Roe v Wade is on deck

[Bomb#20]

My view is fetuses are not babies. So abortion is not murder anytime during the pregnancy. In the womb is not murder, out of the womb usually murder.

If someone deliberately dies something to cause a pregnant woman to lose the pregnancy against her will: Say, slashes open her abdomen when she is 7 months pregnant and causes sufficient injury to the fetus that it dies, I would have a difficult time not calling that murder of the fetus. Obviously assault with intent to kill the woman.

Yes, that is inconsistent with my views of late term abortion.

Unfortunately, it is not a crazy, outrageous thing to suggest might happen. Pregnant women are at an increased risk of physical assault, injury and murder at the hands of an intimate partner. In fact, that is one of the greatest risks to a pregnant woman’s health and safety.

For what it’s worth, California law agrees with you.

 

[Bomb#20]

what it doesn’t mean is you can get someone else to do it for you

Why not, if they also apply their own bodily autonomy in concert with your own? It doesn't stop being autonomy just because two people are being co-autonomous and cooperative in the execution of a task.

Please either prove this conjecture or treat it as conjecture.

You snipped the evidence I supplied. Is it your contention that you have the right to slit someone else’s wrists if he asks you to?

For another example, your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands. Is it your contention that dueling should be legalized?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

what it doesn’t mean is you can get someone else to do it for you

Why not, if they also apply their own bodily autonomy in concert with your own? It doesn't stop being autonomy just because two people are being co-autonomous and cooperative in the execution of a task.

Please either prove this conjecture or treat it as conjecture.

You snipped the evidence I supplied. Is it your contention that you have the right to slit someone else’s wrists if he asks you to?

For another example, your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands. Is it your contention that dueling should be legalized?

Guess what dude? In both scenarios people also have the right to refuse. This isn't complicated.

 

[Bomb#20]

A fetus is not a baby and a baby is not a fetus. Born is not unborn. Unborn is not born.

Just like a lib’rul, trying to confuse ‘em with facts!

Macbeth. Thou losest labour:
As easy mayst thou the intrenchant air
With thy keen sword impress as make me bleed:
Let fall thy blade on vulnerable crests;
I bear a charmed life, which must not yield,
To one of woman born.

Macduff. Despair thy charm;
And let the angel whom thou still hast served
Tell thee, Macduff was from his mother's womb
Untimely ripp'd.

 

[Bomb#20]

what it doesn’t mean is you can get someone else to do it for you

Why not, if they also apply their own bodily autonomy in concert with your own? It doesn't stop being autonomy just because two people are being co-autonomous and cooperative in the execution of a task.

Please either prove this conjecture or treat it as conjecture.

You snipped the evidence I supplied. Is it your contention that you have the right to slit someone else’s wrists if he asks you to?

For another example, your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands. Is it your contention that dueling should be legalized?

Guess what dude? In both scenarios people also have the right to refuse. This isn't complicated.

“Also”?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

what it doesn’t mean is you can get someone else to do it for you

Why not, if they also apply their own bodily autonomy in concert with your own? It doesn't stop being autonomy just because two people are being co-autonomous and cooperative in the execution of a task.

Please either prove this conjecture or treat it as conjecture.

You snipped the evidence I supplied. Is it your contention that you have the right to slit someone else’s wrists if he asks you to?

For another example, your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands. Is it your contention that dueling should be legalized?

Guess what dude? In both scenarios people also have the right to refuse. This isn't complicated.

“Also”?

Wow, you discovered the word "also"! Congratulations.

 

[Bomb#20]

what it doesn’t mean is you can get someone else to do it for you

Why not, if they also apply their own bodily autonomy in concert with your own? It doesn't stop being autonomy just because two people are being co-autonomous and cooperative in the execution of a task.

Please either prove this conjecture or treat it as conjecture.

You snipped the evidence I supplied. Is it your contention that you have the right to slit someone else’s wrists if he asks you to?

For another example, your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands. Is it your contention that dueling should be legalized?

Guess what dude? In both scenarios people also have the right to refuse. This isn't complicated.

“Also”?

Wow, you discovered the word "also"! Congratulations.

Your use of “also” implies they have the right to accept, not just refuse. Show your work. This isn’t complicated.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

what it doesn’t mean is you can get someone else to do it for you

Why not, if they also apply their own bodily autonomy in concert with your own? It doesn't stop being autonomy just because two people are being co-autonomous and cooperative in the execution of a task.

Please either prove this conjecture or treat it as conjecture.

You snipped the evidence I supplied. Is it your contention that you have the right to slit someone else’s wrists if he asks you to?

For another example, your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands. Is it your contention that dueling should be legalized?

Guess what dude? In both scenarios people also have the right to refuse. This isn't complicated.

“Also”?

Wow, you discovered the word "also"! Congratulations.

Your use of “also” implies they have the right to accept, not just refuse. Show your work. This isn’t complicated.

Yeah, people can accept or refuse stuff. This isn't complicated.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Just because someone might agree to the duel doesn't mean they then have to participate in the duel. They can just back out of the duel, according to bodily autonomy. Apparently this is way too complicated for you.

 

[laughing dog]

My view is fetuses are not babies. So abortion is not murder anytime during the pregnancy. In the womb is not murder, out of the womb usually murder.

If someone deliberately dies something to cause a pregnant woman to lose the pregnancy against her will: Say, slashes open her abdomen when she is 7 months pregnant and causes sufficient injury to the fetus that it dies, I would have a difficult time not calling that murder of the fetus. Obviously assault with intent to kill the woman.

Yes, that is inconsistent with my views of late term abortion.

Unfortunately, it is not a crazy, outrageous thing to suggest might happen. Pregnant women are at an increased risk of physical assault, injury and murder at the hands of an intimate partner. In fact, that is one of the greatest risks to a pregnant woman’s health and safety.

It is not inconsistent with your views of late term abortion. The unwanted/nonconsensual killing of a fetus should be crime. It is simply not the murder of a person.

 

[Bomb#20]

what it doesn’t mean is you can get someone else to do it for you

Why not, if they also apply their own bodily autonomy in concert with your own? It doesn't stop being autonomy just because two people are being co-autonomous and cooperative in the execution of a task.

Please either prove this conjecture or treat it as conjecture.

You snipped the evidence I supplied. Is it your contention that you have the right to slit someone else’s wrists if he asks you to?

For another example, your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands. Is it your contention that dueling should be legalized?

Guess what dude? In both scenarios people also have the right to refuse. This isn't complicated.

“Also”?

Wow, you discovered the word "also"! Congratulations.

Your use of “also” implies they have the right to accept, not just refuse. Show your work. This isn’t complicated.

Yeah, people can accept or refuse stuff. This isn't complicated.

You jumped from “have the right to” to “can”. You can slap a cop. That doesn’t show you have the right to slap a cop. This isn’t complicated.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

what it doesn’t mean is you can get someone else to do it for you

Why not, if they also apply their own bodily autonomy in concert with your own? It doesn't stop being autonomy just because two people are being co-autonomous and cooperative in the execution of a task.

Please either prove this conjecture or treat it as conjecture.

You snipped the evidence I supplied. Is it your contention that you have the right to slit someone else’s wrists if he asks you to?

For another example, your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands. Is it your contention that dueling should be legalized?

Guess what dude? In both scenarios people also have the right to refuse. This isn't complicated.

“Also”?

Wow, you discovered the word "also"! Congratulations.

Your use of “also” implies they have the right to accept, not just refuse. Show your work. This isn’t complicated.

Yeah, people can accept or refuse stuff. This isn't complicated.

You jumped from “have the right to” to “can”. You can slap a cop. That doesn’t show you have the right to slap a cop. This isn’t complicated.

Actually you just jumped from one scenario where two people agreed to do something, whereas in this scenario, one person didn't agree to do something. And now you're attempting to equate them.

 

[Bomb#20]

Just because someone might agree to the duel doesn't mean they then have to participate in the duel. They can just back out of the duel, according to bodily autonomy. Apparently this is way too complicated for you.

Just because someone can back out of the duel doesn’t mean he does back out; and just because he doesn’t back out and consequently gets killed with his own permission doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t get to lock his killer up for murder. Apparently this is way too complicated for you.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Just because someone might agree to the duel doesn't mean they then have to participate in the duel. They can just back out of the duel, according to bodily autonomy. Apparently this is way too complicated for you.

Just because someone can back out of the duel doesn’t mean he does back out; and just because he doesn’t back out and consequently gets killed with his own permission doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t get to lock his killer up for murder.

Sure. But the whole point is it doesn't necessitate that either one has to participate in the duel which is what you implied before.

 

[Bomb#20]

what it doesn’t mean is you can get someone else to do it for you

Why not, if they also apply their own bodily autonomy in concert with your own? It doesn't stop being autonomy just because two people are being co-autonomous and cooperative in the execution of a task.

Please either prove this conjecture or treat it as conjecture.

You snipped the evidence I supplied. Is it your contention that you have the right to slit someone else’s wrists if he asks you to?

For another example, your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands. Is it your contention that dueling should be legalized?

Guess what dude? In both scenarios people also have the right to refuse. This isn't complicated.

“Also”?

Wow, you discovered the word "also"! Congratulations.

Your use of “also” implies they have the right to accept, not just refuse. Show your work. This isn’t complicated.

Yeah, people can accept or refuse stuff. This isn't complicated.

You jumped from “have the right to” to “can”. You can slap a cop. That doesn’t show you have the right to slap a cop. This isn’t complicated.

Actually you just jumped from one scenario where two people agreed to do something, whereas in this scenario, one person didn't agree to do something. And now you're attempting to equate them.

I’m not equating them; I’m just showing by counterexample that “can” doesn’t imply “have the right to”. If the presence of the nonconsenting person is confusing you, I can supply a counterexample without that element. You can kick a wombat. That doesn’t show you have the right to kick a wombat.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

what it doesn’t mean is you can get someone else to do it for you

Why not, if they also apply their own bodily autonomy in concert with your own? It doesn't stop being autonomy just because two people are being co-autonomous and cooperative in the execution of a task.

Please either prove this conjecture or treat it as conjecture.

You snipped the evidence I supplied. Is it your contention that you have the right to slit someone else’s wrists if he asks you to?

For another example, your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands. Is it your contention that dueling should be legalized?

Guess what dude? In both scenarios people also have the right to refuse. This isn't complicated.

“Also”?

Wow, you discovered the word "also"! Congratulations.

Your use of “also” implies they have the right to accept, not just refuse. Show your work. This isn’t complicated.

Yeah, people can accept or refuse stuff. This isn't complicated.

You jumped from “have the right to” to “can”. You can slap a cop. That doesn’t show you have the right to slap a cop. This isn’t complicated.

Actually you just jumped from one scenario where two people agreed to do something, whereas in this scenario, one person didn't agree to do something. And now you're attempting to equate them.

I’m not equating them; I’m just showing by counterexample that “can” doesn’t imply “have the right to”. If the presence of the nonconsenting person is confusing you, I can supply a counterexample without that element. You can kick a wombat. That doesn’t show you have the right to kick a wombat.

Two people don't have the right to agree to a boxing match (under certain circumstances)?

 

[Bomb#20]

Just because someone might agree to the duel doesn't mean they then have to participate in the duel. They can just back out of the duel, according to bodily autonomy. Apparently this is way too complicated for you.

Just because someone can back out of the duel doesn’t mean he does back out; and just because he doesn’t back out and consequently gets killed with his own permission doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t get to lock his killer up for murder.

Sure. But the whole point is it doesn't necessitate that either one has to participate in the duel which is what you implied before.

How the bejesus did you get that out of what I wrote? I implied nothing of the sort. Of course no one has to participate. My point was that Jarhyn’s line of argument implies that we should allow people to duel if they choose to. Nobody said anything about forcing people to fight duels.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Just because someone might agree to the duel doesn't mean they then have to participate in the duel. They can just back out of the duel, according to bodily autonomy. Apparently this is way too complicated for you.

Just because someone can back out of the duel doesn’t mean he does back out; and just because he doesn’t back out and consequently gets killed with his own permission doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t get to lock his killer up for murder.

Sure. But the whole point is it doesn't necessitate that either one has to participate in the duel which is what you implied before.

How the bejesus did you get that out of what I wrote? I implied nothing of the sort.

your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands.

It's not the only thing it implies. So that's why I brought up the other thing involving refusal which is what you ignored.

 

[Bomb#20]

what it doesn’t mean is you can get someone else to do it for you

Why not, if they also apply their own bodily autonomy in concert with your own? It doesn't stop being autonomy just because two people are being co-autonomous and cooperative in the execution of a task.

Please either prove this conjecture or treat it as conjecture.

You snipped the evidence I supplied. Is it your contention that you have the right to slit someone else’s wrists if he asks you to?

For another example, your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands. Is it your contention that dueling should be legalized?

Guess what dude? In both scenarios people also have the right to refuse. This isn't complicated.

“Also”?

Wow, you discovered the word "also"! Congratulations.

Your use of “also” implies they have the right to accept, not just refuse. Show your work. This isn’t complicated.

Yeah, people can accept or refuse stuff. This isn't complicated.

You jumped from “have the right to” to “can”. You can slap a cop. That doesn’t show you have the right to slap a cop. This isn’t complicated.

Actually you just jumped from one scenario where two people agreed to do something, whereas in this scenario, one person didn't agree to do something. And now you're attempting to equate them.

I’m not equating them; I’m just showing by counterexample that “can” doesn’t imply “have the right to”. If the presence of the nonconsenting person is confusing you, I can supply a counterexample without that element. You can kick a wombat. That doesn’t show you have the right to kick a wombat.

Two people don't have the right to agree to a boxing match (under certain circumstances)?

You appear to be hastily generalizing. Maybe they do and maybe they don’t. The right to a boxing match doesn’t follow from bodily autonomy, but maybe it follows from some other argument; likewise, if for some other reason people do have the right to box, it doesn’t follow that they also have the right to fight a duel. The rest of us have a say in what contracts people may enter. I’d have thought this would be painfully obvious to leftists— you guys limit people’s contracts six ways to Sunday.

 

[Bomb#20]

your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands.

It's not the only thing it implies. So that's why I brought up the other thing involving refusal which is what you ignored.

Oh, I see. Sorry to be confusing. I didn’t mention the other implications because they weren’t pertinent to the specific point in dispute. If someone had been claiming a woman’s bodily autonomy meant a doctor had to accept her request for an abortion even if he didn’t want to perform one, then I would have needed to specify right of refusal too, but nobody here argued that, so I figured it went without saying.