Anti-Abortion = Anti-Personal-Privacy

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 411
#61
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Mopac
So it's sex which establishes the obligation. Sex doesn't always result in pregnancy, and coitus isn't the only means to conceive. What about In Vitro Fertilization? If she conceives through IVF, would that still constitute an obligation? 
#62
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
Wow
#63
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Mopac
Wow
I'm attempting to have you explain the obligation. You simply stated "If you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex," as if that informs anything substantial. Why does sex create the obligation, and if we were to remove sex from the equation, does the obligation still hold? Once the baby is birthed does the obligation end there?

Topic's author
#64
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
"There was a deliberate push by the NRA (National Rifle Association) and the ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council, run by the Koch brothers), to expand stand your ground laws in the mid-2000s, starting with the south — with Florida being the harshest," Light says. The first Stand Your Ground law in American came to pass in Florida in 2005. Beyond offering immunity, it has been expanded with amendments that require the prosecution to prove the individual threatened was not reasonable in defending their property [even if that "property" is walking down a public street]. [LINK]

IT BASICALLY LETS YOU SHOOT ANYONE YOU'RE AFRAID OF, AS LONG AS A JURY AGREES THAT YOUR FEAR WAS "REASONABLE".

In other words, the biggest scaredy-cat wins!!

And by the way, if some dude tries to kiss you at a bar, you can kill them too!!

Can you imagine if women could kill men for making "unwanted sexual advances"?  Welp, I guess they should've been more polite, now they're ded.

The gay panic defense[notes 1] is a legal defense that is sometimes employed, usually against charges of assault or murder. Typically, a defendant using the defense claims they acted in a state of violent temporary insanity because of unwanted same-sex sexual advances.[1] Broadly, a defendant may allege to have found the same-sex sexual advances so offensive or frightening that they were provoked into reacting, were acting in self-defense, were of diminished capacity, or were temporarily insane, and that this circumstance is exculpatory or mitigating.[2]

Trans panic is a similar defense applied in cases of assault, manslaughter, or murder of a transgender individual, with whom the assailant(s) engaged in sexual relations unaware that the victim is transgender until seeing them naked, or further into or after sexual activity. [LINK]
#65
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
Excuse me, there are so many problems in the world, and you are choosing to advocate child sacrifice.

Forgive me if no argument you make will convince me that this isn't issue that requires you to be a piece of shit to stand up for.

#66
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
"There was a deliberate push by the NRA (National Rifle Association) and the ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council, run by the Koch brothers), to expand stand your ground laws in the mid-2000s, starting with the south — with Florida being the harshest," Light says. The first Stand Your Ground law in American came to pass in Florida in 2005. Beyond offering immunity, it has been expanded with amendments that require the prosecution to prove the individual threatened was not reasonable in defending their property [even if that "property" is walking down a public street]. [LINK]

IT BASICALLY LETS YOU SHOOT ANYONE YOU'RE AFRAID OF, AS LONG AS A JURY AGREES THAT YOUR FEAR WAS "REASONABLE".
Did the NRA and ALEC do anything illegal by pushing to expand stand your ground laws in the mid-2000s? And if the State sanctions it, does that not make it legitimate? Is there a standard that should be maintained independent of state arbitration and public participation?

In other words, the biggest scaredy-cat wins!!
Well fear can inform the imperative to defends one's person can't it?

And by the way, if some dude tries to kiss you at a bar, you can kill them too!!
That's public knowledge.






#67
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
IT BASICALLY LETS YOU SHOOT ANYONE YOU'RE AFRAID OF, AS LONG AS A JURY AGREES THAT YOUR FEAR WAS "REASONABLE".
isn't that true with any self defense claim and or claims made by police?
why isn't it logical if you can use deadly force to protect yourself (in accordance with law) inside your home, that being outside it should be the same, is there any difference?

Topic's author
#68
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Did the NRA and ALEC do anything illegal by pushing to expand stand your ground laws in the mid-2000s? And if the State sanctions it, does that not make it legitimate? Is there a standard that should be maintained independent of state arbitration and public participation?
How can anything be considered illegal when you have con-artists writing their own laws?

This legislation is clearly in conflict with the function of a peaceful and civil society.

Does your "individualism" encourage people to shoot everyone they're afraid of with impunity?
Topic's author
#69
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
isn't that true with any self defense claim... 
No.  Historically, "The Castle Doctrine" only applied to the inside of your own home, and later it was expanded to your personal real-estate-territory (trespassers will be shot on-sight).

This has never applied to public areas (before now).

and or claims made by police?
The police play by their own set of rules.  Prosecutors often decline to prosecute alleged police crimes, and this is within their legal discretion.  Nevermind that they depend on the police to help them solve all their cases, and if they ever want to become mayor (or president) or make zillions of dollars as a high powered defense attorney, they need a HIGH CONVICTION RATE (batting average).

why isn't it logical if you can use deadly force to protect yourself (in accordance with law) inside your home, that being outside it should be the same, is there any difference?
Yes.  Owning territory provides certain special privileges to the owner.

One of those rights is to control who enters your territory.  Anyone entering without an explicit invitation is automatically presumed to be a hostile threat.

If you see a "scary looking" person walking down your street, NOT intruding onto your real-estate-territory YOU SHOULDN'T SHOOT THEM.

CALL THE POLICE.

If they enter your house uninvited, FEEL FREE TO SHOOT THEM.
#70
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Mopac
Excuse me, there are so many problems in the world, and you are choosing to advocate child sacrifice.
I don't advocate "child sacrifice." I've already stated that personally I'm against abortion. But that objection does not inform a pregnant woman's capacity to expel the fetus from her womb. She bears me no obligation because it's neither my child, nor my womb, just as she bears you no obligation. If she's committed a tort, then the parties in dispute are the mother and the fetus. And even if you assume the fetus's proxy, you'd have to justify and identify the arrangement or contract which creates the obligation. And stating that "having sex is a tacit assumption of responsibility" does not suffice. In fact, it's quite lazy. All it does is sophistically argue the reason the mother should be bound to a slave contract.

I don't weigh morals against each other; I wouldn't argue that one right is of higher priority. The mother has a right to her womb; the fetus has a right to its person. And the unfortunate truth is that the fetus is incapable of surviving on its own outside its mother's womb before viability. That's the reason it dies (and note, I'm aware of abortion methods which harm the fetus before expulsion, and I oppose such methods.) This incapacity to survive outside its mother's womb does not justify the fetus's or any wanna be proxy's coercing the mother to carry the pregnancy to term. The mother is still an individual with rights; and just as necessity wouldn't legitimize a person's violating another person's rights, so too must the necessity of the fetus have no relevance in the exercise and defense of one's rights.

Forgive me if no argument you make will convince me that this isn't issue that requires you to be a piece of shit to stand up for.
Neither my convincing you nor your opinion of me is of any consequence. I attempted to have you inform and defend your statement. If you bear no interest in doing so, then by all means, disengage.


#71
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
How can anything be considered illegal when you have con-artists writing their own laws?
How are they con-artists?

This legislation is clearly in conflict with the function of a peaceful and civil society.
Peaceful society? Doesn't/Shouldn't the state arbitrate the standards which bring about a peaceful society?

Does your "individualism" encourage people to shoot everyone they're afraid of with impunity?
No, only those who'd initiate aggression (or threat thereof) which necessitates and effective end.

#72
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
Whille I am glad that you are against abortion, I am legitimately offended at your (possibly feigned) argument. This is not a women's rights issue to me. It is not even a fetal rights issue to me.


Lets get it straight. We are talking about child sacrifice. I don't need a legal justification for finding it abominable. 
#73
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
I believe that The United States in particular(really, the country I am most familiar with)has a very unhealthy and immoral(or amoral?) attitude towards sex, and abortion, like so many other things, is a very ineffective bandaid to grapple with a society given over to sexual immorality. I say it is ineffective  because sexual immorality is not seen as the issue, but pregnancy itself.

Sexual immorality will in the long term destroy society if there isn't a widescale revolt against it.

Look how now they have pills that prevent HIV. Doesn't protect against syphilis,  gonorrhea, or other STDs! No worries, pharmaceutical companies can give you pills to get rid of those. They'll make bank off of exploiting the type of immoral lifestyle that causes so many problems! The medication may be able to cure or prevent the biological harm sexual immorality causes, but it won't do anything for the psychological effect it has on a society!

#74
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Mopac
Lets get it straight. We are talking about child sacrifice. I don't need a legal justification for finding it abominable.
It's not child-sacrifice. To whom would you suggest they're being sacrificed?

And you're correct in that you don't need legal justification to sustain a perspective. I'm not challenging that. I'm challenging the statement that sex creates an obligation.

#75
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
An applicable definition of sacrifice courtesy of Merriam-webster...

"a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost"

A child is clearly being given up. A child is clearly being destroyed for the sake of not having to deal with it.

I didn't say sex creates an obligation, you did, and then you asked if in vitro fertilization creates an obligation, as if anyone who would go through such a thing would have an abortion to begin with(if someone would, they are sick in the head).


#76
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Mopac
I believe that The United States in particular(really, the country I am most familiar with)has a very unhealthy and immoral(or amoral?) attitude towards sex, and abortion, like so many other things, is a very ineffective bandaid to grapple with a society given over to sexual immorality. I say it is ineffective  because sexual immorality is not seen as the issue, but pregnancy itself.

Sexual immorality will in the long term destroy society if there isn't a widescale revolt against it.

Other than characterizing the sexual behavior as "immoral," (instead I would characterize it as dysfunction or destructive) I in fact agree with you. (It's one of the reasons I am personally against abortion.) The only difference is, I sustain that the solution should be subscribed by willful individuals not prescribed by legal force.
#77
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Mopac
An applicable definition of sacrifice courtesy of Merriam-webster...

"a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost"

A child is clearly being given up. A child is clearly being destroyed for the sake of not having to deal with it.

Fair enough. As long as that's the operant definition, and not, for example "ritualistic murder" as the contraction implies, then I'll accept your description.

I didn't say sex creates an obligation, you did, and then you asked if in vitro fertilization creates an obligation, as if anyone who would go through such a thing would have an abortion to begin with(if someone would, they are sick in the head).

I did. And you attempted to inform it by stating that if one didn't want to have a baby, they shouldn't have sex.
#78
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
I personally think if we are going to have laws at all, abortion is one of those things that should be illegal.

Truly though, I see this whole problem as a spiritual one, not a legal one. 

#79
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
the guy in Florida got 20 years for killing the big guy who shoved him to the ground, I'm not so sure the laws are as loose as you are describing.
#80
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
Her welfare cannot be my responsibility
There is world of difference between shouldering responsibility for someone's wellbeing and being justified in shooting them and I just don't think shooting an unaarmed person is ever justified. They are unarmed.

Topic's author
#81
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
She bears me no obligation because it's neither my child, nor my womb, just as she bears you no obligation.
Well stated.

If she's committed a tort, then the parties in dispute are the mother and the fetus. And even if you assume the fetus's proxy, you'd have to justify and identify the arrangement or contract which creates the obligation.
Good point.  You must establish legal-standing (ostensibly by violating the mother's privacy, and by extension, the privacy of all mothers).
Topic's author
#82
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the guy in Florida got 20 years for killing the big guy who shoved him to the ground, I'm not so sure the laws are as loose as you are describing.
That sounds reasonable and consistent with my understanding of a coherent moral theory.

Can you imagine the implications if "the big guy's" death was ruled a suicide?

Have you ever seen the movie "the purge"?
#83
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
yes I have seen the movie and some of the series

Can you imagine the implications if "the big guy's" death was ruled a suicide?
that would have only happened if he worked for the Clintons and might testify against them (zziiiinggggg!!!!)

Topic's author
#84
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I personally think if we are going to have laws at all, abortion is one of those things that should be illegal.
What's your moral theory?

(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) miscarriage = manslaughter

(IFF) life begins at conception (THEN) the state must be notified at the moment of every possible conception (so the nascent citizen can be protected).

(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) the mother should be convicted of murder.

In terms of willfulness, first degree murderers must have the specific intent to end a human life. This intent does not necessarily have to correspond to the actual victim. A murder in which the killer intends to kill but kills the wrong person or a random person would still constitute first degree murder. Furthermore, under many state laws, killing through action showing a depraved indifference to human life can qualify as murder in the first degree.

The possible first degree murder sentences vary widely by state. In some states, such as Florida, all first degree murder convictions bring either the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Other states, such as California, use a two tiered sentencing structure: the first being a range of years (often up to life) in prison, and the second either life without the possibility of parole or the death penalty (in states that allow it). Which tier of sentence the court hands down typically depends on whether the prosecution can prove any of a host of aggravating factors. [LINK]

(IFF) miscarriage = manslaughter (THEN) the mother should be convicted of manslaughter.

The base sentence for involuntary manslaughter under federal sentencing guidelines is a 10 to 16 month prison sentence, which increases if the crime was committed through an act of reckless conduct. [LINK]
Topic's author
#85
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Can you imagine the implications if "the big guy's" death was ruled a suicide?
It could also be considered a suicide if, under Athias' hypothetical moral standard, "the aggressor ('the big guy') is responsible for any and all defensive actions taken against them".
Topic's author
#86
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
The only difference is, I sustain that the solution should be subscribed by willful individuals not prescribed by legal force.
Are you familiar with Voluntarism? [LINK]
Topic's author
#87
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Excuse me, there are so many problems in the world, and you are choosing to advocate invasion of a woman's privacy (womb).

Forgive me if no argument you make will convince me that this isn't issue that requires you to be a piece of schmidt to stand up for.
Topic's author
#88
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
In other words, the biggest scaredy-cat wins!!
Well fear can inform the imperative to defends one's person can't it?
It is also a major contributor to OPPRESSION.

And by the way, if some dude tries to kiss you at a bar, you can kill them too!!
That's public knowledge.
How does that mesh with your "individualism" moral framework?

Are some people "more" individual than others?
#89
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
hmm never heard of that, very interesting, so in short you are responsible for your actions and the repercussions of, makes sense.  In the Florida case, I think the verdict was appropriate, the sentence, well I'm not sure what is an appropriate sentence for taking another life.

it's a very tricky thing, self defense, stand your ground etc, those are shields not swords.

had the guy turned and shot the other guy as he was charging at him, he'd probably not have faced charges.  Now some will argue he could have pulled the gun to scare him into stopping or something like that.  We may have had this discussion before, but that's not how it works.  If you are in fear enough that you pull a gun you'd better use it, otherwise you weren't really in fear for your life.  If you have time to debate it or think a lot about it, that's not an immediate threat.  Brandishing a gun gets YOU arrested.  Moral of the story, often, violence begets violence.

Now back to your topic

(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) miscarriage = manslaughter
voluntary abortion is an act, caused by someone, adverb or verb depending on how it's used, intentional, willful, un-natural (non medically necessary is what I'm specifically talking about)
miscarriage = natural death, not willful, intentional or cause by someone, medical condition
miscarriage is no different then a fatal heart attack, stroke, other medical condition.

#90
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Child sacrifice is abomination, whether done publicly or privately. Whether anyone knows about it or not. 
Any "moral theory" that fails to recognize this can only come from satanic influence.