Abortion: a fance to music distant and dissonant

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 87
Topic's author
#31
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
If one accepts the notion that God is the cause of everything that now occurs, I suppose one could arrive at the conclusion that God causes miscarriages, etc. Does he? I do not subscribe to that opinion. In fact, I don't believe God is the total, eventual cause of anything. He has initiated everything, by creation, but I'm of the belief that evolution is not even just the other side of the coin, but that it is on the same side of the same coin; the next process following the initial process of initial creation. Creation plus evolution. However, I also do not believe God retired and went fishing. He's still involved, watching as we cause events ourselves. We're all, people, other animals, plants, and Earth, herself, processing as we go, some by good choices, some not, and, sometimes, events occur outside our choice or control; the nature of the beast that is the third rock from the sun.
Topic's author
#32
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
When we chose to act, we chose to inherit the responsibility for the act. 

if you cut the connectors
Ah, but cutting the connection of the heart to its surrounding tissue; that is an outside action, not a natural function of the body. So, is the act of cutting the umbilical an outside action. It isn't really even necessary. Ever ask yourself, bud, what happens if the umbilical is never cut? By nature, the umbilical is sealed off in a few hours, and the whole of it will detach in a few more hours to a few days. All by itself, by nature. I may slip in philosophy, and bow to your greater education therein, but my family background in medicine goes back three generations. Although I did not pursue it professionally, I've been an avid student my whole life. I get it.
#33
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Mmm - let's completely grant that-  teeth then? Hair? Skin? There are so many other examples I could list 'em for a bit - but here I am grandstanding that argument - and yet the examples do not diminish. 
Topic's author
#34
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
teeth then? Hair? Skin? 
Recall with whom you deal.

Teeth: no, teeth, so-called "baby teeth" do not fall out; they are pushed out by mature teeth. And mature teeth are pulled out, or are struck, all external actions on the teeth. Even teeth that rot in the mouth do not just fall out; they are weakened by the rot; by the poor care applied to them by the person affected. All external actions.

Hair: dead tissue, by which cause the follicle fails.

Skin: also dead tissue.

You may argue that a baby is born by external action. Yes, by convenience, but nature can do it entirely on its own, without even the mother's direct involvement, and does.
#35
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
 Mother and fetus do not share DNA.
While women do inherit 50% of their DNA from each parent, men inherit about 51% from their mother and only 49% from their father.
I assume  you are going to use your statement on the Maury Povich show when he says "You are the Father".
Topic's author
#36
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
I am aware of the basics of genetics. That does not change the fact that the fetus is a different person from either parent, and that, therefore, the fetus is not part of the woman's body, but is merely contained therein, as in a closed-end cavity, open on one side, just as you would hold a golf ball in your clenched fist.
#37
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
You are not addressing my argument at all. 

Let me ask you, can someone use the body of another without consent? If not, then it doesn't matter if the person is 80 years or 8 seconds old - the answer is still the same: no.

Also, I do not accept human bodies are the product of design. That premise is dubious and much too unstable to build an argument on.

#38
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Yes, humans evolved from a rat like mammal. The earliest known mammals were the morganucodontids, tiny shrew-size creatures that lived in the shadows of the dinosaurs 210 million years ago. They were one of several different mammal lineages that emerged around that time. All living mammals today, including us, descend from the one line that survived.
Topic's author
#39
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
No, someone external to the body of another cannot usurp the use of the first person's body. But a fetal pregnancy is not  possessive use of the woman's body by external means other than by coitus. Further, the sexual act which produced the fetus is entirely the product of two gametes from the contributing father and mother. The resulting zygote is entirely a matter of natural biology, and not the invention, nor intention, and, therefore, not the possessive greed of the zygote for its own purposes.

Whether you accept the design, or not, the fact is, unchangeable by your opinion, the female of the human species is naturally endowed with child-bearing ability. She may choose to avoid engaging it. But don't expect that engaging the process has within it the natural ability to obstruct the process of procreation, other than by intentional, permanent means, which is, as well, a matter of choice.
#40
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Um.... they still fall out - you can pull your semantics games all you want - but they do fall out, it seems your objections are quite pedantic. They are all things that fall out and are considered part of your body. 
#41
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
From that logic, I could just say that the muscles push out the infant, just like mature teeth do baby teeth. 
Topic's author
#42
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
You do realize, yeah, that your semantics claim superiority of mine. Pardon if I disagree. 
#43
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw

If a individual is an internal user, using for non-possessive reasons, or because 'its natural' - use of another person's body without consent is acceptable? The first two options could feasibly justify actions which undermine rights. The last option is simply fallacious.





Topic's author
#44
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
If a individual is an internal user
What, pray tell, is an internal user; possessive, natural, or whatever?
#45
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
All taken from your post. If you don't know, then I can't help you. ;-)
Topic's author
#46
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Which post of mine? I just did a command-f search for "internal user" in this entire string. Doesn't exist at all until your post #43,  so, you tell me.
#47
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@badger
Rear ended hey....Some might say, the solution to the problem.

And I love your use of metaphor.
#48
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Live birth viability is based on technology.

I know I know.....It was a GOD what did it.

The technology I mean.


And the foetus is not just enclosed, but also attached and reliant.

You overlooked the attached and reliant bit.

I know I know.... A GOD and technology.


And as anyone ever stopped and asked the foetus what it thinks....Or if it cares.

And humans variously continue to do this, that and the other.

Such is the potential of gamete fusion.

Topic's author
#49
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
attached and reliant - temporarily. kind of like the sex that begins the whole thing. Yeah, God's tech.
#50
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Mmm - no - just pointing out that your "the teeth isn't the same" is bullshit, your entire argument is bullshit, the fact that the bit in question can come out does not preclude it from being a part of the mother, the oxygenation, protein syndication, all of that - was done by the mother. 
#51
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Which post of mine? I just did a command-f search for "internal user" in this entire string. Doesn't exist at all until your post #43,  so, you tell me.
Post #39
Topic's author
#52
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
My post #39 makes no mention of "internal user." I don't even know what you mean by the term, as I asked before. Your post #43 is the first mention of it. Admit it, then tell me what is meant by it. Do you not know how to do a search for a specific string of words in online text? If you're using a Windows-based machine, I don't have a clue, because you don't have a keyboard command key. Try your <ALT> key. I was broken on the pane of windows years ago; I really have no idea how y'all compensate for lack of excellence. My old '84 Macintosh still functions just fine, if slow compared to now.
#53
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
No, someone external to the body of another cannot usurp the use of the first person's body.
In response to:

Let me ask you, can someone use the body of another without consent? If not, then it doesn't matter if the person is 80 years or 8 seconds old - the answer is still the same: no.

You qualified your no with "someone external to the body" - meaning someone internal COULD use the body of another without consent. Thats problematic. 




Topic's author
#54
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think I understand what you mean. You're saying a fetus, being inside the mother, is violating the rights of the mother? But she has participated in 50% of its creating, whether she wanted to or not, so, if you imply that the fetus is usurping the mother's right, I'll argue that the mother has given implied consent simply b y virtue of her choice to have sex, excepting in cases of rape, and some incest [where her consent to having sex was not given]. By her consent, there is no violation of her rights. And, as already noted, the incident of rape or incest is very low compared to consent. Therefore, your argument is overwhelmingly false.
#55
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
if you imply that the fetus is usurping the mother's right, I'll argue that the mother has given implied consent simply b y virtue of her choice to have sex

Clarification, please. Is it your position explicit consent to sex is implicit consent to use of one's body by a third party which doesn't exists at the time?
Topic's author
#56
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Tell me when the gamete is not alive? In the female, her gametes [in her case, ova] develop when she, herself, is a fetus, developing the whole number of ova [gametes] she will ever have in her lifetime, and, thus, are always alive and with purpose before she is ever born. So, yes, she is biologically of consent to conceive unless she chooses to avoid coitus, or is raped, or by 100% confidence, can depend on artificial contraceptives, the which confidence level presently does not exist but by one means: sterilization.
#57
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Gametes are persons now?! With that new line in the sand, the death toll per day rises exponentially. Wouldn't sterilization be mass murder?! You're creating more problems by trying to justify what is indefensible. I have questions, but you're backpedaling off a cliff faster than I can ask them!

Besides, you have not anticipated my point: if consent to sex is consent to use of one's body by a third party - that would apply to both men and women. Should men be forced to forfeit tissue, blood, organs, etc during pregnancy? What about after birth - after all, according to you, consent to sex is consent to use of one's body by offspring, right?

Making a 'yes' to sex into a 'yes' to anything that might happen because of it is silly. If you unknowingly moved into a neighborhood frequented by a serial killer, you don't consent to being murdered. You have the ability and right to protect yourself. There is no obligation for you to rollover and die because 'consent to live here is consent to being murdered by serial killers' - thats absurd. You consent to live in the neighborhood - nothing else. Likewise, consent to sex is only *consent to sex* - nothing else.
#58
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Besides, you have not anticipated my point: if consent to sex is consent to use of one's body by a third party - that would apply to both men and women. Should men be forced to forfeit tissue, blood, organs, etc during pregnancy? What about after birth - after all, according to you, consent to sex is consent to use of one's body by offspring, right?
Men cannot get pregnant, so this comparison makes no sense. But men absolutely do have an obligation to care for the mother during her pregnancy and to sacrifice for the child once its born. If they don't want that burden there is an easy solution...

Making a 'yes' to sex into a 'yes' to anything that might happen because of it is silly. If you unknowingly moved into a neighborhood frequented by a serial killer, you don't consent to being murdered. You have the ability and right to protect yourself. There is no obligation for you to rollover and die because 'consent to live here is consent to being murdered by serial killers' - thats absurd. You consent to live in the neighborhood - nothing else. Likewise, consent to sex is only *consent to sex* - nothing else.
"Unknowingly" is the key word. Even if you're not trying to get pregnant, you're still choosing to have sex, which you know could lead to a pregnancy. I also don't understand why people pretend that consent is the only thing that matters in morality. If someone knowingly consented to being murdered by a serial killer, I still wouldn't just let it happen, consent or no. Similarly, I don't think parents have the right to murder their children, whether they consented to have them or not. I normally wouldn't chime in on an abortion debate because I think they're totally pointless, but I think this is the key point here:

Those of us who are pro-life genuinely believe that what is happening during an abortion is the murder of a human being, and no arguments about consent or whatever else are going to sway us. If you believed, in your heart of hearts, that a fetus is a human being the arguments you're making wouldn't sway you, either. It's just a fundamental disagreement on what qualifies as human life so unless the argument is about only that, it's all just arguments that are going to go around forever with no resolution. I haven't ever seen a productive discussion on the actual disagreement, it's just too touchy...but hopefully this helps people understand where the other side is coming from a little
#59
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@thett3
It's just a fundamental disagreement on what qualifies as human life so unless the argument is about only that, it's all just arguments that are going to go around forever with no resolution. I haven't ever seen a productive discussion on the actual disagreement, it's just too touchy...but hopefully this helps people understand where the other side is coming from a little
I completely understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you grasp my position at all. It has nothing to do with how human life is defined.

My position is simply that there is no right to use the body of another without consent, and that there is a right to control one's own body. We don't demand parents donate organs, tissues, blood for their children after they are born. Granted most parents would, but they are not *obligated* to. It is special pleading to say a pregnant woman should be obligated when no one in any other comparable circumstance is.
Topic's author
#60
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Did I say the gamete is a person? No. I did not even infer that because I know the gamete is just half of the DNA molecule, but it is a living organism that can only be a person, eventually. Therefore, no sterilization is not murder. In fact, the act of sterilization dos not end the life of gametes in either sex. So, where is my backpeddlimg? Seems it's yours by making assumptions of what I am saying. 

Should men be forced to forfeit tissue, blood, organs, etc during pregnancy? 
Don't be absurd. Men are not biologically structured for that. As I said; gender has purpose, and the idea that one sex can decide in the head to be another sex doesn't change the biology of the matter. A man deciding to remove his penis a cut a slit does not make him a woman. The biology does not follow the surgery, hormone treatment, or not.

 If you unknowingly moved into a neighborhood
Poor analogy. Unless that murderer crosses my threshold into my personal space, the murder is unlikely to happen, so my unwitting move into the neighborhood in no way signals my consent. Consent actually has legal standards: capacity of decision, and consent documentation. Both imply that I have prior knowledge that a murderer, in fact, resides in the neighborhood. Your analogy does not apply because, whether a person can be murdered, or not, [or raped] there must be knowledge of the possibility, and what that means, prior to offering consent, and the refusal of consent must at least verbalized, but is legally acceptable by physical resistance.