 
     |
| Abortion thread (Page 7/43) |
|
theBDub
|
MAR 31, 09:51 PM
|
|
This thread isn’t about laws, and never has been. If laws were the same as morality, why do they change? Why do they vary between countries? States? Cities? Do morals change based on the county lines?
If this thread was about law first and foremost, why have the discussion? The current law is that abortion is a right. But it’s being challenged. How can laws be challenged, if they’re just morality? Why do so many of you disagree with the standing law, if laws are an indication of morality?
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
Try and keep up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
MAR 31, 10:01 PM
|
|
Let me put this another way...
Please explain exactly WHY I am being bothered with somebody else's sexual habits ???
Not my dick, not my problem.
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
APR 01, 10:30 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
This thread isn’t about laws, and never has been. If laws were the same as morality, why do they change? Why do they vary between countries? States? Cities? Do morals change based on the county lines?
If this thread was about law first and foremost, why have the discussion? The current law is that abortion is a right. But it’s being challenged. How can laws be challenged, if they’re just morality? Why do so many of you disagree with the standing law, if laws are an indication of morality?
|
|
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but yes laws can easily be unjust and immoral, unethical.
Apply your words about challenging law to the time when it wasn't legal to kill babies, and people challenging wanted it legal.
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
APR 01, 10:46 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 2.5:
Sorry you did answer, I was missing it within all the conflict it creates in reason, for me personally.
Because technology hasnt caught up, it is ok to kill an unborn child?
Because it takes sacrifice to have a child, it is ok to kill that child?
You'd consider killing the unborn baby you created the same as pulling the plug on someone who can no longer live via medical life support, for example someone who was in a horrible accident?
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
Yes, that about covers it.
I would phrase it differently, of course, but yeah that’s close enough. What conflicted reasoning is there? To me, it’s a matter of a hierarchy of rights. I can’t force you to donate your kidney to me, even if you caused me to have an accident that required me to need a new kidney.
|
|
It is understandable yo would phrase it differently, phrasing and avoiding truthful words is a big part of pro abortion initiatives.
The conflict to me is using what I consider irrelevant excuses to override one's own concerns,.
There was no horrible accident and the baby can survive. On top of that [you] created the baby. It wasnt some strange unfortunate circumstance.
The wrongness of killing a child, on either side of the mother to be's belly, doesn't change based on the things I referenced above.
I think it relates to this, when it happens en masse it can be much harder to recognize:
"Dissociative disorders are mental disorders that involve experiencing a disconnection and lack of continuity between thoughts, memories, surroundings, actions and identity."
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
APR 01, 10:48 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 2.5:
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but yes laws can easily be unjust and immoral, unethical.
Apply your words about challenging law to the time when it wasn't legal to kill babies, and people challenging wanted it legal.
|
|
We're on the same page on this, 100%. I am trying to show Randy why his reasoning doesn't apply. He tried showing me why my logic was wrong by posting a law, which is irrelevant to the discussion. When I said laws aren't morality, he went on a tirade about how they are based on morals (irrelevant), and said my logic went out the window with government-mandated masks and vaccines. I assumed he was trying to show inconsistency in my logic, but I don't support those government restrictions on bodily autonomy either, so I said so... And he then said he never claimed I did, but the government did it, so [blank here, because I literally don't know where he's going with this argument now at all].
My comment is directly to Randy. If the comment on vaccines/masks wasn't trying to call out inconsistency in the logic, then it's irrelevant to the discussion. Any argument based purely on the law is irrelevant to the discussion, because laws don't dictate morality. I'm open to discussing holes in the logic, but it seems to me like he wants to take us in any other direction.
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
APR 01, 11:02 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 2.5:
It is understandable yo would phrase it differently, phrasing and avoiding truthful words is a big part of pro abortion initiatives.
The conflict to me is using what I consider irrelevant excuses to override one's own concerns,.
There was no horrible accident and the baby can survive. On top of that [you] created the baby. It wasnt some strange unfortunate circumstance.
The wrongness of killing a child, on either side of the mother to be's belly, doesn't change based on the things I referenced above.
I think it relates to this, when it happens en masse it can be much harder to recognize:
"Dissociative disorders are mental disorders that involve experiencing a disconnection and lack of continuity between thoughts, memories, surroundings, actions and identity." |
|
As an example, I'd phrase you as not supporting our right to bodily autonomy, and I'm concerned about what ownership you believe I have over my organs. If you require a kidney, are you allowed to take mine without my consent? Since you don't respect my right to do with my body what I will, I am concerned at what else you believe you can control of me.
The child dies because it cannot survive without life support provided by the prospective mother. It's death, but it's not murder. As science gets better and the time to viability decreases, I do sincerely hope that unborn children's deaths drastically decrease when the mother decides to end that life support.
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
APR 01, 03:51 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
As an example, I'd phrase you as not supporting our right to bodily autonomy, and I'm concerned about what ownership you believe I have over my organs. If you require a kidney, are you allowed to take mine without my consent? Since you don't respect my right to do with my body what I will, I am concerned at what else you believe you can control of me.
The child dies because it cannot survive without life support provided by the prospective mother. It's death, but it's not murder. As science gets better and the time to viability decreases, I do sincerely hope that unborn children's deaths drastically decrease when the mother decides to end that life support. |
|
I think this is a stretch far beyond the reach of the applicable argument and reprocussions. Stick to reproducing humans. If one sees a human as of no value, worth and having no dignity there isnt much I can talk to them about regarding this topic. Its too late.
Your second paragraph is pretty much a repreat of the one I replied to earlier.
I disagree, it is murder. Same as murdering a 1 month old who can't survive by themself. A 6 month old, or a 1 year old, etc.
"The conflict to me is using what I consider irrelevant excuses to override one's own concerns,.
There was no horrible accident and the baby can survive. On top of that [you] created the baby. It wasnt some strange unfortunate circumstance.
The wrongness of killing a child, on either side of the mother to be's belly, doesn't change "
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
APR 01, 05:18 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 2.5:
I think this is a stretch far beyond the reach of the applicable argument and reprocussions. Stick to reproducing humans. If one sees a human as of no value, worth and having no dignity there isnt much I can talk to them about regarding this topic. Its too late.
Your second paragraph is pretty much a repreat of the one I replied to earlier.
I disagree, it is murder. Same as murdering a 1 month old who can't survive by themself. A 6 month old, or a 1 year old, etc.
"The conflict to me is using what I consider irrelevant excuses to override one's own concerns,.
There was no horrible accident and the baby can survive. On top of that [you] created the baby. It wasnt some strange unfortunate circumstance.
The wrongness of killing a child, on either side of the mother to be's belly, doesn't change " |
|
It's not a stretch - it's the exact same thing.
I say a human, any human, has a right to life.
I say a human, any human, has a right to bodily autonomy.
I say rights only go so far as that they do not force action on another. I have a right to self-defense, but I cannot force you to defend me. I have a right to life, but I cannot force a healthcare provider to provide for me (yes, I don't believe healthcare is a right). Even more topically, I may have a right to bodily autonomy which means I have the right to an abortion, but I cannot force someone to provide me with an abortion. These are negative rights vs. positive rights. I believe in negative rights, but don't support positive rights.
Therefore, my right to life does not supersede your right to bodily autonomy. I cannot force you to do anything for my right to life.
You believe in some form of positive right. You believe that an unborn's child right to life means that a prospective mother must provide that life, or at least to the best of her ability. I'm not twisting anything you are saying, that's your belief. Positive rights are a very valid belief - I happen to disagree with them, but plenty of others agree. In other words, you believe your rights can force another person to provide those rights.
It's not a stretch, then, to suggest that your right to life demands that you should have the right to care, which means that you have the right to my kidney if it is necessary for your survival.
You want us to stick to reproducing humans, but I don't know why we need to separate them at all. My beliefs are consistent for all humans, from conception to birth. Your beliefs are not consistent, as you do not support bodily autonomy over an unborn child's right to life, but you do support bodily autonomy over my right to life.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
APR 02, 06:01 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
This thread isn’t about laws, and never has been.
|
|
BULLSHIT
Go read the very first post in this thread.
Read the goddam thread title.
Where in the hell do you suddenly get the idea that there are "restrictions" on this thread?
You go babbling faux-legal nonsense about "bodily autonomy" and "hierarchy of rights" and then claim "this thread isn’t about laws, and never has been."
If you don't have defense of your "rights" in the law then DONT HAVE those "rights". It's just more of your silly-ass "woke speak".
You are a perfect example of why I always caution people to NEVER allow a LEFTIST like you reframe an argument..
Once you Lefties get backed into a corner on something you immediately try to shift to something else.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-02-2022).]
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
APR 02, 06:55 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
BULLSHIT
Go read the very first post in this thread.
Read the goddam thread title.
Where in the hell do you suddenly get the idea that there are "restrictions" on this thread?
You go babbling faux-legal nonsense about "bodily autonomy" and "hierarchy of rights" and then claim "this thread isn’t about laws, and never has been."
If you don't have defense of your "rights" in the law then DONT HAVE those "rights". It's just more of your silly-ass "woke speak".
You are a perfect example of why I always caution people to NEVER allow a LEFTIST like you reframe an argument..
Once you Lefties get backed into a corner on something you immediately try to shift to something else.
|
|
If it’s about the law, then the debate was settled in 1973. Abortion is a right. Thread over.
|
|
|
|