• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

Ending another human life because you prefer not to take responsibility for a Choice you made is appalling. IMNSHO.
What if the pregnant woman was
a) raped, or
b) was lied to by her partner who claimed he was infertile, or
c) had defective birth control, or
d) going to die if she gave birth,

would you still feel the same way?

Generally, no. I definitely find some issues to hugely change the moral calculations. My real mom would have died without a surgical abortion, due to ectopic pregnancy. I think every "Rape Response Kit" should include a morning after pill, just take that trauma off the table right away.

No, I don't think that every pregnancy is salvageable and sometimes abortion is the Pro-life choice.
Tom
 
Ending another human life because you prefer not to take responsibility for a Choice you made is appalling. IMNSHO.
What if the pregnant woman was
a) raped, or
b) was lied to by her partner who claimed he was infertile, or
c) had defective birth control, or
d) going to die if she gave birth,

would you still feel the same way?

Good questions. But I also just totally disagree with Tom's entire statement. In what other activity is it assumed that if a person consents to an action - they the consent to all possibilities from that action? IOW, if I consent to going skiing, does that mean that I consent to a snowboarder running me over? If I jump in a car, did I consent to having a drunk driver run into me? More close to the point, if my daughter wears a cute dress to a dance, did she consent to having sex with her dance partner? As a father, I get pretty mad at people who assume that a woman consenting to one action means that she has lost all future rights as a result of it.
 
If you made a Choice that resulted in that kidney failure, I'd strap you to the gurney myself. I'd strap my mom to the gurney under those circumstances.


But that never happens, so it's just another irrelevant analogy.
Tom

Please come off your condescending attitude and show me where in US law it states that a woman consenting to sex means that she consents to having a baby.

I don't consider US law anything remotely like a moral authority. Jim Crow used to be US law. The Invasion of Iraq was legal.

Sorry, your fallacious appeal to authority isn't getting you anywhere with me.
Tom
 
If you made a Choice that resulted in that kidney failure, I'd strap you to the gurney myself. I'd strap my mom to the gurney under those circumstances.


But that never happens, so it's just another irrelevant analogy.
Tom

Please come off your condescending attitude and show me where in US law it states that a woman consenting to sex means that she consents to having a baby.

I don't consider US law anything remotely like a moral authority. Jim Crow used to be US law. The Invasion of Iraq was legal.

Sorry, your fallacious appeal to authority isn't getting you anywhere with me.
Tom

Sorry, but you don't understand what "appeal to authority" is! You are the one asserting that a woman should be compelled to carry fetus because she wouldn't take responsibility "... for a choice that she made". Sorry again, but you are incorrect. Agreeing to sex does not equal consenting to carry a fetus. If you want to make a claim, you should support it.
 
In what other activity is it assumed that if a person consents to an action - they the consent to all possibilities from that action?

There is no other activity analogous to fertile sex and procreation.

There is no other activity that can involve a human that doesn't even exist at the time the Choice to engage in it is made.
Tom
 
Ending another human life because you prefer not to take responsibility for a Choice you made is appalling. IMNSHO.
What if the pregnant woman was
a) raped, or
b) was lied to by her partner who claimed he was infertile, or
c) had defective birth control, or
d) going to die if she gave birth,

would you still feel the same way?

Generally, no. I definitely find some issues to hugely change the moral calculations. My real mom would have died without a surgical abortion, due to ectopic pregnancy. I think every "Rape Response Kit" should include a morning after pill, just take that trauma off the table right away.

No, I don't think that every pregnancy is salvageable and sometimes abortion is the Pro-life choice.
Tom

Indeed, sometimes the pro-life choice IS abortion. At least if you care about the woman's life.

I'm thinking about a lot of girls and women I know or have known. One, in particular, always comes to mind in these discussions. She lost her virginity under circumstances that were far from ideal but did not fit the definition of rape at the time--or perhaps now, nor did she ever consider it rape. But it wasn't what she thought was going to happen or intended and in that moment, she couldn't figure out a way to extricate herself from the situation as she wanted to do....some time before the penis went into her vagina. There wasn't a big chance that she was pregnant but there was some chance that she might be. Abortion was not legal in her state at that time. Almost immediately, a friend offered her the money to get on a bus and go to a clinic the next state over. Which she would have done. But if that had not been available to her, if there had been no magic money to help her obtain an abortion, she would have done anything not to have had that child. Including--and I cannot stress enough her sincerity--killing herself. Bearing a child by that person, at that time was absolutely something she could not even consider facing, although she very much hoped to have children in the future. Fortunately for all concerned, there was no pregnancy. She didn't need her friend's money; she didn't need to jump on a bus and go to some out of state clinic. She didn't need to climb over the security fence on the roof of her very tall dormitory and jump, which was, for her, much preferred to being pregnant with that person's child. So all of that was moot. She wasn't pregnant. She didn't have to be alone with that person again. She didn't have to make terrible choices. She simply got to go on living. But I will never ever forget her. Or the women I helped find an abortion provider when, for various reasons, they were desperate. And often quite religious.

I believe that murder is wrong. I believe that capital punishment, the death penalty, executing prisoners is wrong. Even in the case of mass murderers and child murderers. Even in cases where I would be willing to sit there and pull that lever over and over and over again until my arm fell off. Which is how I know for certain that capital punishment is wrong. It is motivated by strong emotion, not justice.

I also believe that it is wrong to insist that life prolonging measures be continued no matter hopeless the situation, or how much pain and suffering the patient is enduring. I believe that it is wrong to prolong life of a patient who has suffered such devastating irreversible brain damage that they cannot make any decision for themselves or to know what is happening around them.

I am not opposed to providing whatever medication is necessary to alleviate intractable, persistent pain for a terminally ill patient or one who can no longer deal with the level of pain, even if that medication might also suppress respiration sufficiently to shorten life.

I am not opposed to abortion. I know absolutely that some will choose abortion for reasons I don't understand or think are foolish. But it's absolutely not my body and so, it is not my choice.

Is there a conflict in these positions? Sure. I'm human. And I know enough that I cannot judge for someone else whether or not they should continue a pregnancy that they do not want or that is unviable or would result in negative health consequences.
 
Sorry, but you don't understand what "appeal to authority" is!

Yes I do.
You brought up US law as though it's a moral authority. I don't think it is.
Tom
 
Sorry, but you don't understand what "appeal to authority" is!

Yes I do.
You brought up US law as though it's a moral authority. I don't think it is.
Tom

?? This thread is about Roe V Wade. IOW, whether abortion should be legal or not. If you are saying that personally oppose abortion but support the legal right to it, we are in agreement. If you are saying that the state should be able eliminate a woman's right to bodily control: you should support it.
 
Sorry, but you don't understand what "appeal to authority" is!

Yes I do.
You brought up US law as though it's a moral authority. I don't think it is.
Tom

?? This thread is about Roe V Wade. IOW, whether abortion should be legal or not. If you are saying that personally oppose abortion but support the legal right to it, we are in agreement. If you are saying that the state should be able eliminate a woman's right to bodily control: you should support it.

Let's go back to what you said, and I quoted then responded to.

It was an appeal to authority, specifically US law. I pointed out why I don't consider US law a moral authority.

We can go back to the subject. I don't have a problem discussing it*. But I called out your fallacious argument and I'll back that up with quotes.

Tom

*What I'm finding in this thread is the usual batch of emotional appeals and fallacies. From Lion IRC to Toni, it's the usual.
 
?? This thread is about Roe V Wade. IOW, whether abortion should be legal or not. If you are saying that personally oppose abortion but support the legal right to it, we are in agreement. If you are saying that the state should be able eliminate a woman's right to bodily control: you should support it.

Let's go back to what you said, and I quoted then responded to.

It was an appeal to authority, specifically US law. I pointed out why I don't consider US law a moral authority.

We can go back to the subject. I don't have a problem discussing it*. But I called out your fallacious argument and I'll back that up with quotes.

Tom

*What I'm finding in this thread is the usual batch of emotional appeals and fallacies. From Lion IRC to Toni, it's the usual.

I don't think that you understand. And it may be my fault. I assumed that you were arguing for taking away a women's right to choose (bodily control). If I was incorrect, my assumption was wrong, and I was incorrect. But it's very odd that you're having so much difficulty in answering the question. It's real simple: do you favor a woman's legal right to choose. Yes or no.
 
?? This thread is about Roe V Wade. IOW, whether abortion should be legal or not. If you are saying that personally oppose abortion but support the legal right to it, we are in agreement. If you are saying that the state should be able eliminate a woman's right to bodily control: you should support it.

Let's go back to what you said, and I quoted then responded to.

It was an appeal to authority, specifically US law. I pointed out why I don't consider US law a moral authority.

We can go back to the subject. I don't have a problem discussing it*. But I called out your fallacious argument and I'll back that up with quotes.

Tom

*What I'm finding in this thread is the usual batch of emotional appeals and fallacies. From Lion IRC to Toni, it's the usual.

Gee, thanks. Of course I’m the emotional one, insisting that people actually understand the very precise terms they toss about so casually.
 
?? This thread is about Roe V Wade. IOW, whether abortion should be legal or not. If you are saying that personally oppose abortion but support the legal right to it, we are in agreement. If you are saying that the state should be able eliminate a woman's right to bodily control: you should support it.

Let's go back to what you said, and I quoted then responded to.

It was an appeal to authority, specifically US law. I pointed out why I don't consider US law a moral authority.

We can go back to the subject. I don't have a problem discussing it*. But I called out your fallacious argument and I'll back that up with quotes.

Tom

*What I'm finding in this thread is the usual batch of emotional appeals and fallacies. From Lion IRC to Toni, it's the usual.

Gee, thanks. Of course I’m the emotional one, insisting that people actually understand the very precise terms they toss about so casually.

It's not your appeals to emotion fallacies as your semantics.
In one post you asked what "fetal child" means. In another you tried to tell us that we aren't using the word "parasite" properly.

I'm confident that any honest, competent, English speaker would understand the sentence "A fetal child is a parasite."

You've suggested that you would not.
Tom
 
Gee, thanks. Of course I’m the emotional one, insisting that people actually understand the very precise terms they toss about so casually.

It's not your appeals to emotion fallacies as your semantics.
In one post you asked what "fetal child" means. In another you tried to tell us that we aren't using the word "parasite" properly.

I'm confident that any honest, competent, English speaker would understand the sentence "A fetal child is a parasite."

You've suggested that you would not.
Tom
Anyone versed in biology or human pregnancy or the battle for abortion rights or who cared at all about what words actually mean would understand that the problem is the bizarre mash up of the words ‘fetal’ and ‘child’ and would understand that a fetus is not a parasite and the so called ‘fetal child’ is an oxymoron.

When arguing about abortion, people get very emotionally over wrought and want to describe a blastula as an unborn child, are unable to comprehend or care about the fact that the words conception, blastula, zygote, embryo, fetus and child all refer to different things. Likewise calling a fetus a parasite is an attempt to use emotion to phrase the abortion debate on the side of abortion rights. Both arguments confuse or simply refuse to acknowledge what actual words mean because those attempting to use them are so emotionally over wrought that they simply don’t care. They are choosing their words for the greatest emotional impact. It’s also extremely lazy. Most of all, it seeks to remove health care decisions from the person most affected by those decisions. Some people are much more willing to consider a fetus a person than they are a full grown woman. That is the crux of the argument.

You claimed that Lion and I are using emotional appeals and fallacies.

No. I’m actually using biology and biological terms and concepts to describe biological events.

You seem more comfortable clinging to fairy tales,
 
Gee, thanks. Of course I’m the emotional one, insisting that people actually understand the very precise terms they toss about so casually.

It's not your appeals to emotion fallacies as your semantics.
In one post you asked what "fetal child" means. In another you tried to tell us that we aren't using the word "parasite" properly.

I'm confident that any honest, competent, English speaker would understand the sentence "A fetal child is a parasite."
Why? When I first saw it, I had no idea what "fetal child" meant. If a fetus is a child, there is no need to say "fetal child". If a fetus is not a child, then the term is truly undefined. Furthermore, the term "parasite" usually evokes the notion of "unwanted" which many fetuses are not.
 
Gee, thanks. Of course I’m the emotional one, insisting that people actually understand the very precise terms they toss about so casually.

It's not your appeals to emotion fallacies as your semantics.
In one post you asked what "fetal child" means. In another you tried to tell us that we aren't using the word "parasite" properly.

I'm confident that any honest, competent, English speaker would understand the sentence "A fetal child is a parasite."
Why? When I first saw it, I had no idea what "fetal child" meant. If a fetus is a child, there is no need to say "fetal child". If a fetus is not a child, then the term is truly undefined. Furthermore, the term "parasite" usually evokes the notion of "unwanted" which many fetuses are not.

Yeah, I asked about that it apparently try I was being emotion and engaging in fallacies.
 
Why? When I first saw it, I had no idea what "fetal child" meant. If a fetus is a child, there is no need to say "fetal child". If a fetus is not a child, then the term is truly undefined. Furthermore, the term "parasite" usually evokes the notion of "unwanted" which many fetuses are not.

Yeah, I asked about that it apparently try I was being emotion and engaging in fallacies.

Well, I was also apparently engaged in fallacies! And I thought that I was special. Dang it!
 
Sorry to get pissy. But people are talking about very specific things without understanding what those things are.

You're talking about "things".
I'm talking about living humans.

If you were talking about a person's right to smash a vase or plate in their own home, or their right to take a pair of scissors to some item of clothing in their wardrobe, you would get no objection from me. Those are "things". They can be categorised as personal property. If you want a preferential option to destroy them, I guess that's your (foolish) prerogative.

But a human being is not a "thing" and not your personal "property".
(WOW. LOL. Saying those words out loud sounds so old fashioned when speaking to an audience of pro-choice folks who think choice extends to choosing whether someone is a parasite or a 'thing'.)

What is the difference between forcing a woman to carry a fetus vs forcing a person to give up his kidney to a person who will die without the kidney? We should all have the right to govern our own bodies. Period.

In a thread full of pedantry about the word parasite and biological meanings of words, I'm now dealing with someone who thinks a kidney is equivalent to a human embryo.

It is biologically factual to describe an unborn baby as a living human. They are alive. And they are the same species as the people who are contemplating whether or not to carry out the execution abortion.
 
...show me where in US law it states that a woman consenting to sex means that she consents to having a baby.

...because the biology of sexual reproduction obeys US law.

Seriously, are there really woman who are THAT ignorant of where babies come from? Do they not have the Discovery Channel in the USA?

When you consent to unprotected sexual intercourse you are submitting to a statistical probability of a baby showing up. And no, pro-lifers DONT say you have to 'have" unwanted babies. They just say you can't kill them.
 
Back
Top Bottom