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

[Asguard]

Bells you didn't, but where a women has a remidy for that, legally its "suck it up" for a Guy. Even the government will chase him for money for her

 

[Bells]

Bells you didn't, but where a women has a remidy for that, legally its "suck it up" for a Guy. Even the government will chase him for money for her

For her or for the child?

It is called child support for a reason. The money is not deemed hers but for the benefit of the child.

Which is a completely different issue to abortion...

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.

No. Of course it does not. Because women have a brain and can choose to use contraception instead having some unknown twat living in god knows where claiming ownership of her uterus and its contents and trying to use arguments against slavery to advance his claim..

The point is that women do choose when to conceive and when to have children. Sometimes they have abortions. It really is no ones business.

In that, she owns her own body and has full control over it.

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.

Bullshit.

As a male, your body is your own. But a woman is deemed a breeder and thus, her body is "provisionally ours". I am sorry, but my body is not "ours". I do not know you and I can assure you, you have no claim over when I conceive and what I do with my body. Just as your gonads are not "provisionally ours". They are yours. You can do whatever you want with them. Wear tight jocks so you can't conceive.. none of my business.. Remove them entirely.. none of my business. It is yours to do with as you wish.

There is no "provisionally ours".

 

[lightgigantic]

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?

Let me make it easy for you .... do you think she uses the title "mummy" because she adopts the dependent provider like role that a mother has with children or do you think that she uses the title "mummy" because she is convinced she is the biological parent of the dogs?

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.

yet it is the nonexistent person who is receiving payment for damages on top of whatever the mother is receiving.

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.

who's talking about her never conceiving a healthy child? - let me give you an example - a friend of my parents was picking tomatoes on a farm while a few months pregnant (ie carrying a fertilized egg, in your language). It got crop dusted with something (probably a pesticide) that gave her child (as she realized at the time of birth) some severe deformities - she went on to have other children who were quite healthy. Anyways, to cut a long story short, the child was awarded a payment for damages due to experiences it sustained as a "fertilized egg".

Now by your logic, a mother (you've got a host of disingenuous terms for a child in the womb , eg - fertilized egg, zygote, tissue, etc, but none for "mother" so we will ride with it for the time being) can abort the child on account of it not being due any valid experience to warrant the host of justice/rights issues that we award in our magnanimous society. Yet at the same time, the exact same zygote/fertilized egg/tissue/child in the womb can be awarded damages on account of its experiences. IOW even though it is in a state of dependence, its independence (the independence that anything has, simply on the merit of its existence) has has been interfered with, hence there is a justice issue at stake.

IOW its not just a case of woman and her reproductive organs or even a woman and her reproductive organs and a company.
Clearly there is a third party interest at stake here.

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

if they didn't exist at the time of the experience, what exactly is their basis for pursuing legal/justice channels?

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

so if the poisoning killed them instead of merely deforming them, there would be no justice issues at stake?

I'm not talking about the horror story of you breeding.

will the irony never end?

I am talking about your balls and their contents. Do they belong to the community.

well that's what I am talking about - if I am not careful what i do with the contents of my balls, then yes, not only will I owe something to the community but I will be forced to honor that commitment

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?

The reason that it was legal to shoot a black man was because they were also similarly relegated to the state of not being a "person" (by use of a similar language of unconsciousness)

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?

Similar to the consequences of a plantation owner not having rights over his "assets" .. or an examination of the ethical issues of a plantation owner having rights over their own "assets" ... or asking the question why do you think a plantation owner should be denied rights to determine what happens to their "assets" .... IOW in all cases, a reexamination of the term "assets" (minus the language of unconsciousness of course) provides a different scenario than a mere examination of a plantation owner and their "assets"

So when does one determine that a woman or a man is reproducing and thus, make their reproductive organs community property?

when there is a result of course
I mean even in terms of our current standard, a man doesn't get off the hook if a woman arrives with a new born and the man says its got nothing to do with him since the last time he saw her was about 9 months ago.

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?

depends what results ensue of course

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?

Perhaps people were at similar loggerheads a few hundred years ago when outraged plantation owners were questioning whether their draft mules or barns would also receive human rights

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

so legalization is the only problem you have with pregnant mums shooting up on a regular basis?

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.

So if you have a daughter who grows up and becomes pregnant and she lights up 6 packs a day, you just say "whatever makes you feel happy honey"?

Laws solely by social concensus is how hundreds of women were burned at the stake.

probably explains why it was legal ( no doubt they also had a similar language of unconsciousness running rife )

Is that what you wish to go back to?

Go back to?
we are still there

Only an idiotic regime would attempt to establish legislation completely divorced from societal support (or at least tolerance)

Depends on the circumstances.

And in many circumstances, it is legal.

98 out of 154 of the worlds 154 most populous countries is a majority

Even then, 2 of the states of australia requires some sort of criteria be met, so its not as if the whole country is on par with the human rights standard of china

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

and the family justice commission (regardless of what you or your mate think in some cases) ...

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

well that would be your argument, wouldn't it?

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?

The reason I use the black man argument is because at a particular time, their being was also defined solely in terms of a man's "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.

... I mean its not like plantation owners also didn't have their issues of freedom and self determination, yes?

the problem is that in your quest for freedom you are trampling on the freedom of another - IOW for as long as you attempt to relegate the discussion of abortion purely in terms of "my uterus", I will be drawing the analogy of a plantation discussing slavery purely in terms of "my assets".

What person have I sentenced to death?

the persons who you decree as dispensable because they exist in a relationship of dependence with the mother of course

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

try your last few posts on this thread

You called her a whore.

Since she didn't respond to previous requests to drop the goading, I simply played her game ... along with the tag that she please continue to insult my genealogy.

Guess she wasn't sharp enough to see it as an attempt to deflate her goading.
You too for that matter.


BTW you called me a fucking retard didn't you?

In my opinion, you are a "fucking retard".

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

Do you understand the difference now?

If you are getting sick of the "my asset" argument of the plantation owner you had better drop the "my uterus" argument for abortion

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.

Unfortunately, no.

Once one has adopted a position of being obligated (by whatever means) , one can't drop out of that obligation merely by choosing. It tends to infringe on the justice issues of whom one is obligated to.

Hence it becomes a technical issue as to what constitutes being obligated and how - for instance there is a radical distinction in the obligations of a plantation owner when a worker is designated a slave one year and an employee the next.

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?

If you can in a direct way label someone a misogynist, I wouldn't have thought the process would be so alien to you.

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.

It was a response to your idiotic banter about equating pregnancy with hosting a parasite

And what are my beliefs LG?

A child in the womb is not a person

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

The problem is that its not just the parents receiving damages for personal injury ... I mean that's generally how personal injury works isn't it? A person is present in a particular situation to get injured, yes?

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

lucky for them

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.

So she equates spiritual advancement with constipation, declares that my genitals are abscessed, asserts that I am a female dog on heat because I support the views of another poster and prides herself on being able to attack by anus with red hot pincers ... and I respond by suggesting she accepts money for sex (in a half hearted way by requesting her to also please continue with the insults), and I am stepping over the line

:bugeye:


I mean .... seriously

(BTW you calling me a fucking retard and a misogynist crossed the line)

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?

As I said, I think you know

 

[Bells]

Let me make it easy for you .... do you think she uses the title "mummy" because she adopts the dependent provider like role that a mother has with children or do you think that she uses the title "mummy" because she is convinced she is the biological parent of the dogs?

Have to ask her.

At the end of the day, anyone can be "mummy". Some are mummy to dolls and other objects.

yet it is the nonexistent person who is receiving payment for damages on top of whatever the mother is receiving.

You cannot sue from the womb.

IOW its not just a case of woman and her reproductive organs or even a woman and her reproductive organs and a company.
Clearly there is a third party interest at stake here.

Certainly and a woman should not be harmed by scrupulous farmers while she is pregnant so that it adversely affects the health of her fetus.

if they didn't exist at the time of the experience, what exactly is their basis for pursuing legal/justice channels?

They were born ill or physically or mentally incapacitated as a result of the negligent and wilful actions of a third party on the mother without her consent. Once they are born, they can sue or have others sue on their behalf.

But at the end of the day, a mother has no legal obligations or duty to her unborn child or to the fetus. It is only when that child is born that she has a duty towards it and a legal obligation towards said child. A company or third party has an obligation to not harm the mother which could lead to harm to the fetus, who could then subsequently seek legal recourse once it is born. No court will allow a person to sue on behalf of an unborn child. Do you understand now?

Seriously, do you understand now?

so if the poisoning killed them instead of merely deforming them, there would be no justice issues at stake?

Not at all. The parents of the now deceased fetus could sue.

will the irony never end?

I got chills just thinking about it.

The irony of course is that I am, in your opinion, "pro abortion" and thus, worse than a whore and I have two children while you have none.

if I am not careful what i do with the contents of my balls, then yes, not only will I owe something to the community but I will be forced to honor that commitment

Unless the contents of your gonads fathers a community, you would only be responsible for the care (financial and otherwise) of the child involved.. No one else.

The reason that it was legal to shoot a black man was because they were also similarly relegated to the state of not being a "person" (by use of a similar language of unconsciousness)

I fully understand. But what you consistently fail to understand and thus, continues to troll with this topic is that a black man is a person worthy of rights and worthy of being protected from harm. A fetus is not a person and thus, has no legal rights.

Do you understand the difference now?

Similar to the consequences of a plantation owner not having rights over his "assets" .. or an examination of the ethical issues of a plantation owner having rights over their own "assets" ... or asking the question why do you think a plantation owner should be denied rights to determine what happens to their "assets" .... IOW in all cases, a reexamination of the term "assets" (minus the language of unconsciousness of course) provides a different scenario than a mere examination of a plantation owner and their "assets"

Since when is a fetus an "asset"?

It has no legal status. It is not a person. Once it is born it becomes a person and is thus entitled to legal protection. Prior to that, the mother has no legal duty towards said fetus.

A woman is entitled to determine what happens to her body. Her body is not an asset. It is her self.. her own flesh and blood so to speak. How many times does this have to be repeated to you? Just like slave owners have no moral justification in owning a human person or body that is not their own, no one has any say or ownership over a woman, even if she is pregnant. Therefore the woman is legally entitled to determine her reproduction and if she wants to have an abortion, she is legally allowed to choose to do so. Her unborn fetus/child/whatever has no legal rights to her body... its rights do not and will never trump hers while it is inside her.

Perhaps people were at similar loggerheads a few hundred years ago when outraged plantation owners were questioning whether their draft mules or barns would also receive human rights

Can you please, please stop trolling.

Enough is enough.

You are delving into the land of the ridiculous now.

so legalization is the only problem you have with pregnant mums shooting up on a regular basis?

It is none of my business what a woman decides to shoot up with. My God, how many times does this have to be repeated to you?

So if you have a daughter who grows up and becomes pregnant and she lights up 6 packs a day, you just say "whatever makes you feel happy honey"?

I wouldn't say anything because I would hope that any child of mine would have the brains to know what is and is not good for them.

probably explains why it was legal ( no doubt they also had a similar language of unconsciousness running rife )

Tainted wheat.

So what is your excuse?

Only an idiotic regime would attempt to establish legislation completely divorced from societal support (or at least tolerance)

And yet abortion is legal...

Sooo....

Even then, 2 of the states of australia requires some sort of criteria be met, so its not as if the whole country is on par with the human rights standard of china

Yep. She can say it affects her mentally and that's it.

and the family justice commission (regardless of what you or your mate think in some cases) ...

If it is to her detriment, the "family justice commission" cannot force her to have the child.

well that would be your argument, wouldn't it?

Well abortion is legal.

So what do you think?

The reason I use the black man argument is because at a particular time, their being was also defined solely in terms of a man's "assets"

At no time have I stated that a woman's uterus and its contents were "assets".

I have said they were a part of her body and thus hers. You have attempted to attach the slavery argument that owning another person is somehow akin to a woman owning her own uterus. Apparently her womb is public property, which would entail that anyone could fill it whenever they fucking chose to because she apparently has no right to determine what happens to her own body. That has been your argument in this thread and why it is overtly offensive.

the problem is that in your quest for freedom you are trampling on the freedom of another - IOW for as long as you attempt to relegate the discussion of abortion purely in terms of "my uterus", I will be drawing the analogy of a plantation discussing slavery purely in terms of "my assets".

What "other"?

A fetus is not an "other". It has no legal entitlements and no rights. Its rights do not overtake that of the mother's.

It is not born and thus, not a person. A slave was a born person and thus was entitled to equal rights. You cannot give rights to something that isn't even born yet and does not even exist yet.

So I will request that you stop using the 'black person' argument. It is dishonest and has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

the persons who you decree as dispensable because they exist in a relationship of dependence with the mother of course

Link where I have decreed an actual person as being dispensable.

Link where I have told a woman that she should get an abortion because the fetus is "dispensable".

Either back up your claims or retract.

try your last few posts on this thread

At no time did I tell a pregnant woman to abort. So either provide evidence or retract and apologise now.

Since she didn't respond to previous requests to drop the goading, I simply played her game ... along with the tag that she please continue to insult my genealogy.

Guess she wasn't sharp enough to see it as an attempt to deflate her goading.
You too for that matter.


BTW you called me a fucking retard didn't you?

You called her a whore.

And yes, in my opinion you are a fucking retard.

If you are getting sick of the "my asset" argument of the plantation owner you had better drop the "my uterus" argument for abortion

No. Because the two are completely different.

A woman owns her bodily organs. A person, however, cannot own another human being because said human being has rights to freedom and liberty and self determination. A zygote is not a born human being and thus, has no such rights by any stretch of the imagination.

Do you understand the difference now and do you understand how your constantly using this dishonest argument is fallacious and immoral?

If you can in a direct way label someone a misogynist, I wouldn't have thought the process would be so alien to you.

You are a misogynist.

You view women as being whores. You wish to deny women the right to self determination. How are your not a misogynist?

Again, what is my personal stance on abortion LG?

You have accused me of being worse than a whore without any proof or knowledge of my personal stance on the matter. Back up your claims or shut the hell up.

It was a response to your idiotic banter about equating pregnancy with hosting a parasite

But a fetus is very much like a parasite.

That is how it is. No matter how cuddly you think that baby is going to be, when it is in utero, it is like a parasite.

A child in the womb is not a person

Correct.

But what is my personal stance on abortion LG?

The problem is that its not just the parents receiving damages for personal injury ... I mean that's generally how personal injury works isn't it? A person is present in a particular situation to get injured, yes?

Nope.

She could not have been pregnant and damage done to her resulting in a child being born with physical or mental disabilities as a direct result of that damage by a third party or entity is enough..

lucky for them

They are sweet little parasites!

I mean .... seriously

(BTW you calling me a fucking retard and a misogynist crossed the line)

And you have told me that I am worse than a whore when you do not even know my personal stance on the issue and then had the audacity to tell me that I have done wrong in regards to abortion.. without being able to back up any of your claims about me personally.

So what have I done wrong LG?

Link? Evidence? Anything at all?

 

[wynn]

No. Of course it does not. Because women have a brain and can choose to use contraception instead having some unknown twat living in god knows where claiming ownership of her uterus and its contents and trying to use arguments against slavery to advance his claim..

The point is that women do choose when to conceive and when to have children. Sometimes they have abortions. It really is no ones business.

In that, she owns her own body and has full control over it.


Bullshit.

As a male, your body is your own. But a woman is deemed a breeder and thus, her body is "provisionally ours". I am sorry, but my body is not "ours". I do not know you and I can assure you, you have no claim over when I conceive and what I do with my body. Just as your gonads are not "provisionally ours". They are yours. You can do whatever you want with them. Wear tight jocks so you can't conceive.. none of my business.. Remove them entirely.. none of my business. It is yours to do with as you wish.

There is no "provisionally ours".

Why are you forcing an opinion on me that is not mine?

 

[wynn]

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.

I think this is an accurate observation.


Note how in practice, the law is not about the truth, but about proving or disproving a charge that was made.

 

[wynn]

I fully understand. But what you consistently fail to understand and thus, continues to troll with this topic is that a black man is a person worthy of rights and worthy of being protected from harm. A fetus is not a person and thus, has no legal rights.

The analogy with the slaves and slave owners is this:
In your view,
an unborn child is to its mother
like a slave is a to a slave owner.

Slave owners did not think their slaves had human rights.
In your view, a pregnant woman does not think her unborn child has human rights.

It has no legal status. It is not a person. Once it is born it becomes a person and is thus entitled to legal protection.

In some countries, if a pregnant woman is murdered, this counts as a double homicide.

Prior to that, the mother has no legal duty towards said fetus.

It's interesting - a pregnant woman can legally kill her child while it is in her womb, but if someone else does it, that person gets charged with homicide ...

A woman is entitled to determine what happens to her body. Her body is not an asset. It is her self.. her own flesh and blood so to speak.

Provide evidence or philosophical reasoning that a person is their body.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The analogy with the slaves and slave owners is this:
In your view,
an unborn child is to its mother
like a slave is a to a slave owner.

Slave owners did not think their slaves had human rights.
In your view, a pregnant woman does not think her unborn child has human rights.





In some countries, if a pregnant woman is murdered, this counts as a double homicide.




It's interesting - a pregnant woman can legally kill her child while it is in her womb, but if someone else does it, that person gets charged with homicide ...





Provide evidence or philosophical reasoning that a person is their body.

You're on good form today Signal.
I like it.


jan.

 

[Asguard]

Bells there is one example of joint ownership by a partnership of peoples bodies
That is the legislation (not sure what ended up happerning with it) which was proposed in SA to require consent of a female partner before you get a vecectomy. The justification was that both partners have an intrest in reproduction and therefore both should have a say in its permanent prevention.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I think this is an accurate observation.


Note how in practice, the law is not about the truth, but about proving or disproving a charge that was made.

That is the only way to get at the truth. How else are you going to find the truth except through investigation and proving and disproving charges?

Saquist observation is flawed. There is no universal standard for what is moral save what society and culture deems it at any given time. It was considered immoral for two men to have sex with each other now same sex unions are accepted. Laws follow morality. Contemporary morality dictates that no ones individual beliefs should infringe on the freedoms of another. This is why same sex unions are becoming more and more protected under the law and why abortions are upheld under the law. Even the pope had to agree to change his stance on the use of condoms because of societal changes, like the introduction of AIDS as a disease. The standards governing morality does not easily change within a religion but as we can see it does shift with the times and will continue to do so in the future.

 

[wynn]

That is the only way to get at the truth. How else are you going to find the truth except through investigation and proving and disproving charges?

In practice, the law is not about finding out the truth about what happened.

If, for example, a person murders someone, but is never charged with murder, they are not tried and not sentenced for murder.

Numerous crimes happen, but when no charges are made, there are no trials and no punishments.

If the law would actually be about the truth, then the law enforcement would see to it that all crimes be persecuted.

There is no universal standard for what is moral save what society and culture deems it at any given time.

This is a meta-ethical stance that is also subject to "what society and culture deems moral at any given time".

There are, for example, societies/cultures in which morality is seen as something that is above the current state of a society/culture.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

In practice, the law is not about finding out the truth about what happened.

If, for example, a person murders someone, but is never charged with murder, they are not tried and not sentenced for murder.

Numerous crimes happen, but when no charges are made, there are no trials and no punishments.

If the law would actually be about the truth, then the law enforcement would see to it that all crimes be persecuted.




This is a meta-ethical stance that is also subject to "what society and culture deems moral at any given time".

There are, for example, societies/cultures in which morality is seen as something that is above the current state of a society/culture.

How do you know the truth if you don't know what happened? How are you to find the truth without finding out what happened? All crimes that are deemed crimes by society that can be proven in court is prosecuted as a crime. You're speaking gooblygook.

And on what do these cultures and societies base their standards of morality? You have to name these cultures and what standards have never fluctuated through time. No culture or society is fixed without any changes.

 

[Gustav]

lg
can you make something out of this?
there might be some relevance.....

On page 38 of this book appears one of the most remarkable photographs I have seen. It shows a young mother playing an energetic game (tag, perhaps, or pig-in-the-middle) with her three children, two girls and a boy. There are four lively, happy people in the photograph, but only six arms and six legs, for the two girls share a body. Between them they have two legs and two arms, but above a single pair of shoulders there are two necks, two heads, two smiling faces. One of Us is about conjoined twins, and its starting point is the conviction that often such twins should be thought of as two people inhabiting one body, not as two people inhabiting two not-yet-separated bodies. Clearly Abigail and Brittany Hensel (the six-year-olds to whose photograph I keep returning) can never be separated (though they do have two hearts); nor need they be, for they have a fit and healthy body, in which they can do all the things people normally do, except, of course, get away from each other.​

Separating Gracie and Rosie

Conjoined Twins, Embodied Personhood, and Surgical Separation

 

[quadraphonics]

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


quadraphonics
Registered Senior User (5,594 posts)

Oh, I thought that referred to my substance (ab)use - specifically the catnip and oven cleaner.

 

[iceaura]

Prior to that, the mother has no legal duty towards said fetus.
”
It's interesting - a pregnant woman can legally kill her child while it is in her womb, but if someone else does it, that person gets charged with homicide ...

It's not interesting, it's false. They don't. Not for a three month embryo, anyway. No culture in history has ever treated a three month embryo as a person, as an actual full status human being, in any context except in forbidding abortion.

The analogy with the slaves and slave owners is this:
In your view,
an unborn child is to its mother
like a slave is a to a slave owner.

Slave owners did not think their slaves had human rights.
In your view, a pregnant woman does not think her unborn child has human rights.

I don't think that's anyone's view, let alone Bell's. So your analogy is purely hypothetical - if anyone actually thought like that, it might be up for discussion, but no one does, so it isn't.

I seriously doubt, for example, that a typical slave owning woman would grant womb residence privileges to her slaves as a perk of their status.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Here's another really bright anti-choicer who really really loves 'life':

'Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican from Marietta, Georgia, has introduced a bill that would criminalize miscarriages, making abortion and miscarriage -- or "prenatal murder" in the language of the bill -- potentially punishable by death.'

Phillips notes that last year Franklin -- a graduate of Covenant College who's served in the Georgia House since 1997 -- proposed a law that would reclassify victims of domestic violence as "accusers."

Franklin's online bio also states that he "has been called 'the conscience of the Republican Caucus' because he believes that civil government should return to its biblically and constitutionally defined role.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDZ2FsYXdtYWtlcmNs

Punishable by death

I love these types because they highlight just how backward and the anti-choice camp really is, an american version of the Taliban, its like they're their own worst enemy.

 

[Big Chiller]

I don't think that's anyone's view, let alone Bell's. So your analogy is purely hypothetical - if anyone actually thought like that, it might be up for discussion, but no one does, so it isn't.

I seriously doubt, for example, that a typical slave owning woman would grant womb residence privileges to her slaves as a perk of their status.

I believe Signal was expalining to Bells the analogy that LG was discussing in his posts so what's your non-sequitur drivel about?

 

[wynn]

How do you know the truth if you don't know what happened? How are you to find the truth without finding out what happened? All crimes that are deemed crimes by society that can be proven in court is prosecuted as a crime. You're speaking gooblygook.

The maxim is: A person is innocent until proven guilty.

In practice, the law is not about the truth, but about what can be proven.

And on what do these cultures and societies base their standards of morality? You have to name these cultures and what standards have never fluctuated through time. No culture or society is fixed without any changes.

Societies/cultures that centrally rely on religion are examples of societies/cultures that see morality as something that is above the current state of a society/culture.

But if you insist on your particular meta-ethical stance, then you won't see it that way.

 

[wynn]

I believe Signal was expalining to Bells the analogy that LG was discussing in his posts

Yes, this is what I was doing ...

 

[wynn]

I love these types because they highlight just how backward and the anti-choice camp really is, an american version of the Taliban, its like they're their own worst enemy.

As long as you insist in a caricature of what a particular person's reservations about abortion are, there cannot be much of a sensible discussion with you on the topic.