical considerations (when I say obvious, I mean even obvious for those who give the green light to abortion) for a mum who is taking drugs or requesting an abortion three days before it is due.

The more complex reasons, though, derive from the paucity and desperation of the prohibitionist argument, and also from its general futility.

admittedly the arguments of the all go abortion camp tend to be quite simple - pursuit of convenience at the expense of others who exist in a state of dependence - a marked similarity to the arguments of the cotton plantation owners of yesteryear I might add ...

Who among us would apply for the job of Section Chief for Uterine and Menstrual Enforcment? You know, "Hello, my name is Bob Bobberson. I am the SCUM-E for the Seattle Police Department."

who amongst us would advocate passing extreme legislation that doesn't have the social foundation to be practical?

Ye gads, can you imagine that in Britain? "Afternoon, ma'am. Time for the Pokies. Please lift your dress."

I guess first we would have to imagine a society where parenthood is viewed as something more than a pastime for the rich with time on their hands

And, of course, the prohibitionists naturally don't want to be viewed in such a light, but that's the problem with the rape exception. The prohibitionists are simply admitting that their whole argument is a matter of aesthetics.

Generally a discussion of ethics is based at reshaping views on a problem ... which then, if successful provides small societal changes in lieu of changing attitudes.

There is always a tension in societies in determining to what degree something should be legislated against and to what degree it should merely be controlled by societal norms of acceptable behavior.

IOW to suggest that a discussion of abortion be analyzed purely in terms of legislation is absurd since the hot seat it is contending for is aesthetics (since if a piece of legislation is going to avoid being a failure, it certainly must have a degree of "aesthetics" about it)

 

[Bells]

bells I'm still waiting for your responce to my post

Sorry, your question was lost in LG's drivel..

Bells I'm still interested in your comment on my post, if as you say its appalling if a male partner has consentual sex but sabertashes the condom so she falls pregnant and why should she have to put up with the results then why is it ok for the reverse? If the female partner pokes holes in the condoms or lies about taking the pill then legally its to bad and he has to pay for the child ect. In fact I herd one women say that its a women's right to have kids no matter what her partner wants and if she has to lie to get one good on her

I personally think tampering with birth control is bad regardless of who does it.

Where did I say it was acceptable or "okay"?

so the women who has dogs doesn't think of them as her children?

No idea.. She calls herself their 'mummy'. And refers to herself as that when she plays and takes them for walks and feeds them and cleans them and after them.. So is she a mother?

but the basis for their case is a stage when technically they didn't exist, at least in your books

But the damage done to their mother resulted in her being harmed and thus, not being able to have a healthy baby when she chooses to.

if they are suing due to damages to their person when they didn't even exist, how is that possible?

They would have been born healthy but for the actions of the company which knowingly poisoned their mother and caused her irreversible damage so that she could never conceive a healthy child. Really, it's not that difficult.

hence the actual people who actually existed got actually damaged ... not some non existent person

But they did exist. You have to exist to be able to sue.

They were born. So they are human beings with equal rights. Get it yet?

If I beget offspring, then I certainly have commitments to the greater community (even if its only in terms of child support)

I'm not talking about the horror story of you breeding. I am talking about your balls and their contents. Do they belong to the community.

getting implicated in ethical issues of course.

I mean at a certain time, shooting natives was legal - this didn't mean that the perpetrators didn't face consequences from others didn't think it was ethically valid.

Shooting a person is not legal or moral because you are harming a person. But abortion is legal. Why is that? Could it be because the zygote is not a person?

Do you understand now?

So what are the consequences of a woman having rights over the contents of her own uterus? What are the ethical issues of a woman having rights over her own body? Why do you think a woman should be denied rights to determine what happens to her body?

depends whether they are reproducing or not - btw same holds with a man's genitals, or even a dog's in many cases for that matter

So when does one determine that a woman or a man is reproducing and thus, make their reproductive organs community property? For example, I will assume that you are an adult male? Which means you are capable of reproducing. Does that mean that your balls belong to the greater community?

Do you advocate the ownership of owning body parts of another person? Are you now advocating community ownership of women when they get to breeding age or when they become pregnant?

Actually at the moment I am just asking whether you have ethical reservations about such scenarios.

If you bothered to read previous posts with lucy (aside from the isolated instance of calling her a two faced whore in jest amidst her fury of ad homs ... which is something you seem to have grown very attached on for some reason), you would understand my opinions on the establishing legislation divorced from a foundation in social consensus.

So yes or no?

Do you have problems with mums doing heroin etc?
(Just to be clear, I am not asking you for opinions on what should be done to prevent, stop or otherwise deal with pregnant mums using heroin - I am just asking whether you have any problems with it).

Any person doing heroin is an issue because heroin is an illegal substance.

As to what my reservations are to what women consume while pregnant.. Ermm.. It really is none of my business. I may not like it or I may find it bad to smoke 6 packs a day regardless of whether they are pregnant or not, but it is not for me to impose my beliefs upon others.

Laws solely by social concensus is how hundreds of women were burned at the stake. Is that what you wish to go back to?

I'm not sure which part of the world you are from, but in most parts, if you decide to have an abortion 3 days before its due, you will have quite a lot of red tape to surmount

Depends on the circumstances.

And in many circumstances, it is legal.

I can't pass this lame arsed excuse that its just me and my reproductive organs

But it is just you and your reproductive organs. The only other person who has a say is your mate..

You said you have no issue on what happens if I dispose of the contents of my organs - that's all I did. I mean its not like I gave birth to the thing. Its got nothing to do with me, whether its in or out.

neither is a black, according to some particular time, places and circumstances

Legal terms are for the most part arbitrary.
I mean an argument from yesteryear about whether blacks should receive civil liberties being dismissed on the grounds that it has no legal precedent is kinda piss weak, don't you think?

If you simply want to play the game of being satisfied with whatever legal definitions are in vogue, you have no grounds for protest if it is deemed illegal or contesting for social change int hose places where it already is

Legal terms are arbitrary? Except when it comes to abortion, eh?

You are in this thread, trashing it, and using the 'black person' and slavery argument, while arguing that a woman's uterus is not 'hers' to make any decisions for.. Are you god damn kidding me?

yet even a person can be awarded damages on account of their experiences as a zygote ... which kind of begs the question why the damages of abortion a zygote experiences doesn't read on the radar of the minds of persons like yourself

Different issue.

As you well know. So why do you keep using this argument?

much like there were protagonists saying similar things about the rights plantation owners had over their livestock and assets

I'm sorry, I am the one saying that women should be free to determine their reproduction. You know, freedom and self determination. You are saying that women have no right to say 'my my my' when it comes to their uterus. So please, you can stop your trolling now.

You are treating a person worse than an incubator, by sentencing them to death without the slightest inquiry going on beyond the whim of the person whom they are dependent on

What person have I sentenced to death?

Can you please provide a link where I have sentenced any person to death?

after she said several things to me

thats generally how goading works, isn't it?
(how long have you been here on sci again?)

You called her a whore.

My point is that its not a very apt term when you have another entity on the table... much like there a few unsound aspects at work in a plantation owners use of "my assets" in regards to the blacks he has in slavery

But you can't own people. A woman has every right to own her uterus.

Do you understand the difference now?

the notion of being a mother (even if its only in regards to raising dogs) brings a few key issues of obligation to the discussion.

IOW its a general notion that once one is awarded a position of being dependent on, it means one is also met by a few issues of obligation.
In fact you could say that its a key aspect of making the transition to adult life.

Only if one chooses to.

Do you understand the distinction between the two?

I can choose to have a child like I can choose not to. If I choose not to and I realise I am pregnant, I am well within my rights to terminate that pregnancy if I so choose. If I choose to have a child, then I would not terminate the pregnancy and I would be awarded the position of being depended on by my child once it is born.

Worse I am afraid.
A woman who is pro-abortion doesn't see any inherent distinction between a parasite and a child in the womb.
Whores don't exclusively partake of such a degraded view.

Tell me LG, do you know what my stance on abortion is personally?

Since you have in a round about way labeled me as being worse than a whore, do you actually know what my stance or personal belief is when it comes to abortion and my own body?

No. So please refrain from making such idiotic statements about people being "pro-abortion". No one is pro abortion. People are pro-choice, which is vastly different and you know it. Your use of terminology such as "pro-abortion" shows how little your complete lack of honesty in this debate.

actually, having made the grade to an exterior womb existing type of living entity, I am not the victim of your beliefs

And what are my beliefs LG?

yet they can be awarded damages on account of experiences before they were a (so-called) legal entity, so something else gives

Yep. Because a third party decided to poison at least one of their parents without any consent. It really is that simple.

I've got news for you.
They were on the make a whole 9 months before

Because I consciously chose to have them and continue with the pregnancies.

If you judge Lucy's lead up as friendly banter, its not clear why you have problems with it

I am not saying hers was. I am saying you cross a line by calling her a whore. Much like she would have cross the line if she had called you a rapist for example.

I think you know

No I do not.

Can you please elaborate and explain and link your evidence as to what I have done wrong in regards to this subject matter?

 

[wynn]

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.

I had previously agreed with Glaucon on the point that brought this up, so I'll answer:

If the pro-abortion camp would agree "Yes, abortion is killing, deal with it", then the anti-abortion camp would be challenged to show why killing is wrong.

Interestingly, and counterintuitively perhaps, it is not self-evident to everyone that killing (at least killing humans) is wrong.


Perhaps the pro-abortion camp does actually believe that killing other humans is wrong, but reconceptualizes abortion into "removing unwanted tissue" so as to preserve their sense of innoncence.
(Note that many pro-abortionists are against the capital punishment, on the grounds that CP is killing, and killing is wrong.)


I will argue that without recourse to at least karma, reincarnation and the conviction that life as it is usually lived is not as good as it was meant for living beings, esp. humans, and the conviction that there is a better, greater existence for us,
it is impossible to show that killing is wrong.


As long as we recognize that we have needs, interests and concerns that are in conflict with the needs, interests and concerns of other people and other beings,
but are unable to contextualize this conflict in any other manner than "life is a struggle for survival" and "only the strong survive",
this long there is a tendency to reconceptualize those conflicts in such a manner that grants us a sense of innoncence.

 

[lightgigantic]

One of the first chants that Buddhist novies in Thailand learn is the one on spreading goodwill to snakes.
And apparently, it makes a world of difference in that the snakes rarely bite monks ...
I presume this works for tapeworms too ...

For most of the contributors here that would be quite an advanced lesson, since most are having difficult with the basic notion of spreading goodwill to their own species ...

(BTW similar precept there in vaisnavism eg BG 5,29 12,14 etc)

 

[wynn]

But they did exist. You have to exist to be able to sue.

Legal representation is generally guaranteed for people who for some reason or other are unable to take legal action themselves. Such as people who are in a coma, mentally unstable, prisoners, minors, victims of some crimes ...

Not being able to take legal action oneself does not mean one does not exist.

So what are the consequences of a woman having rights over the contents of her own uterus? What are the ethical issues of a woman having rights over her own body? Why do you think a woman should be denied rights to determine what happens to her body?

The point is that if your reproductive organs would really be yours, then you would have full control over them.

You would not have to rely on contraceptives when you didn't want to conceive, nor on fertility treatments when you'd have trouble conceiving; where you live, what you eat, what you do would have no bearing on the functionality of your reproductive organs.
But as we all know, these things don't work this way.


It is not about "men" or "the state" or "society" owning any woman's uterus.

It's about understanding that our bodies are only provisionally ours.

 

[Saquist]

^

Would anyone like to explain the logic of the idea that abortion is wrong because a 'child' has the right to live, but not if you were raped?

After all, if you equate a zygote, embryo or fetus with a child, you'd want to protect it under ANY circumstances, right? You would not, after all, condone killing a born, walking, talking child because his/her mother was raped...

Yes, yes, I hear you already Lightgigantic et al...She was a slut, she should close her legs,etc. Come get me, pro-lifers. *coils and shadowboxes*

There is really no justification.
This is a social issue in America not a moral issue. American laws stand as they are to protect rights not morality. Under this ideal the rights of a person that can't recognize their own right will always be considered a lesser concerns. There is nothing moral about.

It's means of escaping responsibility for loose behavior.

Back when Children were valuable (in some nations they still are) taking a child's life was like taking away their pension. They were a work force as well. Now children are prevented from working, we have too many of them they generate crime, become a burden on the Government and Educational system. It's within Americas best self interest to remove the excess. After all they will eventually die anyway.