Options

ITT the abortions of strawmen

13468918

Posts

  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    "It's a person" is useful for legal arguments, but it doesn't make any sense (on its own) for moral arguments, so I'm not sure what the "person-hood" based secular antiabortion argument is.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »

    A) No, it's not. A pregnant woman doesn't have to give up an organ to have a child. Yes it is difficult, and there are complications, but not the loss of an organ.

    B) Fair point. I will have to think about this.

    C) I didn't say no efforts were made. I'm saying that previous efforts were (obviously) insufficient and I think we can do better.

    A) A pregnant woman has to give up her entire body to continue a pregnancy. The state can't even violate bodily integrity enough to force you to give blood, which is a far less invasive sort of thing than pregnancy.

    C) Perhaps we can do better. Perhaps not. Trying to stop something which women clearly want to do is quite hard; we can't even prevent jaywalking, which people clearly have less of an incentive to do than having abortions.

    A) But she does not lose her body. It's still there. And regardless of how an unwanted pregnancy may happen, the state outlawing termination is not the same as forcing the pregnancy itself on a woman.

    C) If getting a successful clandestine abortion without dying was as easy as walking across the street without being hit by a car I'd have to concede that enforcing an abortion law would be hopeless. It's not.

    A) You still have plenty of blood after you give blood; doesn't mean the goverment can force you to give it up. Plus, the fetus is in fact taking away bodily resources from the woman. And again, outlawing termination is forcing the continuation of pregnancies, and thus forcing the woman to use her body to support someone else.

    C) Getting clandestine abortion is harder than jaywalking, but the incentives for doing it are much, much, much greater, and there would be no legal means of achieving the same end. Outlawing abortion would be like outlawing jaywalking if there was a million dollars on the other side of the street and there was no legal crossing anywhere.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Oh, and that "declare yourself suicidal" also means you're almost certainly going to be institutionalized while the state figures out if you're actually a risk to yourself. Good luck keeping a job or caring for other children while you're locked up.

    Not to mention the ridiculous strain it would put on the already-overtaxed mental healthcare system.
    Sheesh.

    Actually all you have to say is I am no longer thinking of killing myself, and they let you out. I am not joking, I have seen it MULTIPLE times. People come in still coughing from the life support in the ER and are discharged in 3 days, because they say they no longer have a plan to kill themselves.

    I wish! I have some actual experience with the system there, and no, if you say you're not thinking of killing yourself anymore, you still have to wait for a psychiatrist to certify you that way. Besides, how are you supposed to get an abortion if you're spending all the time between declaring yourself suicidal and deciding you're not anymore in a mental hospital?

    Of course you have to see a pdoc, but they see you everyday, the vast majority of people with depression or bipolar are released when their 72 hours are up. They really only keep you if you have psychosis or schizoprenia. This is standard operating procedure @ both Spring Mountain and Montevista, whay psych hospital are you refering to?

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    Ghandi 2Ghandi 2 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months. Mother decides she does not want another child, can she be forced to carry to term then or straight to a D&E. I am not going to attack you or even respond, I just want to know your opinion. Yes, I know this is a very rare scenario, less than 5% of abortions I would assume.
    That never, ever happens. Late term abortions are medically neccessary. Google anencephaly for a clue.

    In reality not really, see Dr. Tiller. All you have to say is I don't want this baby anymore, I am suicidal.

    Oh right, mental health doesn't matter for women. Also, that's not how it works. you have to actually be suicidal. You're pretty good with the propaganda though.
    Ok, (and this is a serious question), if late term abortions are never ever done by choice, why was the partial birth abortion thing an issue?

    Ghandi 2 on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Elki wrote: »
    Also, Church, that rape exception you made is bullshit. If you believe the zygote is a person, you'd still be against abortion even if it was forced. After all, the zygote is still a person that had nothing to do with the crime, right?

    Not so. When a woman has sex she knows there is a risk of pregnancy, even if she uses a contraceptive. If the pregnancy itself is forced upon her I do not believe she has any such responsibility. I still think it's a tragic loss of life, and I really could not approve of a woman's decision to abort in such a case, but I can at least understand.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Ghandi 2 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months. Mother decides she does not want another child, can she be forced to carry to term then or straight to a D&E. I am not going to attack you or even respond, I just want to know your opinion. Yes, I know this is a very rare scenario, less than 5% of abortions I would assume.
    That never, ever happens. Late term abortions are medically neccessary. Google anencephaly for a clue.

    In reality not really, see Dr. Tiller. All you have to say is I don't want this baby anymore, I am suicidal.

    Oh right, mental health doesn't matter for women. Also, that's not how it works. you have to actually be suicidal. You're pretty good with the propaganda though.
    Ok, (and this is a serious question), if late term abortions are never ever done by choice, why was the partial birth abortion thing an issue?
    Because anti-choice activists are fucking mental cases, that's why. And no, I'm not feeling any need whatsoever to soften that, especially based on this thread.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Ghandi 2 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months. Mother decides she does not want another child, can she be forced to carry to term then or straight to a D&E. I am not going to attack you or even respond, I just want to know your opinion. Yes, I know this is a very rare scenario, less than 5% of abortions I would assume.
    That never, ever happens. Late term abortions are medically neccessary. Google anencephaly for a clue.

    In reality not really, see Dr. Tiller. All you have to say is I don't want this baby anymore, I am suicidal.

    Oh right, mental health doesn't matter for women. Also, that's not how it works. you have to actually be suicidal. You're pretty good with the propaganda though.
    Ok, (and this is a serious question), if late term abortions are never ever done by choice, why was the partial birth abortion thing an issue?

    Precisely because they it didn't include any reservations for health reasons, rape, or all of those other nasty things. It was banned because it was "barbaric."

    Tarantio on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Ghandi 2 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months. Mother decides she does not want another child, can she be forced to carry to term then or straight to a D&E. I am not going to attack you or even respond, I just want to know your opinion. Yes, I know this is a very rare scenario, less than 5% of abortions I would assume.
    That never, ever happens. Late term abortions are medically neccessary. Google anencephaly for a clue.

    In reality not really, see Dr. Tiller. All you have to say is I don't want this baby anymore, I am suicidal.

    Oh right, mental health doesn't matter for women. Also, that's not how it works. you have to actually be suicidal. You're pretty good with the propaganda though.
    Ok, (and this is a serious question), if late term abortions are never ever done by choice, why was the partial birth abortion thing an issue?

    Because it's the safest way of getting out a dead or deformed fetus; cutting it into chunks (which is what they do now) greatly increases the risk of infection for the woman. Basically, anti-abortioners took a gross medical procedure that's only used by people who are already grieving the loss of a wanted baby and used it to make political hash and chip away at abortion rights. It's pretty despicable.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Ghandi 2 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    What if it's past the 'clumps of cells' stage, say 8 months. Mother decides she does not want another child, can she be forced to carry to term then or straight to a D&E. I am not going to attack you or even respond, I just want to know your opinion. Yes, I know this is a very rare scenario, less than 5% of abortions I would assume.
    That never, ever happens. Late term abortions are medically neccessary. Google anencephaly for a clue.

    In reality not really, see Dr. Tiller. All you have to say is I don't want this baby anymore, I am suicidal.

    Oh right, mental health doesn't matter for women. Also, that's not how it works. you have to actually be suicidal. You're pretty good with the propaganda though.
    Ok, (and this is a serious question), if late term abortions are never ever done by choice, why was the partial birth abortion thing an issue?

    Because pro-lifers will take victory they can get, and that was a victory they could get.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    "It's a person" is useful for legal arguments, but it doesn't make any sense (on its own) for moral arguments, so I'm not sure what the "person-hood" based secular antiabortion argument is.

    You could sum up (And, yes, grossly oversimplify) my moral outlook by saying I worship humanity, if that helps.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    Of course you have to see a pdoc, but they see you everyday, the vast majority of people with depression or bipolar are released when their 72 hours are up. They really only keep you if you have psychosis or schizoprenia. This is standard operating procedure @ both Spring Mountain and Montevista, whay psych hospital are you refering to?

    I was in Peachford, in Atlanta. You saw a psychiatrist every day, but often well past midnight when you were half asleep from all the drugs they gave you, and they kept you until you convinced the psychiatrist that you weren't going to self-harm. Then you had mandatory outpatient therapy.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Also, Church, that rape exception you made is bullshit. If you believe the zygote is a person, you'd still be against abortion even if it was forced. After all, the zygote is still a person that had nothing to do with the crime, right?

    Not so. When a woman has sex she knows there is a risk of pregnancy, even if she uses a contraceptive. If the pregnancy itself is forced upon her I do not believe she has any such responsibility. I still think it's a tragic loss of life, and I really could not approve of a woman's decision to abort in such a case, but I can at least understand.

    Again, how does her choice to have sex remove her right to bodily integrity? I'd rather like a straight answer on this one.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Also, Church, that rape exception you made is bullshit. If you believe the zygote is a person, you'd still be against abortion even if it was forced. After all, the zygote is still a person that had nothing to do with the crime, right?

    Not so. When a woman has sex she knows there is a risk of pregnancy, even if she uses a contraceptive. If the pregnancy itself is forced upon her I do not believe she has any such responsibility. I still think it's a tragic loss of life, and I really could not approve of a woman's decision to abort in such a case, but I can at least understand.

    Again, how does her choice to have sex remove her right to bodily integrity? I'd rather like a straight answer on this one.

    It doesn't remove her right to bodily integrity. It's her exercising her right to bodily integrity. She has the right to have sex, and sex is a reproductive act. The choice to have sex should include accepting the possibility and responsibility of pregnancy.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Also, Church, that rape exception you made is bullshit. If you believe the zygote is a person, you'd still be against abortion even if it was forced. After all, the zygote is still a person that had nothing to do with the crime, right?

    Not so. When a woman has sex she knows there is a risk of pregnancy, even if she uses a contraceptive. If the pregnancy itself is forced upon her I do not believe she has any such responsibility. I still think it's a tragic loss of life, and I really could not approve of a woman's decision to abort in such a case, but I can at least understand.

    Again, how does her choice to have sex remove her right to bodily integrity? I'd rather like a straight answer on this one.

    It doesn't remove her right to bodily integrity. It's her exercising her right to bodily integrity. She has the right to have sex, and sex is a reproductive act. The choice to have sex should include accepting the possibility and responsibility of pregnancy.

    Bodily integrity includes the right to choose not to support someone else with her body, and to choose to stop supporting someone else with her body. How does having sex remove that right?

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Of course you have to see a pdoc, but they see you everyday, the vast majority of people with depression or bipolar are released when their 72 hours are up. They really only keep you if you have psychosis or schizoprenia. This is standard operating procedure @ both Spring Mountain and Montevista, whay psych hospital are you refering to?

    I was in Peachford, in Atlanta. You saw a psychiatrist every day, but often well past midnight when you were half asleep from all the drugs they gave you, and they kept you until you convinced the psychiatrist that you weren't going to self-harm. Then you had mandatory outpatient therapy.

    When you said 'there' I thought you were refering to NV, which I had mentioned. Sorry for the confusion.

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Also, Church, that rape exception you made is bullshit. If you believe the zygote is a person, you'd still be against abortion even if it was forced. After all, the zygote is still a person that had nothing to do with the crime, right?

    Not so. When a woman has sex she knows there is a risk of pregnancy, even if she uses a contraceptive. If the pregnancy itself is forced upon her I do not believe she has any such responsibility. I still think it's a tragic loss of life, and I really could not approve of a woman's decision to abort in such a case, but I can at least understand.

    Again, how does her choice to have sex remove her right to bodily integrity? I'd rather like a straight answer on this one.

    It doesn't remove her right to bodily integrity. It's her exercising her right to bodily integrity. She has the right to have sex, and sex is a reproductive act. The choice to have sex should include accepting the possibility and responsibility of pregnancy.

    Responsibility means "carrying to term" why?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Note that she also has the right to not have sex, thus avoiding any possibility for pregnancy. Or she and/or her partner could be sterilised.

    --

    Because her unwillingness, ill-preparedness, whatever the reason should not cost the conceived its life. It had nothing to do with her and her partner's decision to have sex.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Note that she also has the right to not have sex, thus avoiding any possibility for pregnancy. Or she and/or her partner could be sterilised.

    --

    Because her unwillingness, ill-preparedness, whatever the reason should not cost the conceived its life. It had nothing to do with her and her partner's decision to have sex.

    So again I ask: Are you for mandatory organ donation? (Go on and say yes, it's the only non-hypocritical position you can hold.)

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    If it's the prospective donor's fault that the person needs a new organ? Yes.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Elki wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Also, Church, that rape exception you made is bullshit. If you believe the zygote is a person, you'd still be against abortion even if it was forced. After all, the zygote is still a person that had nothing to do with the crime, right?

    Not so. When a woman has sex she knows there is a risk of pregnancy, even if she uses a contraceptive. If the pregnancy itself is forced upon her I do not believe she has any such responsibility. I still think it's a tragic loss of life, and I really could not approve of a woman's decision to abort in such a case, but I can at least understand.

    Again, how does her choice to have sex remove her right to bodily integrity? I'd rather like a straight answer on this one.

    It doesn't remove her right to bodily integrity. It's her exercising her right to bodily integrity. She has the right to have sex, and sex is a reproductive act. The choice to have sex should include accepting the possibility and responsibility of pregnancy.

    Responsibility means "carrying to term" why?

    Also who are we assigning blame to here for the vast majority of cases for abortions being carried out? There are 2 common reasons:

    1. Teenagers don't know better - responsibility? Anyone in America who supports abstinence only education for a start.

    2. Condom broke - responsibility - no one. It's statistically unlikely a women will get pregnant when this happens, but she and her partner were clearly acting in a responsible fashion nonetheless and latex is never going to be 100% infallible oh and before anyone asks yes some women have bad reactions to the pill so no she should not "also have been on the pill".

    I am also completely agreeing with Elkamil - responsibility is not having a child you can't look after.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I am also completely agreeing with Elkamil - responsibility is not having a child you can't look after.

    I agree, but why not carry the pregnancy to term and allow the child to be adopted instead of abort?

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    If it's the prospective donor's fault that the person needs a new organ? Yes.
    Hooray! Those sluts totally deserve to be punished for sleeping around and being the unfortunate victim of what are on the whole improbable circumstances or systemic social negligence.







    What?

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    I am also completely agreeing with Elkamil - responsibility is not having a child you can't look after.

    I agree, but why not carry the pregnancy to term and allow the child to be adopted instead of abort?

    1. Pregnancy is potentially debilitating.
    2. No matter what it's emotionally damaging to give birth to a child only to have it taken away.
    3. It is damaging societally to be seen pregnant in many cases.
    4. If you're not a white-anglo saxon, there's a good chance that child is going straight into a foster home.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    If it's the prospective donor's fault that the person needs a new organ? Yes.
    Hooray! Those sluts totally deserve to be punished for sleeping around and being the unfortunate victim of what are on the whole improbable circumstances or systemic social negligence.







    What?

    Nice straw man. You're ignoring the fact that A) anyone that has sex without being sterilised is risking a pregnancy and B) I think the father should be equally responsible. I didn't state this, but there was no reason for you to assume I don't think so.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    If it's the prospective donor's fault that the person needs a new organ? Yes.
    Hooray! Those sluts totally deserve to be punished for sleeping around and being the unfortunate victim of what are on the whole improbable circumstances or systemic social negligence.







    What?

    Nice straw man. You're ignoring the fact that A) anyone that has sex without being sterilised is risking a pregnancy and B) I think the father should be equally responsible. I didn't state this, but there was no reason for you to assume I don't think so.
    Yes there is. Father's don't give birth.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    I am also completely agreeing with Elkamil - responsibility is not having a child you can't look after.

    I agree, but why not carry the pregnancy to term and allow the child to be adopted instead of abort?

    1. Pregnancy is potentially debilitating.
    2. No matter what it's emotionally damaging to give birth to a child only to have it taken away.
    3. It is damaging societally to be seen pregnant in many cases.
    4. If you're not a white-anglo saxon, there's a good chance that child is going straight into a foster home.

    1. True.
    2. It's not damaging at all to conceive life and then terminate it?
    3. Clinics are supposed to be confidential, but someone could still find out, in which case it would be just as bad if not worse.
    4. That's worse than being dead?

    --

    Unless the child is adopted/surrended to a foster home, there's a great deal for the father to be responsible for.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    I am also completely agreeing with Elkamil - responsibility is not having a child you can't look after.

    I agree, but why not carry the pregnancy to term and allow the child to be adopted instead of abort?

    Which creates more suffering, having an abortion or being pregnant with an unwanted kid?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    If it's the prospective donor's fault that the person needs a new organ? Yes.

    Ah, now you're going into interesting territory. Suppose I drive in my car using all available precautions: I'm driving carefully, my brakes have been recently services, I'm obeying the speed limit and using my lights and trying very very hard not to hit anyone. Now suppose I hit a patch of black ice and skid, hitting another car on the road and injuring the driver to the point where he needs an organ transplant and my organs would work. Now, it would be nice and good of me to give it to him; this has been established. But what if my kid needs that organ too? Perhaps it would be better of me to give it to my kid, saving my child's life, than to give it to a stranger, even if I did accidentally cause him to need it. Should I be legally forced to give my organ to a stranger?

    Now, in case you didn't get the metaphor, suppose I have sex using several forms of birth control. Suppose I'm on the pill, the guy uses a condom, and he even pulls out! Suppose even that I've had my tubes tied, just to make sure. Now suppose through all this, I somehow get pregnant anyway. (This happens! Rarely, but it happens.) Now, again suppose that I already have a kid, perhaps one breastfeeding whose milk supply would be interrupted. (I can give you a whole host of articles on why breastfeeding is best for children if you want them.) Perhaps I'd like to have kids later in life and know that I wouldn't be able to have them if I continued this pregancy. Should I be forced to ignore all these things and continue a pregnancy that I have countless reasons to want to stop?

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    You know the only leg you have to stand on here is the idea that a zygote or an early fetus is anything remotely comparable to human life and that's motivated by likeness alone and an argument about "potential".

    All the rest of your points are "well, this is also maybe bad!" and the fact is do not make an argument that people should not be able to make up their own minds. If people think not having the child will be emotionally destructive then that's their choice and they are free to make it but much unlike a fetus you can't unhave a child.

    And, to throw in some of my personal worldview - if you never know you're alive, you never know you're not alive. Can you remember being in the womb? No - that is exactly what death is like. You only retrospectively don't want abortions because you think this would mean you're own mother would terminate you and then you'd be dead and that would suck.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    1. True.
    2. It's not damaging at all to conceive life and then terminate it?
    3. Clinics are supposed to be confidential, but someone could still find out, in which case it would be just as bad if not worse.
    4. That's worse than being dead?

    --

    Unless the child is adopted/surrended to a foster home, there's a great deal for the father to be responsible for.

    2. Not for a lot of women, no. The most common feeling after having an abortion? Relief.
    3. Going to a clinic once or twice is a great deal less obvious than being pregnant.
    4. Being dead when you never had the mental capacity to know you existed in the first place? Yeah, that's probably better.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    If it's the prospective donor's fault that the person needs a new organ? Yes.

    Ah, now you're going into interesting territory. Suppose I drive in my car using all available precautions: I'm driving carefully, my brakes have been recently services, I'm obeying the speed limit and using my lights and trying very very hard not to hit anyone. Now suppose I hit a patch of black ice and skid, hitting another car on the road and injuring the driver to the point where he needs an organ transplant and my organs would work. Now, it would be nice and good of me to give it to him; this has been established. But what if my kid needs that organ too? Perhaps it would be better of me to give it to my kid, saving my child's life, than to give it to a stranger, even if I did accidentally cause him to need it. Should I be legally forced to give my organ to a stranger?

    I don't see how pregnancy forces you to choose between the life of your child and the life of a stranger. Letting a stranger die is not the same thing as having additional children earlier than you'd like to.

    If you hadn't included that, then I'd say yes, you should be legally obligated to give up your organ. Driving, like sex, carries with it certain risks, even if you do everything right.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    You're really hellbent on this no second chances thing aren't you?

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    If it's the prospective donor's fault that the person needs a new organ? Yes.

    Ah, now you're going into interesting territory. Suppose I drive in my car using all available precautions: I'm driving carefully, my brakes have been recently services, I'm obeying the speed limit and using my lights and trying very very hard not to hit anyone. Now suppose I hit a patch of black ice and skid, hitting another car on the road and injuring the driver to the point where he needs an organ transplant and my organs would work. Now, it would be nice and good of me to give it to him; this has been established. But what if my kid needs that organ too? Perhaps it would be better of me to give it to my kid, saving my child's life, than to give it to a stranger, even if I did accidentally cause him to need it. Should I be legally forced to give my organ to a stranger?

    I don't see how pregnancy forces you to choose between the life of your child and the life of a stranger. Letting a stranger die is not the same thing as having additional children earlier than you'd like to.

    If you hadn't included that, then I'd say yes, you should be legally obligated to give up your organ. Driving, like sex, carries with it certain risks, even if you do everything right.

    Okaaaaay...well, I now think you're heartless and insane, but at least you're not a hypocrite. Good job!

    Being female carries the risk of being raped, so I'm not sure why you have a rape exception in there too. And having a family carries the risk of incest. So, really, you shouln't have any exceptions.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Oh, and I forgot to mention: what other rights should we get rid of to protect lives, since you don't believe in the right to bodily integrity? How about the right to free speech? All those neo-nazis probably inspire plenty of deaths. Ooh! Or the right to freedom of religion? Think of all those Christian Scientists denying themselves needed medical treatment. Right to bear arms? Tons of people die from firearm accidents. How about all those court-related rights? If we could arrest people without warrants, think of how many murders we could stop; ditto with secret trials.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Okaaaaay...well, I now think you're heartless and insane, but at least you're not a hypocrite. Good job!

    Being female carries the risk of being raped, so I'm not sure why you have a rape exception in there too. And having a family carries the risk of incest. So, really, you shouln't have any exceptions.

    Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to, I can not dispute either of these charges. But yeah, no hypocrisy.

    You don't choose to be born female, and you don't choose to be raped, so the rape exception stands.

    The incest execption is of your own imagining. I never said anything about it. If the incest is consensual, and the birth does not threaten the mother's life, no exception should be made. Yes, incestuous births have a higher chance for defects. I don't see why that should make it a special case amongst the many, many children with genetic defects that were not born of incestuous couplings.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Oh, and I forgot to mention: what other rights should we get rid of to protect lives, since you don't believe in the right to bodily integrity? How about the right to free speech? All those neo-nazis probably inspire plenty of deaths. Ooh! Or the right to freedom of religion? Think of all those Christian Scientists denying themselves needed medical treatment. Right to bear arms? Tons of people die from firearm accidents. How about all those court-related rights? If we could arrest people without warrants, think of how many murders we could stop; ditto with secret trials.

    Making shit up is not conducive to debate.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Okaaaaay...well, I now think you're heartless and insane, but at least you're not a hypocrite. Good job!

    Being female carries the risk of being raped, so I'm not sure why you have a rape exception in there too. And having a family carries the risk of incest. So, really, you shouln't have any exceptions.

    Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to, I can not dispute either of these charges. But yeah, no hypocrisy.

    You don't choose to be born female, and you don't choose to be raped, so the rape exception stands.

    The incest execption is of your own imagining. I never said anything about it. If the incest is consensual, and the birth does not threaten the mother's life, no exception should be made. Yes, incestuous births have a higher chance for defects. I don't see why that should make it a special case amongst the many, many children with genetic defects that were not born of incestuous couplings.

    Ah, I was referring to the general "rape and incest" exceptions. You're crazier than I thought.

    No, you don't choose to be raped. However, telling people that they can't engage in consentual sexual behavior that is a HUGE part of human relationships if they don't want to carry a pregnancy to term, no matter what precautions they take, is fairly unreasonable and unworkable. People are going to continue to have sex if abortion is illegal, they'll continue to get pregnant even with responsible use of birth control (or their circumstances will change so that they cannot support a pregnancy which they previously wanted), and they'll continue to seek out ways to end that pregnancy. The only choice is between legal abortion, where they can end the pregnancy safely and at little risk to themselves, or illegal abortion, where they have to end it unsafely and at tremendous risk to themselves. It's hard to see how one could argue for the second without coming off as woman-hating.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Oh, and I forgot to mention: what other rights should we get rid of to protect lives, since you don't believe in the right to bodily integrity? How about the right to free speech? All those neo-nazis probably inspire plenty of deaths. Ooh! Or the right to freedom of religion? Think of all those Christian Scientists denying themselves needed medical treatment. Right to bear arms? Tons of people die from firearm accidents. How about all those court-related rights? If we could arrest people without warrants, think of how many murders we could stop; ditto with secret trials.

    Making shit up is not conducive to debate.

    You don't believe in a right that's enshrined in our legal process above the right to life, so it seems logical to ask which other ones you don't believe in.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Which poster did we have who was also a school teacher who was rather "don't have sex if you don't plan to deal with a possible baby"? She threw around a lot of "I'm totally hardline" but in the end that was entirely the problem - it was about as useful as abstinence only sex ed.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I agree, hence I argue for carrying the pregnancy to term. No unsafe, illegal abortion required.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Sign In or Register to comment.