Abortion Double Standard

Author: Bones

Posts

Total: 206
#121
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
"for something to be contradictory they must be 1 to 1. For instance: if i say its wrong for anyone to litter but then litter, i have contradicted myself and acted hypocritically. If im a narcissist and say others shouldn't litter, then i don't contradict myself if i litter, as i only apply that moral ought to others. There really is no realistic symmetry here which cant simply be brushed away based on preference/perspective."
What would you say against this? 
#122
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
 and cited the names of women who have been sent to prison both for murdering their babies
i never claimed that NO mothers who kill their own children before 12 months have been convicted of "murder"

my claim is that (at least in canada) MOST mothers convicted of infanticide do not serve more than one year

have fun burning down your own strawmen
Topic's author
#123
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Ehyeh
I think we can argue hypothetically without necessarily acting in certain ways, for that would be a Tu quoque fallacy. I can argue that abortion is wrong, and have an abortion, but that would not attack the validity of my argument. 
#124
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
Well, the point still holds even if we keep this argument i present strictly in the abstract, it still seems to apply. My argument demonstrates if two things are not fully symmetrical in all facets then its impossible to change someone's mind or get them to believe its a contradiction (or inconsistent) if they simply have a different moral axiom on what to value (as can be the case with this "double standard"). It becomes semantically impossible to get someone to see this as a double standard if things aren't perfectly symmetrical and don't have the same starting axiomatic base as you. There are naturally many differences between someone's right to their resource of wealth and their resource rights to their womb. Therefore Athias's agreement with you only stands once we forget about everything except the fact both are "resources" we own. Evidently this is necessarily reductionist of other facts of the matter, and if someone doesn't want to negate those other facts of the matter, athias's agreement does not stand under the scrutiny of reason.
#125
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Ehyeh
for something to be contradictory they must be 1 to 1. For instance: if i say its wrong for anyone to litter but then litter, i have contradicted myself and acted hypocritically. If im a narcissist and say others shouldn't litter, then i don't contradict myself if i litter, as i only apply that moral ought to others. There really is no realistic symmetry here which cant simply be brushed away based on preference/perspective.
Or extend the same/identical principle. The comparison here is that a prospective mother is the proprietor of her womb, just as a prospective father is the proprietor of the fruits of his labor. That denying her womb on principle is no different than denying another financial support.

#126
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
stands once we forget about everything except the fact both are "resources" we own. Evidently this is necessarily reductionist of other facts of the matter, and if someone doesn't want to negate those other facts of the matter, athias's agreement does not stand as consistent. 
do you understand how moral principles work ?
#127
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
If one has a social contract with the state to fund social programs (such as building roads, schools, and parks), then why does someone have a financial obligation to other people's kids, aiding them in getting a free school meal, for someone else's kids to be able to go to the dentist, hospital, and to have nice schools, but he doesn't have a moral obligation to his own son financially?   If one has a social contract with the state to fund social programs (such as building roads, schools, and parks), then why does someone have a financial obligation to other people's kids, aiding them in getting a free school meal, for someone else's kids to be able to go to the dentist, hospital, and to have nice schools, but he doesn't have a moral obligation to his own son financially?
 If it follows that murder and rape are illegal due to my body being my own property. It therefore follows that the most consistent line to draw personhood (and therefore a right to life) is not at the point of humanhood but when one should be given bodily autonomy rights, this then means the point at which one attains bodily autonomy is not at conception but once one has a body viable independent of another's (how can you have bodily autonomy if you don't have an independent body to begin with and never have?
 
  Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal.
Most foetus's do not possess autonomy of their own (independent of another's bodily autonomy). therefore they do not have bodily autonomy as extension of the first necessary tenant of "autonomy". they then also do not possess any self-ownership as an extension of failing to fulfil tenant one. Most foetus fail to fulfil two key tenants to fulling the necessary requirements for bodily integrity rights.
-
Considering the fact bodily autonomy is to do with your body what you wish. If you're not independently viable you physically cant do with your body what you wish (from another's own bodily autonomy). Your body cannot be said to be yours alone if it is not self sustaining without the leverage/aid of another's bodily autonomy. Your bodily autonomy becomes theirs if you don't have independent viability. This then means (most) foetus's don't have a right to bodily autonomy, therefore they don't necessarily have a human right to life either. What do you think of that, Mr bones?
-
Remember,  bodily autonomy rights only apply when you're reliant on another's body. Therefore arguing for people hooked up on machines or the disabled is a non-sequitur.
 
And once more, there's other facts of the matter which make them unsymmetrical unless we simply reduce it down to ownership of a "resource". How would you argue against this? Bones has yet to respond too it. This to me shows a clear symmetry breaker between a woman's bodily integrity rights and a mans right to his wealth (which doesn't really exist).

#128
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you be interested in explaining to me? I like to imagine i do, we will see though.
#129
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
Would you be interested in explaining to me? I like to imagine i do, we will see though.
moral principles necessarily apply to ALL CONCEIVABLE situations

in order to make this possible, each situation must be stripped to its essential elements

the alternative to moral principles is what is commonly known as "situational ethics"

in "situational ethics" any analysis inevitably devolves into "a matter of perspective" and then claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is either obviously disingenuous, intellectually and or morally blind, stupid, or alternatively, pure-evil
#130
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I suppose that makes a lot of sense. I usually just call them maxims as opposed to principles, although that's simply a semantics difference (im a soft deontologist). Although im mostly into virtue ethics.
#131
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
You’ve gone from saying this:

apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill it
Which is blatantly untrue.

To this:


i said that if the mother of a child kills her own child

within the first 12 month of it being born

is NOT murder
Which is also false. Woman are charged and convicted of murder in some cases, and infanticide in others.

To this:

convicted mothers usually get no jail time
Which at best talks only about infanticide, and doesn’t cover the women charged and convicted of murder.


Given that you’re kinda jumping around, we’ve now got to the point you seem to acknowledge that woman are convicted of actual murder, and generally get jail time - but less than for someone killing a stranger: which we both know is what I meant.


So let’s qualify all this ridiculous nonsense, full circle:


The idea that you can decide to kill your child before twelve months is utter bullsh*t. Invented from whole clothe.

You confuse the existence of an infanticide statute - which exists to recognize that there are tragic examples of manslaughter and murders of children down to post partum mental illness that should not be treated as murder - with that statute applying to all cases of women killing their children. This is again - bullsh*t.

You assert that because you feel a woman killing a child qualifies as mentally unstable - and thus the law applies - and thus you’re not likely to get a stuff penalty; even those this is not what the law says, and this is not how the law appears to apply: this interpretation, again, bullsh*t.

Finally, let’s return to the claim.

In your hypothetical scenario: you feel that if a woman “decides” to kill their child, it would be treated as infanticide as you could argue they are mentally unstable, and would be unlikely to receive significant jail time.

The reality, is that the crown could and probably would (given examples), prosecute them for first degree murder, and they would receive a pretty stiff sentence as a result; because it’s unlikely mental instability due to child birth could be established.

Given this, your original statement and must off the guff since is all bullsh*t. 

You appear to be continually selectively quoting me, failing to respond to key arguments, ignoring specific and targeted attacks on your argument for whatever reason; but that’s the whole point, laid out.

If you’re  going to  continually refuse to respond to the specific reasons the things you’re saying are wrong; it’s not possible to have a rational discussion with you
#132
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,825
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Bones
I've thought on this a bit and I think I see our major point of contention. You agree that there is a symmetrical principle of consent and subsequent withdrawal in regards to a mother and father, but hold that the extent to which the mother is subjected to adverse conditions is to a far greater extent than that of a father. I think this can be clarified with the following analogy. 

Suppose you have an allergy peanuts and go to a restaurant to order dinner. Before you order, the waiter tells you that, though the meal you have ordered does not specifically have peanuts, the pots and pans used to cook your meal may have had contact with peanuts. You accept the risk and have your meal, however, you are faced with an allergic reaction. The extent to which you react does not in any way change the moral reprehensibility of the restaurant, for the principle of consent has been confirmed. 

This isn't completely analogous, but it untangles the specific principle that the severity events antecedent of the time in which consent was enacted  does not in any way move the fundamental principle in play. 
...I'm sorry, I'm honestly trying to understand this analogy and I'm not getting it at all. It's not just that it doesn't compare well with the circumstances we're discussing, but it also doesn't even reflect the specific circumstances that I discussed. You're right that part of the problem is that the adverse conditions for the mother are greater than those for the father, though I'm not very clear how this analogy utilizes anything similar to that distinction. If you want to demonstrate that your principle makes this largely unimportant, please do so more directly.
#133
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
Given that you’re kinda jumping around, we’ve now got to the point you seem to acknowledge that woman are convicted of actual murder, and generally get jail time - but less than for someone killing a stranger: which we both know is what I meant.
you injecting the invisible word "always" and imagining "all mothers" into my statements is the very definition of a strawman
#134
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
The idea that you can decide to kill your child before twelve months is utter bullsh*t. Invented from whole clothe.
no, no it is not
#135
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
You appear to be continually selectively quoting me, failing to respond to key arguments, ignoring specific and targeted attacks on your argument for whatever reason; but that’s the whole point, laid out.
you are also "selectively quoting me" and "failing to respond to key arguments" and, holy crap, basically just making up things that i never said.
#136
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
im a soft deontologist
good to know
#137
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
you injecting the invisible word "always" and imagining "all mothers" into my statements is the very definition of a strawman
Not really; in my last post I tacked together the three primary posts that I’ve been using to draw my characterization of your argument - exactly - specifically. I characterized your argument exactly from your words and made the same exact points Ive made all along.

My characterization of your argument has been completely accurate throughout - I have been attacking that characterization. 

What you’re doing here - is really just a semantic objection to something I said. That I used the wrong word - even though that word made no material difference in the argument I was making.

You’ve characterized the law as being able to decide to murder your kids, that murdering your kids isn’t classified as murder, and that the punishment is mostly trivial.  None of those things are true. And I’ve been attacking that throughout.

Pretending that I mischaracterized you: when I’ve been taking what you said, and the points you’ve been making throughout - is rather disingenuous.


no, no it is not
Yes It is - I explained exactly how and why above - I can summarizes the posts and links in which I have.

you are also "selectively quoting me" and "failing to respond to key arguments" and, holy crap, basically just making up things that i never said.
Where exactly? 

Please cite the specific post you feel I have not responded to a key argument, or have selectively quoted you. 


My issue is that I’m attacking what you’ve been saying, your characterization of the law.

You have mischaracterized the law by saying you can decide to murder your child - implying that you won’t be prosecuted for murder. That’s false

You have mischaracterized the law by saying women who murder their children is not murder. That’s also false: women are charged and convicted both of murder and infanticide. I mean that’s what you said - and you’ve been ignoring this critical distinction for like 15 posts now - despite it completely refuting one of your central points.

You have characterized the punishment for murdering your child as minimal - which it almost always isn’t for the type of cases equivalent to “deciding to kill” your kids. 


You’re not defending any of that nonsense; you keep sliding over and ignoring this part of my argument - the critical part.

Instead you appear to fixate on cases where I am characterizing your argument pretty accurately but used the word “always” instead of “mostly”.

This is just a semantic non argument - because you are unable to address my central point.


By all means - refer to my last post, take my characterization of your posts - and tell my which part am I misrepresenting and why. 
Topic's author
#138
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@whiteflame
...I'm sorry, I'm honestly trying to understand this analogy and I'm not getting it at all. It's not just that it doesn't compare well with the circumstances we're discussing, but it also doesn't even reflect the specific circumstances that I discussed. You're right that part of the problem is that the adverse conditions for the mother are greater than those for the father, though I'm not very clear how this analogy utilizes anything similar to that distinction. If you want to demonstrate that your principle makes this largely unimportant, please do so more directly.
The point of the analogy addresses your fundamental point that there is an asymmetry because  "what a mother goes through in order to give birth (is not) equivalent to financial payments",  by showing that the negative effects which occur subsequently do not effect the fundamental principle. In the analogy, consent was given, and it doesn't matter if the person had a mild skin irritation reaction or a cardiac arrest. In the symmetry of abortion, it is the requirement to give birth and financial payment. Sure, those two may not be comparable, but it doesn't matter. 

#139
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,825
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Bones
Suffice it to say that I don’t think this is all that comparable. We’re talking about whether parents should be able to alter their consent after an initial decision is made. The basis for doing so, from what you’ve said, is that both parties made the initial consent, and if one party can revoke their consent later, then the other party should be able to do so as well. I’m arguing that their revocation of consent is done for very different reasons in recognition of very different harms, i.e. that the symmetry you’re trying to establish between the impact of the mother’s capacity to revoke consent and that of the father is, in fact, not symmetrical.

I don’t really see how this analogy reflects that. It’s making an entirely different point about how the initial choice, if done with appropriate knowledge of the potential consequences, is still consent regardless of those consequences. That’s a distinct issue.
#140
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
Not really; in my last post I tacked together the three primary posts that I’ve been using to draw my characterization of your argument - exactly - specifically. I characterized your argument exactly from your words and made the same exact points Ive made all along.
here's an example,

apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill it

which i'm going to compare to the following,

apparently, at least in america, a person can purchase a weapon any time they wish

your objections amount to 

"what if that person doesn't live near a store ?"

"what if that person doesn't have any money ?"

"well, not ALL weapons are available for purchase in ALL cities 24 hours a day"

and i respond with,

ok, MOST people who live in MOST places in america can purchase MOST weapons at MOST times that suit their whims

and you say,

YOU CLARIFIED YOUR STATEMENT BASED ON MY OBJECTIONS THEREFORE YOU ARE A LIAR !!!!!!!!!!!!

good grief, that's what a conversation is

obviously infanticide is still a crime and every crime receives punishments at the whim of the court that hears each individual case

but it is a fact that MOST women convicted of infanticide serve less than one year in jail (at least in canada)

and sure, SOME women may be convicted of murder instead of infanticide for killing their own children within the first 12 months

but that's not really the part that's interesting, i mean, that's exactly what anyone would expect, it's probably what you expected

the infanticide conversation is interesting because the "pro-life" camp gets an enormous amount of rhetorical momentum from the simple "abortion is murder" slogan

and well, the simple fact that infanticide exists as a legal standard pierces a rather large hole in that hypothetical equivalence
#141
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
I’m arguing that their revocation of consent is done for very different reasons in recognition of very different harms, i.e. that the symmetry you’re trying to establish between the impact of the mother’s capacity to revoke consent and that of the father is, in fact, not symmetrical.
not perfectly symmetrical, yes everyone agrees

even from one mother to another mother to another mother, the factors weighed in their decisions are not exactly the same of course

but the impact of the father "opting out" is much less significant than the mother "opting out"

what moral framework are you using as a reference ?

by what logic do you allow the mother to "opt out" ?

and by what logic do you NOT allow the father to "opt out" ?
#142
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
What you’re doing here - is really just a semantic objection to something I said.
What you’re doing here - is really just a semantic objection to something I said.
#143
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
You have mischaracterized the law by saying you can decide to murder your child - implying that you won’t be prosecuted for murder. That’s false
in most cases it's actually true
#144
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
despite it completely refuting one of your central points.
contradicting is not the same as "refuting"
#145
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
Instead you appear to fixate on cases where I am characterizing your argument pretty accurately but used the word “always” instead of “mostly”.

This is just a semantic non argument - because you are unable to address my central point.
to be perfectly clear, there is an extremely significant difference between ALWAYS and MOSTLY

but seriously,

instead of harping about how "your central point" "keeps getting missed"

just make "your point" clearly

what the hell is your "central point" anyway ?
#146
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill it

which i'm going to compare to the following,

apparently, at least in america, a person can purchase a weapon any time they wish

This is a terrible analogy; it omits anthe key error in your argument. The two key errors as I keep pointing out, is one of classification: that all purchases are A, whereas some are actually B; and that you are using the results of one category of crime as a basis to assume that another category of crime would be treated similarly.

Fixing your analogy:

“Anyone can decide to buy a nuclear weapon  - because the punishment for illegally purchasing a fire arm is normally less than a year.”

Or let’s try another:

“Any wife can decide to murder their husband - because the punishment for battered wive defences is normally less than a year in prison.”

That’s the issue with your argument:

The issue I keep pointing out, and you keep purposefully stripping out of your responses and ignoring is:

  • Buying a nuclear weapon would not be categorized as illegally purchasing a firearm.
  • Murdering your husband for arbitrary reasons would not be categorized as a battered wife  defences.
  • Deciding to kill your baby - would not be categorized as infanticide.

And:

  • The penalty for illegally purchasing a weapon being is less than a year - doesn’t mean atypical or different offences are also treated leniently
  • The penalty for a battered wife being less than a year - doesn’t mean atypical murders or different offences are treated leniently
  • The penalty for infanticide being less than a year doesn’t mean atypical murders or different offences are treated leniently.

Your responses are akin to:
  • But nuclear weapons are technically fire arms, as they are weapons, that law would apply. 
  • A wife would never kill their husband unless she could argue he was harmful to her in some way.
  • But I didn’t say it was ALWAYS less than a year! You’re making stuff up, I never said that!!!

You completely ignore the critical issue in your post - to fixate on some random minutae that has no bearing and continually and repeatedly ignore the arguments in the post when they’re made.


YOU CLARIFIED YOUR STATEMENT BASED ON MY OBJECTIONS THEREFORE YOU ARE A LIAR

By all means cite the post where I called you a liar. You can add it to the citation of where you feel I am selectively quoting you, or where I have failed to respond to one of your key arguments… I’m still waiting on those:


and sure, SOME women may be convicted of murder instead of infanticide for killing their own children within the first 12 months

Bingo. Nailed it. Let’s try and get you over the edge. Pay attention. Let me walk you through the issue and problem in your argument, yet again. Hopefully, you will not strip out and ignore this critical point this time - as you have continued to do throughout. Here we go:

There are very rare, heartbreaking instances of women after childbirth, not thinking straight for a variety of reasons - through forms of inaction or momentary breaks - kill their children (Crime A). The law recognizes that this type of scenario is not the same as cold blooded killing of a stranger, so has a special law to cover it (Law A) - when Law A is applied to crime A, typically the courts are lenient and aware limited jail time (Punishment A)- if any; and that’s not unreasonable. A day old baby screaming for a entire days on end, a mother in pain at her wits end, snaps for just a split second and shakes her baby - that’s not cold blooded murder and shouldn’t be treated that way.

There are also - even rarer - pretty horrifying murders of children, callous abuse, or bordering on psychopathic decisions where a mother kills a child. (Crime B). The law recognizes this scenario is as murder, and typically ends up with the mother charged for Murder (Law B); being convicted and going to prison for multiple years (punishment B). There is perhaps one or or two case where the woman commits such a murder and is charged with infanticide, and faces larger jail time than in Punishment A (Punishment B) - perhaps there is some mitigation, but is generally punished by Murder with lots of jail time. Perhaps not all, not all cold blooded murders yield the same result after all  - but generally so.

Deciding to murder a child, is not (A) - it’s (B)

Your argument, is that because women who commit Crime A, and are prosecuted under law A are typically given Punishment A - that a women can decide to commit crime B, and largely expect to be prosecuted under law A, and receive punishment A, rather than be prosecuted and punished for Crime B under per Law B. 

No. That’s stupid. As I have been saying throughout.

What you’re doing here - is really just a semantic objection to something I said.

How? Why? Because you say so?

I explained why this argument was semantic - in the part of my post you stripped out and ignored

in most cases it's actually true.

Not at all; and I described exactly why in the part of my post you stripped out and ignored

Punishment for Crime A is meaningless as an indicator of the punishment for Crime B

contradicting is not the same as "refuting"

But in your case - you explicitly state that killing your child is not murder - that Crime B is treated as Crime A. Showing that people committing Crime B are charged with Crime B, not Crime A both contradicts- and refutes the claim. This was covered in the part of my post you stripped out and ignored.

And this is really your issue: rather than explain why what I said didn’t refute your claim; you’re just objecting to my characterization of what some data does, on a technicality.

to be perfectly clear, there is an extremely significant difference between ALWAYS and MOSTLY

And if I was basing any of my argument on this difference, your complaint would be relevant - but it’s not.

but seriously, just make "your point" clearly … what the hell is your "central point" anyway ?

This is getting to the point you’re being purposefully dishonest.

Literally the 5 paragraphs above the portion you quoted spell out the details of what my objection is. Why are you chopping out all the paragraphs where I clearly spell out my point - and then demand I clearly spell out my point. 

This is ridiculous.

This post was a reiteration of post 131: where I detail what you’ve said, what my objection to it is, and why: you completely ignored the detail of that entire post too - fixating on a minor semantic issue - childish parroting, and assertion:

This post was a summary of post 81 - which you almost entirely ignored, and also post 90 - when I specifically repeated this same argument - and upon which you largely ignored in order to focus on simply reiterating the claims being contested that a.) “But a nuclear weapon is a type of firearm”, b.) “Firearms offences normally carry a lower sentence”, and c.) nuh-uh.

At this stage you seen comprehensively unwilling to even acknowledge - leave alone respond to what I’m actually saying.
#147
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
You completely ignore the critical issue in your post - to fixate on some random minutae that has no bearing and continually and repeatedly ignore the arguments in the post when they’re made.
You completely ignore the critical issue in your post - to fixate on some random minutae that has no bearing and continually and repeatedly ignore the arguments in the post when they’re made.
#148
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
Your argument, is that because women who commit Crime A, and are prosecuted under law A are typically given Punishment A - that a women can decide to commit crime B, and largely expect to be prosecuted under law A, and receive punishment A, rather than be prosecuted and punished for Crime B under per Law B. 
ok, so your entire contention is with the word "decide" ?
#149
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
You completely ignore the critical issue in your post - to fixate on some random minutae that has no bearing and continually and repeatedly ignore the arguments in the post when they’re made.
In what way? Where? What did I miss? Can you cite examples?

When you’ve cited that: can you go back and cite:
- where I called you a liar.
- where I selectively quoted you and missed a key point.

This is just petulance.

ok, so your entire contention is with the word "decide" ?
My entire contention is listed in detail in the post you just completely ignored.

#150
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
Your argument, is that because women who commit Crime A, and are prosecuted under law A are typically given Punishment A - that a women can decide to commit crime B, and largely expect to be prosecuted under law A, and receive punishment A, rather than be prosecuted and punished for Crime B under per Law B. 
ok, so your entire contention is with the word "decide" ?


In Canada, infanticide is a specific offence under section 237 of the Criminal Code. It is defined as a form of culpable homicide which is neither murder nor manslaughter, and occurs when "a female person... by a wilful act or omission... causes the death of her newly-born child [defined as a child under one year of age], if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed."[183] Infanticide is also a defence to murder, in that a person accused of murder who successfully presents the defence is entitled to be convicted of infanticide rather than murder.[184][185] The maximum sentence for infanticide is five years' imprisonment; by contrast, the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life, and the mandatory sentence for murder is life.[183]

The offence derives from an offence created in English law in 1922, which aimed to address the issue of judges and juries who were reluctant to return verdicts of murder against women and girls who killed their newborns out of poverty, depression, the shame of illegitimacy, or otherwise desperate circumstances, since the mandatory sentence was death (even though in those circumstances the death penalty was likely not to be carried out). With infanticide as a separate offence with a lesser penalty, convictions were more likely. The offence of infanticide was created in Canada in 1948.[184]