Abortion: a fance to music distant and dissonant

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 87
#61
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I didn't fully understand your position when I made the post because I hadn't read the whole thread yet, but now that I have I definitely do. The libertarian worldview, morality as consent kind of framework...its not the most insane viewpoint in the world but I definitely don't agree. I would argue that parents would be morally obligated to donate tissues and blood to their kids if they needed it. But if I have a highest value its the family. Abortion is such a tough issue to talk about because it cuts right to what are peoples core beliefs, and I think people realize this on some level which is why it is so emotionally charged. Anyway I will let yall continue to have at it, just wanted to put in my two cents that the CORE disagreement is rarely reached in these convos 
#62
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Should men be forced to forfeit tissue, blood, organs, etc during pregnancy? 
Don't be absurd. Men are not biologically structured for that.
So? If consent to sex is consent to have one's body used - it would necessarily apply to any choosing to have sex. By the reasoning you've supplied, men should be forced to provide blood, tissue, organs as needed - no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

As I said; gender has purpose
This is not a given. You'll need to make that case before it can be used to support an argument here.

Your analogy does not apply because, whether a person can be murdered, or not, [or raped] there must be knowledge of the possibility
Fair enough - easily fixed. You move into an area known to be the approximate hunting grounds of a serial killer - you consent to being murdered by a serial killer? 
#63
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@thett3
Anyway I will let yall continue to have at it, just wanted to put in my two cents that the CORE disagreement is rarely reached in these convos 
Agreed, but hope springs eternal. :-)
#64
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
The whole consent thing is being too much the good whipped feminist. It is daft to apply it to a fetus. Are we afraid to rape a woman with our morality now? Is that it?

It's a deeply complicated issue and a girl might see it as a life sentence handed down for an all too human lapse. Let her make her choice and live with it after. But if you're talking about women consenting to fetuses, you're daft. 
#65
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Bitch come here, let me give you some of these morals. 
#66
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I make myself laugh if no one else.
Topic's author
#67
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
As I said; gender has purpose
This is not a given. 
Oh, is it not? Tell me, how many women of history have inserted the ova into a man? How many men have conceived and born children from their body? Not a given? Time for remedial biology, anatomy, genetics, and the reproductive system of Homo sapiens. There's even a purpose to being skeptical, but this ain't it.

easily fixed
?  too easy. so easy, it missed the mark.

How often is it generally known that a killer resides in the neighborhood? Would I move into such a neighborhood, assuming it was well known? I can live anywhere; meaning multiple choices since my business is conducted virtually entirely online. Anywhere I can establish wifi. So, personally, your analogy has no bars. So, no, I do not consent.
#68
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
As I said; gender has purpose
This is not a given. 
Oh, is it not? Tell me, how many women of history have inserted the ova into a man?
You don't understand the objection. Purpose suggests intent. Intent requires an 'intend-er'. Purpose is not a given.

How often is it generally known that a killer resides in the neighborhood?
This is not what was stipulated.
Topic's author
#69
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
This is not what was stipulated.
You're talking in circles. Who says a neighborhood murderer intends to kill me? On the other hand, who says gender does not have the intent of procreation. Some individual items of our physiology, such as the appendix, may not have known purpose, but it is not given that it therefore had no purpose, or still might, but that given cannot be said for an entire system, such as reproduction. Therefore, it does not hold that purpose does not have intent simply because you cannot specify an intender. I can: God. You have a hard time convincing me that intender doesn't, and all I need to to prove it to myself.
#70
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
On the other hand, who says gender does not have the intent of procreation.
Gender does not have the intent of procreation, it has the ability of procreation.
There is only one just and moral response to the anti-abortion movement, and that is to strike down its arguments in their entirety. A fetus is a possibility, not a person. While abortion can be the tragic end to a wanted pregnancy, it’s never murder.
Topic's author
#71
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW

There is only one just and moral response to the anti-abortion movement,
Moral, perhaps, and morals vary between people, obviously, but just [as in. legal], no. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act [2004] calls the death of a fetus, at any stage of development, murder  when the mother is killed. Murder, because, that is the distinction of killing a person with intention, thus considering the fetus a person. Sorry, but that is the law. Since I am not held to account for your morality, and your mortality ends when in conflict to law, you lose.
#72
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
You're talking in circles. Who says a neighborhood murderer intends to kill me? 
It is an analogy. That being said, I admit it is not a very good analogy. I'll drop it. The point is - consent to an action does not equate to consent for every possibility of that action. 

In this case, "consent to sex = consent to pregancy" is a rule built on questionable reasoning that is applied inconsistently. 

On the other hand, who says gender does not have the intent of procreation.
That's backwards. Its not about what can't be proven, but about what can be demonstrated. If it can't be demonstrated, then there is no good reason to believe it.

You have a hard time convincing me that intender doesn't, and all I need to to prove it to myself.
See above, and keep in mind this site is for debate- you do need to prove it to others here.

Did you want to get back to abortion, or are we completely derailed here?

Topic's author
#73
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
consent to an action does not equate to consent for every possibility of that action. 
Whose brilliant conclusion is that? I don't see that as the impediment of the most sentient being on Earth. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I'm talking about law of nature along with those we develop to create society and civilization. one of those laws being, "Shyte happens." What are you going to do about it? We're supposed to think about this stuff before we engage so fully in congress with other people; in particular, strangers. Who knows where they and their gonads have been, yeah? Sometimes, we can;t think about it in time in the case of rape. But we do the best we can. or should. There is no excuse for anything else. 

Case in point: You encounter a pool at the base of a 100-foot cliff. Oh, look, that would be a kick to jump into. Think it might be wise to confirm, at least, that it's deeper than two feet? Hell, no! let's go.  Well, I say, go ahead; you first.

As for this site, you'll note that even in debate [there is also a forum], that proof may come just by your own perspective'a argument, without evidence. Says so on every page of round entry of debate. Look I lobbied for clarifying that sourcing [the evidence, you know] should be required, not optional. I lost that lobbying. It's optional, my friend, and that's just the debate side. The forum side? open season, my friend. It's an opinion page.

Back to abortion? Let's recall I'm not the one who took us to killers in neighborhoods, yeah?
#74
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Case in point: You encounter a pool at the base of a 100-foot cliff. Oh, look, that would be a kick to jump into. Think it might be wise to confirm, at least, that it's deeper than two feet? Hell, no! let's go.  Well, I say, go ahead; you first.
That is not analogous to unintended pregnancy. For one, there are multiple solutions to unintended pregnancy where there is probably not a solution to death by cliff. 

Let's try something a little closer to home - by the reasoning you've submitted, consent to sex is consent to STD?

Person A: You knew it was a possibility, so now you must suffer the consequences!
Person B: ...what?! Can't I just go to the doctor and get some antibiotics?
Person A: No, thats not how it works - consent to sex is consent to STD and nothing can be done about it now.  Muhahaha!!
Person B: ...

The interesting part to me isnt just consent to sex is equated to consent to pregnancy, but that consent somehow means the problem must be solved in a particular way according to the observers religiously motivated views. 


Topic's author
#75
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
like I said, we are, presumably, sentient beings. So, if we're going to engage in indiscriminate sex, it behooves the careless to educate themselves about all aspects of the consequences. What could happen? It's a simple question. It behooves those who are indiscriminate in their sexual partners to engage an act of intimacy only after some basics of human interaction possibilities are reviewed by serious contemplation. To do otherwise, one deserves what one gets. Cruel? Doesn't have to be. Just follow, simple rules of self-preservation. That is supposed to be inherent in our humanity, particularly to ourselves.

This is an absurd discussion because this stuff is supposed to be basic. If you want to throw out the sentience we have, and live lives of whatever, that's on you. Go ahead, who's stopping you besides your and your mirror? Argue for your limitations; they're yours.
#76
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
I fully support efforts to punish acts of violence against women that harm or terminate a wanted pregnancy.  The Unborn Victims of Violence Acts is an inappropriate method of imposing such punishment, however, because it dangerously seeks to separate the woman from her fetus in the eyes of the law. Such separation is merely the first step toward eroding a woman's right to determine the fate of her own pregnancy and to direct the course of her own health care. For this reason, the ACLU opposes this lawl, but supports alternative approaches to punishing violence against pregnant women.
Topic's author
#77
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
I am not surprised the ACLU dos not support the UVVA; they tend not to support constitutional cicil liberties. But, the UVVA does anything but separate a woman from the fetus. The law stipulates two murder charges, one for the mother; one for the fetus. Two separate lives, but bound together under a single statute. Two persons, since murder is a charge that only applies to the willful death of persons.
#78
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
It seems you (dubiously) assume abortions are for those who engage in indiscriminate sex and are indiscriminate in their sexual partners. It seems you also (wrongly) assume every young person (and adult) has been afforded a comprehensive sex ed by their schools or family. 

Basically, you need to check your assumptions. Sentience is only as good as the information one has to work with and is completely irrelevant to the unforseeable and unavoidable.

Perhaps you and I can never agree on this because of the vast differences in the way that we look at the world. You seem to be 'black and white' and I am 'shades of grey'.

I've enjoyed the discussion - it has been one of our more interesting exchanges. I will leave you to your thread. ;-)



Topic's author
#79
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Who assumes? I assume no such things. I expect that sentient humans engage is sufficient research about sexual activity if not instructed by school or family, and even if they are, but I make no assumptions that they actually do. That's entirely on them and my opinions matters naught. Since I make no assumptions, what needs checking? I do the research, and jave made my own mind on the matter, What others do is on them.  Yes, I am very strict on how I look at sexual activity. I was a virgin until married, and have been utterly faithful to the covenant I made at marriage. If I can do it, anyone can; that they choose not to so is entirely on them and I wish them well, having witnessed those who do not do as I did first-hand. I am a happy man. Many of those who make no commitments are not. Make of that as you will. Yes, it appears we will never agree. 
#80
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
 I am a happy man. Many of those who make no commitments are not. 

Trump seems like a happy man. In an interview in 1997, Trump says he lost his virginity at “about 14.”

100 days later

#81
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
@FLRW
@fauxlaw
@Theweakeredge
you want less abortions right? i think everyone in this forum wants less abortions aswell.

banning abortions doesnt help at all in fact when abortion is legal abortion goes down!!???


democratic policies are also a great factor in abortions going down!?
#82
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@drlebronski
Dude - I'm pro choice and pro abortion, I actually am kinda "meh" on more or less abortion, I don't think there's ANYTHING morally wrong with abortion. So.. yeah, vet your audience a bit more my dude. 
#83
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
.....im aware?
#84
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,977
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
You said you’re pro-choice and pro-abortion. I assume there’s no confusion. What distinction are you making?

#85
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Before modern medicine women alone determine whether or not their pregnancy went to full-term.  And then modern medicine stepped in to make it more efficient. Because of that women have been subjugated to second class when deciding what happens with their bodies and their pregnancy. With things like the morning after pill and the abortion pill eventually these things will be done in the home privately without any need to leave the house or go to a doctor. What a glorious day that will be.

#86
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@drlebronski
Le sigh - you tagged me to this post:
"banning abortions doesnt help at all in fact when abortion is legal abortion goes down!!???"

#87
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
I usually tag everyone involved in arguments that's why i tagged flrw and skeptic