How is considering the uterus a home dehumanize the woman?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
banned: So now people can be houses? Interesting.
So now people can be houses?
Interesting.
Again, I would rather think of it as that just because someone else is in YOUR car does not give you the right to throw them out of it if you are driving 100 mph.
Spideynw:Again, I would rather think of it as that just because someone else is in YOUR car does not give you the right to throw them out of it if you are driving 100 mph.
False analogy.
Spideynw:How is considering the uterus a home dehumanize the woman?
Because it's not a home! It's part of a PERSON!
And you've proven my point that anti-abortion people seek to dehumanize and enslave the woman.
banned:False analogy
False opinion.
Spideynw:False opinion.
Denial of reality.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Denial of reality.
Not part of reality.
And yet it is.
If the fetus is not a human being, I'm interested in what exactly it is. If the child was born prematurely, and it is inside an incubator, and somebody killed it, they'd be charged with murder. But when a doctor kills it inside a womb, it's perfectly acceptable. A popular method of abortion is when the fetus is injected with a chemical that stops the heart; yes, a beating heart is stopped. If that isn't murder I'm not sure what you'd define it as. I'm wondering if those who support the murder of an unborn child have ever seen what an aborted baby looks like, I'm going to assume no because anybody that has seen such a horrific sight can not possibly condone it. Google it and see what you're condoning, it's a little human being bloody and murdered. You can make all your claims about what the womb is, about how it's only an "opinion", but in all honesty, let's call a spade a spade: it's ending the life of a human being. Read about the procedures, there are even more disgusting ones than what I've outlined, and look at the pictures if you can stomach it. After doing that, tell me that it's ok and I will accept that you are just an evil person.
Emotive pleas need not apply.
And if the woman is not a human being, with all the attendant rights and such: what is she? Please do not de-humanize the woman. You are an evil person if you do.
Chris: If the fetus is not a human being, I'm interested in what exactly it is. If the child was born prematurely, and it is inside an incubator, and somebody killed it, they'd be charged with murder. But when a doctor kills it inside a womb, it's perfectly acceptable. A popular method of abortion is when the fetus is injected with a chemical that stops the heart; yes, a beating heart is stopped. If that isn't murder I'm not sure what you'd define it as. I'm wondering if those who support the murder of an unborn child have ever seen what an aborted baby looks like, I'm going to assume no because anybody that has seen such a horrific sight can not possibly condone it. Google it and see what you're condoning, it's a little human being bloody and murdered. You can make all your claims about what the womb is, about how it's only an "opinion", but in all honesty, let's call a spade a spade: it's ending the life of a human being. Read about the procedures, there are even more disgusting ones than what I've outlined, and look at the pictures if you can stomach it. After doing that, tell me that it's ok and I will accept that you are just an evil person.
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
That more or less sums up my reaction.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Chris:If the fetus is not a human being, I'm interested in what exactly it is.
You answered your question. It's a fetus.
Now the fetus stage is a stage in human life, just like the baby stage, child stage, and adult stage are stages in human life.
Chris:If the child was born prematurely, and it is inside an incubator, and somebody killed it, they'd be charged with murder.
Yes, but it does not follow that such action should take place in the circumstances of abortion.
Chris:But when a doctor kills it inside a womb, it's perfectly acceptable.
Only because the doctor has no other means of removing the child from the mother. The fetus does not have a right to reside in the mother, but it would have a right to be in incubation if the parents were patrons to the hospital.
Chris:I'm wondering if those who support the murder of an unborn child have ever seen what an aborted baby looks like, I'm going to assume no because anybody that has seen such a horrific sight can not possibly condone it.
Yes, I have.
(possibly NSFW)
Chris:it's ending the life of a human being.
It's ending the life of an invading human being who is sapping the nutrients of the mother. It's largely comparable to a parasite.
Chris:After doing that, tell me that it's ok and I will accept that you are just an evil person.
There's a difference between saying "It's okay" and saying "I won't kill you if you do it". If you think it's okay to use violence against a mother who has had an abortion, I'll accept that you are just an evil person.
This has been an interesting discussion to follow, but it seems to me as though everyone is ignoring the only truly relevant question, which I will attempt to illustrate below.
Say, for the purpose of discussion, that a person (we'll call her "A") becomes pregnant and subsequently has an abortion. Can you argue, on an objective and rational basis, that any coercive action you might propose to take against "A" in response is defensive in nature, justified on the basis of an aggressive action taken by "A" against you -- or someone with whom you can claim an agent-principle relationship -- and not itself an act of aggression against "A"?
There isn't much point in arguing over subjective things like morality, rights and wrong, or the point at which life/reason "begin" (presuming they aren't some sort of continuum). These positions cannot be derived from first principles or confirmed through shared experience and logic. A more useful question is "what actions can be justified in response?"
———————————
P.S. If abortion was wrong subject to the condition that there was an intent to harm the child, then the mother could simply argue that the intent was to eliminate the negative symptoms of pregnancy, and the effect on the child was merely an unintended byproduct. I don't think that is what you intended.
P.P.S. Traditionally there are two aspects to justice: restitution and retribution. The former depends only on one's actions, whereas the latter is based on intent. There is no retribution for unintentional harm, but one must pay restitution whether or not the harm was deliberate.
banned: Only because the doctor has no other means of removing the child from the mother. The fetus does not have a right to reside in the mother, but it would have a right to be in incubation if the parents were patrons to the hospital.
So, if someone was in your car, and you were driving a 100mph, do you have the right to push them out?
Spideynw:So, if someone was in your car, and you were driving a 100mph, do you have the right to push them out?
banned:False analogy.
You have yet to provide evidence that the child is invited into the womb.
So, Herr Hegel, there was a "person" before the egg and sperm met?
You fail at biology.
Spideynw: banned: Only because the doctor has no other means of removing the child from the mother. The fetus does not have a right to reside in the mother, but it would have a right to be in incubation if the parents were patrons to the hospital. So, if someone was in your car, and you were driving a 100mph, do you have the right to push them out?
If they refuse to leave, yes.
Personally, I'd much rather if it pregnant women could simply ask the baby to leave the uterus kindly.
banned: Spideynw:So, if someone was in your car, and you were driving a 100mph, do you have the right to push them out? banned:False analogy. You have yet to provide evidence that the child is invited into the womb.
I'm kind of on the fence on this one, but this idea does need to be unpacked. I would argue that in SOME cases the fetus IS invited in. If the woman intends to have a child and engages in sexual intercourse but after becoming pregnant decides she doesn't want to follow through with it anymore (perhaps the father has left or some similar situation) is this different from becoming pregnant unwillfully and then wanting to abort the baby?
If I invite you onto my boat but during the course of the journey change my mind about sharing my limited resources with you and want to push you off into the water do I have the right to do so?
Please don't take this to mean I don't believe mothers own their bodies. I am just not sure what should be done in these situations depending on the specifics.
GilesStratton: Spideynw: banned: Only because the doctor has no other means of removing the child from the mother. The fetus does not have a right to reside in the mother, but it would have a right to be in incubation if the parents were patrons to the hospital. So, if someone was in your car, and you were driving a 100mph, do you have the right to push them out? If they refuse to leave, yes. Personally, I'd much rather if it pregnant women could simply ask the baby to leave the uterus kindly.
What if the seatbelt was wrapped around their neck and there is a 100% chance they will die if you push them out of the car and they are unable to untagle themselves from the seatbelt in time?
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Solid_Choke: banned: Spideynw:So, if someone was in your car, and you were driving a 100mph, do you have the right to push them out? banned:False analogy. You have yet to provide evidence that the child is invited into the womb. I'm kind of on the fence on this one, but this idea does need to be unpacked. I would argue that in SOME cases the fetus IS invited in. If the woman intends to have a child and engages in sexual intercourse but after becoming pregnant decides she doesn't want to follow through with it anymore (perhaps the father has left or some similar situation) is this different from becoming pregnant unwillfully and then wanting to abort the baby? If I invite you onto my boat but during the course of the journey change my mind about sharing my limited resources with you and want to push you off into the water do I have the right to do so? Please don't take this to mean I don't believe mothers own their bodies. I am just not sure what should be done in these situations depending on the specifics.
But it's ridiculous to judge legality based on intent.
GilesStratton: But it's ridiculous to judge legality based on intent.
I suspect that, for the most part, you are correct. On the other hand, intent does seem to matter in some ways. If I am driving at night and run you over I might be only charged with manslaughter, but if I see you far in advance and decide to run you over because I don't like you, I will probably be charged with murder and face larger penalties.
No, you have violated their rights and their family is entitled to restitution. You're confusing morals with rights.
GilesStratton: No, you have violated their rights and their family is entitled to restitution. You're confusing morals with rights.
I'm not so much confusing them as I am talking about both. I view rights as a subset of morals. I believe it is always immoral to violate someones rights, but just because an action doesn't violate someone's individual rights doesn't mean that it is moral.
Of course intent matters because under some circumstances it would be impossible to determine fault if the intent of the individuals involved was not known. If two people are getting into an elevator and bump into each other and one then trips and falls and is injured then the intentions of the other individual involved matter a great deal. If there was no mal intentions on either party then quite possibly there is no fault. However, if the other party was trying to hurt the other person then this matters a great deal.
Maxliberty: GilesStratton: No, you have violated their rights and their family is entitled to restitution. You're confusing morals with rights. Of course intent matters because under some circumstances it would be impossible to determine fault if the intent of the individuals involved was not known. If two people are getting into an elevator and bump into each other and one then trips and falls and is injured then the intentions of the other individual involved matter a great deal. If there was no mal intentions on either party then quite possibly there is no fault. However, if the other party was trying to hurt the other person then this matters a great deal.
So I can sacrifice 100 children to save the earth, and as long as I really believe this, it's ok?
GilesStratton:So I can sacrifice 100 children to save the earth, and as long as I really believe this, it's ok?
You still intended to kill the babies.
Suppose you're on a jog along a cliff side and unintentionally trip over a plant and slam into a jogger going the other way. They lose their ballance and tumble off the edge of the cliff.
Are you responsible for murder?
Edit: Hmm... Perhapse I'm conflating the argument. Were you talking about prosecuting unintentional actions? or just actions that were intended to be done reguardless of intentions?
banned: GilesStratton:So I can sacrifice 100 children to save the earth, and as long as I really believe this, it's ok? You still intended to kill the babies. Suppose you're on a jog along a cliff side and unintentionally trip over a plant and slam into a jogger going the other way. They lose their ballance and tumble off the edge of the cliff. Are you responsible for murder? Edit: Hmm... Perhapse I'm conflating the argument. Were you talking about prosecuting unintentional actions? or just actions that were intended to be done reguardless of intentions?
The point is intent matters in determining what liablity a person may have for their actions. It may not always matter but it certainly does matter.
banned: GilesStratton:So I can sacrifice 100 children to save the earth, and as long as I really believe this, it's ok? You still intended to kill the babies. Suppose you're on a jog along a cliff side and unintentionally trip over a plant and slam into a jogger going the other way. They lose their ballance and tumble off the edge of the cliff. Are you responsible for murder?
Abortion is more like pushing someone off of your cliff, just because it is inconvenient for you to have them there. Just like an abortion, you figure they will most likely die, but hey, you just wanted them off of your property.
Spideynw:Abortion is more like pushing someone off of your cliff
No, it's not. It's like removing a trespasser.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Spideynw:Abortion is more like pushing someone off of your cliff No, it's not. It's like removing a trespasser.
Exactly! They were trespassing on your property and you came across them at a cliff, and so you decide to push them off the cliff to get them off your property! You are getting it now!
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, it's not. It's like removing a trespasser.
Spideynw:Exactly! They were trespassing on your property and you came across them at a cliff
False. You really need to learn to not use false analogies.
Disagree? Show how it's valid. You posit that it is valid; you prove it.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Disagree? Show how it's valid. You posit that it is valid; you prove it.
Way to shift the burden of proof! Go back and take an argumentative writing class and come back when you are done.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Disagree? Show how it's valid. You posit that it is valid; you prove it.
Spideynw:Way to shift the burden of proof!
Pot. Kettle. Black. Go back and take an argumentative writing class and come back when you're done.
Spideynw:They were trespassing on your property and you came across them at a cliff, and so you decide to push them off the cliff to get them off your property!
They are tresspassing on your property, syphoning off your food intake, and wont leave, and the only way to get them to leave is to push them off the cliff.
Push.
Solid_Choke: I would argue that in SOME cases the fetus IS invited in. If the woman intends to have a child and engages in sexual intercourse but after becoming pregnant decides she doesn't want to follow through with it anymore (perhaps the father has left or some similar situation) is this different from becoming pregnant unwillfully and then wanting to abort the baby?
I would argue that in SOME cases the fetus IS invited in. If the woman intends to have a child and engages in sexual intercourse but after becoming pregnant decides she doesn't want to follow through with it anymore (perhaps the father has left or some similar situation) is this different from becoming pregnant unwillfully and then wanting to abort the baby?
I don't see how. But when you say "the fetus IS invited in", you're making an error - the fetus doesn't exist at the time the supposed "invitation" is issued; you can't make an agreement with a non-existent entity.
Ok, after having discussions about "rights", I have now changed my stance. Rights really do not exist until one can claim that they own themselves.
So, as repulsive as abortion is to me, that does not make it immoral.
Knight_of_BAAWA: No, it's not. It's like removing a trespasser.
Byzantine:How so?
Notice that it's like. It's not precisely the same.
Further, that the woman decided to have sex is not the same as deciding to be pregnant. Please think.