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

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Never forced them or anyone for that matter to do anything with their bodies they didn't want to do.

And as a side note, I know you don't have much experience in this area but a seduction is a two way street. You cannot seduce someone who doesn't want to be seduced, its only the willing who are charmed, those who are open.

 

[wynn]

How is that argument in favor of delegalizing abortion? Many of the men who impregnate the woman give her the money to have the procedure done.

If it's "her body, her business" - then it should also be her problem, and hers alone.

If it's "her body, her business", others should not have to get involved in any way, such as by providing facilities for her.

There are many elective procedures that are available to people and are not shut down simply because its elective.

Interesting, isn't it?

Just because something pertains to a person's body does not make it the person's own problem. Instead, numerous other people and institutions are involved.
Thank heaven for dentists!

Remember that only 14% of abortions are paid for by the federal government, most women pay for the procedure out of pocket.

Remember that all legal abortion clinics (private or not) are monitored (and this costs) by the State, in one way or another, to make sure that certain standards and qualifications are met and that they are held accountable if anything illegal happens.
It's what distinguishes legal abortion clinics from illegal abortion clinics.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

If it's "her body, her thing" - then it should also be her problem, and hers alone.

If it's "her body, her business", others should not have to get involved in any way, such as by providing facilities for her to.




Interesting, isn't it?

Just because something pertains to a person's body does not make it the person's own problem. Instead, numerous other people and institutions are involved.
Thank heaven for dentists!




Remember that all legal abortion clinics (private or not) are monitored (and this costs) by the State, in one way or another, to make sure that certain standards and qualifications are met and that they are held accountable if anything illegal happens.
It's what distinguishes legal abortion clinics from illegal abortion clinics.

Sometimes it is but sometimes the partner also thinks of it as his problem and helps pay for the procedure.

Aren't there medical facilities that provide for other private services? Are there not private clinics of all sorts like dentists, plastic surgeons, etc.? So what's the difference? You don't seem to care that there are private facilities for other selective procedures that aren't any of your business so what makes abortion clinics any different?

What other people are involved? The private clinics are there willingly to perform a needed and desired procedure so please who else needs be involved and why?

So what plastic surgeons, cigarette factories, meat industries all sorts of things are regulated. So what? I fail to see how that interests you at all. Do vegetarians demand that all meat industries should close down because they don't agree with killing and eating livestock?

Methinks you should read post #536 again for good measure

 

[wynn]

Aren't there medical facilities that provide for other private services? Are there not private clinics of all sorts like dentists, plastic surgeons, etc.? So what's the difference? You don't seem to care that there are private facilities for other selective procedures that aren't any of your business so what makes abortion clinics any different?

You do not seem to care about that.

If the argument is "your body, your problem", then there is no reason or right for anyone else to get involved.

Whether it is cavities in one's teeth or pregnancy.

But apparently, society functions by the principle of providing for all manner of things, even if some people see them in terms of "your body, your problem" - as if those things would not involve other people (such as those who provide those various services).

What other people are involved? The private clinics are there willingly to perform a needed and desired procedure so please who else needs be involved and why?

Why should those clinics be there, if it is "your body, your problem, at the time when it is pertinent"?

So what plastic surgeons, cigarette factories, meat industries all sorts of things are regulated. So what? I fail to see how that interests you at all.

It should interest you.
There is no such thing as "my body, my life, my problem, nobody else's business".

Your reasoning is flawed from the onset.

Do vegetarians demand that all meat industries should close down because they don't agree with killing and eating livestock?

Some certainly do.

 

[wynn]

But that does not mean that other women who are in her predicament should be forced into that choice by society.

If women wish to argue that it is "a woman's own body, and her choice, nobody else's business", then everyone else should step aside.
Then there should be no legal abortion clinics.

 

[wynn]

Personal opinion is what ethics get down to moron.

I know of a philosophy professor who demonstrates this practical refutation of moral relativism to his students:

As they discuss ethics, whether they are relative, subjective or objective, there is usually a student who says that "ethics are relative/subjective". The professor calls his assistants who forcibly remove the student from the classroom. As the student objects, claiming this is unfair treatment etc., the professor replies:
"You believe that ethics are relative/subjective, so what is your problem? You should not object."

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

You do not seem to care about that.

If the argument is "your body, your problem", then there is no reason or right for anyone else to get involved.

Whether it is cavities in one's teeth or pregnancy.

But apparently, society functions by the principle of providing for all manner of things, even if some people see them in terms of "your body, your problem" - as if those things would not involve other people (such as those who provide those various services).




Why should those clinics be there, if it is "your body, your problem, at the time when it is pertinent"?





It should interest you.
There is no such thing as "my body, my life, my problem, nobody else's business".

Your reasoning is flawed from the onset.




Some certainly do.

Signal the people who provide those services are doing so willingly. Do you have a problem with Doctors willingly providing a service that's in need?

Those clinics are there for the same reason why any clinic is there, because there is a need. I mean a cyst is also somebody's body, somebody's problem but there are doctors who will get rid of it for them.

Signal: It should interest you. There is no such thing as "my body, my life, my problem, nobody else's business" Your reasoning is flawed from the onset.

Ah poor bubbie. Says you. Listen luv if you're going to make statements like that your going to have to provide evidence to back up your claim disproving mine Now come and give me a back rub cause I have a nick and its not my body and its your problem. Simply saying a reasoning is flawed doesn't make it so dearie.

There are probably some freaks who do feel like that just as there are some freaks who would ban abortion for everyone but it doesn't mean we have to give in to them.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I know of a philosophy professor who demonstrates this practical refutation of moral relativism to his students:

As they discuss ethics, whether they are relative, subjective or objective, there is usually a student who says that "ethics are relative/subjective". The professor calls his assistants who forcibly remove the student from the classroom. As the student objects, claiming this is unfair treatment etc., the professor replies:
"You believe that ethics are relative/subjective, so what is your problem? You should not object."

Yes physically forcing someone out of class on the whim of a professor is comparable to people trying to force women to physically go through with a pregnancy and telling them they shouldn't object. That professor wasn't really very effective was he.

 

[pjdude1219]

If women wish to argue that it is "a woman's own body, and her choice, nobody else's business", then everyone else should step aside.
Then there should be no legal abortion clinics.

congragalations. that has to be one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard


that's like saying someone's health is their own business so there should be no legal doctor offices.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Here's a Hitler parody just for mein liebling Signal 'Hitler Believes Abortion Doesn't Belong in Development Initiative'. LOL! Dedicated to my favorite little hitlers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbndgOYzcTE

 

[Bells]

If women wish to argue that it is "a woman's own body, and her choice, nobody else's business", then everyone else should step aside.
Then there should be no legal abortion clinics.

My former boss used to have a saying about people like you... 'shoulda been swallowed'..

But congratulations, you have just won at the 'internets'..

Which reminds me, we really should have a dumbarse comment of the day thread and this one of yours would win for a year at least.

 

[wynn]

If women wish to argue that it is "a woman's own body, and her choice, nobody else's business", then everyone else should step aside.
Then there should be no legal abortion clinics.

If the pro-abortion camp wishes to argue that it is "a woman's own body, and her choice, nobody else's business", then the anti-abortion camp is doing them a favor, because by delegalizing abortion, the women can then fully own their body, their problem.

 

[wynn]

And as a side note, I know you don't have much experience in this area but a seduction is a two way street. You cannot seduce someone who doesn't want to be seduced, its only the willing who are charmed, those who are open.

If it was ever you who made the first move, then you have attempted to control the other person.

 

[wynn]

congragalations. that has to be one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard

that's like saying someone's health is their own business so there should be no legal doctor offices.

I am not the one arguing that "it is a woman's own body, and her choice, nobody else's business".
The pro-abortionists are.


If the pro-abortion camp would argue something like this:
"The female body is flawed because it can conceive against a woman's will. Therefore, the whole society should show solidarity with women, just as it shows solidarity with many other common problems (such as illness and unemployment), and make sure that women have easy access to abortion."
- then this would be understandable and an argument to work with.


But by using the argument that "it is a woman's own body, and her choice, nobody else's business", the pro-abortion camp is cornering itself into an indefensible position.

 

[wynn]

Yes physically forcing someone out of class on the whim of a professor is comparable to people trying to force women to physically go through with a pregnancy and telling them they shouldn't object. That professor wasn't really very effective was he.

What's your problem?

If you wish to argue that ethics are subjective - well, then live with it!

Do you really think that others owe it to you to accomodate your relativistic view?!

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Signal

Signal: If the pro-abortion camp wishes to argue that it is "a woman's own body, and her choice, nobody else's business", then the anti-abortion camp is doing them a favor, because by delegalizing abortion, the women can then fully own their body, their problem.

You're getting confused mate. You addressed a response to your own post. But anywho…It may come as a kind of shock to you but a woman owns her body whether abortion is legal or banned. Its just one of those things you see walking around with yourself. Wherever you go it seems there you are arms, legs, mind and uterus. Funny that.

Signal: If it was ever you who made the first move, then you have attempted to control the other person.

Control is boring and the antithesis of seduction. But you wouldn't know that would you.

Signal: What's your problem? If you wish to argue that ethics are subjective - well, then live with it! Do you really think that others owe it to you to accomodate your relativistic view?!

I have no problem Signal. The spring is coming and the sun is shining and abortion is legal, ethics are drawn from the individual…oh wait…I neglected to ask you. What informs your ethics Signal? I mean we know you've given up your physical ownership like a good little slave boy, who designed your ethics for you? Who's standards or ethics have you uploaded?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG: as mentioned earlier, the only abortion clinics I can think of that are independent of state accreditation, administration, training, regulation and standards testing are back street ones ... and it appears that you have problems with those. So what is it exactly you are talking about?

What are you talking about?

The argument you have been going on for about 5 pages about women who utilize state accredited abortion clinics being independent>

LG: I still don't follow the connection you are trying to make between something being popular and something being ethical

The laws sets a standard based on what the society considers to be ethical practical or both it doesn't decide ones personal or individual ethics but either way there is no universal standard of what is either ethical or legal.

Is this a response to my question or something else?

I will try again :

I still don't follow the connection you are trying to make between something being popular and something being ethical

You can decide homosexuality is an unethical practice but it can be protected by the law or there can be a situation where it is considered unethical by society and rendered illegal by law. But no matter how you look at it whether one determines homosexuality or abortion unethical will be based on a personal point of view, there is no universal standard of ethics that decide any one of these things as being ethical or unethical.

Sure - hence you find one code of ethics in civilized culture (such as "the strong protect the weak") and one code of ethics in barbaric civilization (such as "being dependent absolves you of the right to claim justice")

LG: workmates, other people in traffic, siblings and even parents when they cross a certain threshold of age ... just a few off the top of my head

Red herring examples having nothing to do with a woman's uterus which exists independent of anyone but the woman in question.

you said that no one was dependent on you - I just gave a few examples off the top of my head. If you don't abide by your obligations to those who are dependent on you, you face a repercussion ... at least in civilized society.

LG: so you are at least willing to concede that late term abortion is unethical?

No. I believe it represents the least desirable option for when a woman should abort. Earlier abortions are safer and easier.

Then discussing abortion exclusively in terms of zygotes appears to be yet another tool of your intellectual dishonesty

LG: You think 14 000 a day is inflated? actually I am just comparing the volume to question why you not only turn a blind eye to the greater loss of life, but also why you insist that in all circumstances abortions are valid and justified

Do you think the unnecessary deaths of living, breathing, conscious women acceptable?

If the process of preventing them involves killing a figure at least 100 fold, I think it at least warrants an inquiry more detailed than "abortion is no one else's business than a pregnant woman's"

Ever wonder why a woman who died from a botched abortion was never registered as a death of two people but one?

So technically a murderer could strike on the operating table to get a reduced sentence?
Or when the pregnant mum opened the door of the clinic?
Or maybe the door of her car on the way to the clinic?

How does this work exactly?

Since you believe that it amounts to the death of two people wouldn't that place the numbers of women dying of botched abortions as double what was registered and if this is so don't you find that a greater loss of life than would happen if the abortions were safe?

If they went there with the express purpose to kill their child and die in the process how does that work?

Or is it that you simply don't care if women die?

If you are turning a blind eye to a mortality figure that is probably about 100 fold times greater, I think the real question is why you are you so callous.

LG: I don't follow? Please explain to me again how being in a state of dependence places one outside of issues of justice.

The unborn are outside of issues of justice and everything else for that matter.

Well yes, so you think - the reason you give is because they exist in a state of dependence.

Hence my question : Please explain to me again how being in a state of dependence places one outside of issues of justice.

LG: Trying to work out who it is I called a whore of course ... or did you forget that you never did find a reference where I called all women whores?

I'm a woman. You didn't call me one because of any other reason than the fact that I'm a woman and you could hurl it as an insult unlike retard which can be hurled at anyone regardless of gender.

wake up troll

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@LG


As independent as the women who go to a state accredited university or doctors office yes.

LG: I still don't follow the connection you are trying to make between something being popular and something being ethical

You claim abortion is unethical, there is no public standards that says what is ethical or what is not, abortion was considered illegal and now it is not. A persons personal ethics are governed by their individual standards. What you consider 'ethical' is not shared by others. We all do not agree with the standards which change from belief system to belief system, culture to culture, society etc Capice? Your standards towards abortion are yours alone and you're free to believe what you want and endorse what you want for your own life, what fails is when you attempt to create a community consensus when the community at large doesn't share your belief system.

LG: So technically a murderer could strike on the operating table to get a reduced sentence?Or when the pregnant mum opened the door of the clinic?
Or maybe the door of her car on the way to the clinic? How does this work exactly?

You didn't understand what I was inferring. If a woman dies having an abortion it is not considered a death of two people only of one.

LG: If they went there with the express purpose to kill their child and die in the process how does that work?

Are you claiming the woman deserves to die?

 

[Orleander]

so, what did I miss? LOL
abortion is not about the baby. Its about the mother. If she is a stupid slut who had unprotected sex, then she is a murderer for having an abortion. If she was raped, then its understandable to kill the result of such a horrible deed.
See, its not about the unborn innocent child. Its about the Mom.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Oh damn woman! Where you been? *Its 'ruth' ya'll. 'Ruth' is back*

We missed ya sugar.

And ya can stick your small minded opinion back up your sugar hole where that fetus came from.

Welcome back toots