What they get wrong is they think they're entitled to tell anybody else how to live their fucking life. If you can terminate the life of a grown adult who's determined to be a vegetable then you can certainly terminate the life of something inside your body that isn't even considered a citizen yet. It's all about the hatred and control of women.
Every pro-lifer always, without fail, gets it wrong on abortion.
Posts
Total:
313
-->
@Novice_II
- Prop 1: People have the ability to do anything that is logically possible with their body (includes rape/murder).
Yes people should have the ability to do anything they they want to their own body, once they are at the age of consent
This does include murder, AKA suicide, though I have no idea how one would rape ones self other than you're so offended by masturbation you would call it rape.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Okay, so you are just amending the proposition to people being allowed to do whatever they want to themselves. That is fine, just biologically ignorant given that the unborn is not the mother, but its own entity. Do you agree with this?
-->
@Novice_II
No I do not. The unborn isn't anything until it can survive outside the womb on its own. Just like we terminate Granny's life support we can terminate the unborn's life support. The dead do not outweigh the living as far as rights and The unborn do not outweigh the living as far as rights.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
These are not mutually exclusive. I can grant that the unborn is in the dependent on the mothers body, I just want the specific admission that it is an individual organism distinct from the mother. That is: the unborn and the mother are two different entities.
-->
@Novice_II
2. 14th Amendment.
- The 14th amendment does not seem to be an argument. It appears to necessitate using the negative inference fallacy as just because citizenship is given at birth, does not mean that unborns should not be given personhood. How about this, do you have a normative ethical argument for personhood beginning at birth?
It is NOT a negative inference fallacy; you're simply not reading/interpreting the 14th correctly, as is the case for all non-legally educated people always doing.
-->
@Novice_II
-->@TWS14051. Abortion involves one person, the female, be it a girl or a woman who is [a] person. She has rights. The pregnancy does not have any rights, regardless of gestational stage.I know where you are going with the nonsensical "form of rights to non-persons," and it is a both irrelevant and a red herring.
- I want to press here a little, because I am not sure why you won't answer this question. Here is its relevance: you stated, that an unborn at any stage of pregnancy has no rights because it is a non-person. So, I am curious. If you also argue that an unborn person has no rights. I assume that is (a) because they are non persons or (b) some other reason.
- If a, this would commit your normative ethical view to asserting that no non-persons should have rights.
- If b, I would like an argument as to what determines whether a non-person has rights or not.
A pregnancy is NOT an "unborn person." It's just a pregnancy. A potential human being (i.e., [a] person) not yet actualized (i.e., upon birth).
Your doubling and tripling down on an irrelevant circular argument is dumbfounding.
-->
@Novice_II
-->@Polytheist-WitchOkay, so you are just amending the proposition to people being allowed to do whatever they want to themselves.
She didn't. She read it exactly as you wrote and intended it. If that is not what you intended, then you need to choose your words a little more carefully, but her interpretation is exactly as how you wrote it to read...people doing things to themselves.
-->@Polytheist-WitchThese are not mutually exclusive. I can grant that the unborn is in the dependent on the mothers body, I just want the specific admission that it is an individual organism distinct from the mother. That is: the unborn and the mother are two different entities.
Yet again with another completely irrelevant issue.
Novice_II:The 14th amendment does not seem to be an argument. It appears to necessitate using the negative inference fallacy as just because citizenship is given at birth, does not mean that unborns should not be given personhood. How about this, do you have a normative ethical argument for personhood beginning at birth?
TWS1495 replies: t is NOT a negative inference fallacy; you're simply not reading/interpreting the 14th correctly, as is the case for all non-legally educated people always doing.
Rights for Every Newborn
These include the rights to survival, health and development; to a legal identity from birth; to be protected from harm, violence and neglect; and to a caring, loving and nurturing environment – even in humanitarian and fragile settings.
-->
@TWS1405
A pregnancy is NOT an "unborn person."
- I can grant that for the sake of argument, (as your view) I was only speaking in my view there.
- Do you plan on answering the question, or do you just refuse to answer? I am fine with either, frankly.
A potential human being (i.e., [a] person) not yet actualized (i.e., upon birth)
- Maybe we can go back to the 14th amendment argument. The argument seems to be 14th amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.," therefore personhood begins at birth. Here are some problems with this:
- The first amendment does not say unborn are not persons, so to assume such is the negative inference fallacy.
- Even if I were to grant that the amendment says this, this would be an appeal to the law, and thus, is not a normative ethical argument. I am not interested in having a disconnect in how we are speaking to one another/in understanding. When I use the term "person," I am referring to a living thing that should have moral consideration and the right to life.
So is there any of these two points you don't understand or have a problem with?
-->
@TWS1405
Do you believe a person should be allowed to do anything to his/herself regardless of if she has an unborn inside of her while pregnant?
--> @TWS1405Nivice_II: Do you believe a person should be allowed to do anything to his/herself regardless of if she has an unborn inside of her while pregnant?
She can do anything like wear makeup, get a haircut, clip her nails or any other action so long as it does not endanger the unborn child she is carrying.
-->
@Novice_II
- Prop 1: People have the ability to do anything that is logically possible with their body (includes rape/murder).
- Prop 2: People should be prevented from doing some things with their body.
- Would you say both of these propositions are true? If they are, my question becomes, what is the argument as to why abortion does not fall under the things we should prevent people from doing under prop 2.
You have the default position backwards.
We don’t start with the presumption that a right to one’s own body is something that needs to be justified, we start with the recognition that we all have a right to our bodies and we take that right away when there is a valid justification.
The mother has the right to her own body, it’s the fetus that is the foreign occupier. Therefore the mother has the right to decide if the fetus remains there. If the fetus could survive outside the mother then one can reasonably argue that abortion is murder. Apart from that the ending of the fetus’s life is the unfortunate effect of the mother exercising her right to bodily autonomy.
-->
@Double_R
Do you think this is an answer to my question?
-->
@Novice_II
- Do you plan on answering the question, or do you just refuse to answer? I am fine with either, frankly.
I already told you; I am not entertaining an implicitly irrelevant red herring fallacy.
A potential human being (i.e., [a] person) not yet actualized (i.e., upon birth)
- Maybe we can go back to the 14th amendment argument. The argument seems to be 14th amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.," therefore personhood begins at birth. Here are some problems with this:
- The first amendment does not say unborn are not persons, so to assume such is the negative inference fallacy.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of legal knowledge, education and/or experience with properly reading, interpreting and applying clearly written law.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Citizenship is a right & privilege conferred by birth or naturalization. Personhood comes first upon birth. Obviously, because to become a naturalized citizen one must first be [a] person. And to become a recognized "person" (i.e., personhood), one must first be born. It is precisely why that term, "born," is the third word in the preamble to the 14A.
Upon birth all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the law is immediately bestowed upon the newly born "person." Even a non-citizen is legally [a] person and they too have all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the law. As such, all born persons are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, or property and neither can be deprived "without due process of law."
Birth is the defining point when a human being is categorically [a] human being, [a] person, and they are bestowed the full weight of the law in defense/protection of their life, liberty, and ownership of property via equal protection of the law(s).
- Even if I were to grant that the amendment says this, this would be an appeal to the law, and thus, is not a normative ethical argument. I am not interested in having a disconnect in how we are speaking to one another/in understanding. When I use the term "person," I am referring to a living thing that should have moral consideration and the right to life.
So is there any of these two points you don't understand or have a problem with?
It is NOT an appeal to the law when that law is the absolute definitive demarcation establishing legally (juxtaposed socially, culturally and scientifically) when personhood is factually established.
Your personal use of the term "person" within the context of the abortion debate is an inherent misnomer.
-->
@Double_R
If the fetus could survive outside the mother then one can reasonably argue that abortion is murder.
No one could reasonably argue that.
Murder is a legal term that specifically applies to (an already born) [a] human being taking the life of another (already born) [a] human being without just cause and with malice and aforethought.
Abortion is a medical procedure.
Abortion =/= Murder.
Less than 1.3% of ALL abortions take place at or after the point of fetal viability and even then, those abortions are patently legal.
Despite fetal viability, the pregnancy has ZERO legal rights until birth. Once birthed, then yes, infanticide = murder.
-->
@TWS1405
I have to tell you, I very quickly lose interest when people sort of dodge questions. You may have observed this in the past, so, if it is the case where you just refuse to answer the question, I don't know what else to tell you about that.
law is the absolute definitive demarcation establishing legally (juxtaposed socially, culturally and scientifically) when personhood is factually established.
- Do you believe currently legal, is synonymous with moral, or something that ought to be the case? I wonder.
- Like I said, I tend not to have any interest in these semantic disputes. I want to get to the precise root of the disagreement here. So, when I use the word "person," I use it in a way that is generally used philosophically: denoting whether an entity has moral consideration/the right to life and other fundamental rights. When you use the person, do you mean something else?
-->
@Novice_II
Do you think this is an answer to my question?
Yes, it is.
You asked for the argument as to why abortion does not fall under the things we should prevent people from doing. The premise of that question is that we have the right to prevent people from doing things, and that we need a reason to keep abortion off of that list.
I’m pointing out that your premise is flawed. We don’t need a reason to keep abortion off the list, we need a reason to include it.
The onus is therefore on those arguing in favor of restricting abortion, not on those in favor of it’s legality.
-->
@Novice_II
-->@TWS1405I have to tell you, I very quickly lose interest when people sort of dodge questions. You may have observed this in the past, so, if it is the case where you just refuse to answer the question, I don't know what else to tell you about that.
I didn't dodge anything.
YOU are trying to obfuscate the debate/discussion with a patently irrelevant red herring fallacy. I told you, and this is the last time I will tell you, I am not going to entertain your banality regarding that implicit logical fallacy.
law is the absolute definitive demarcation establishing legally (juxtaposed socially, culturally and scientifically) when personhood is factually established.
- Do you believe currently legal, is synonymous with moral, or something that ought to be the case? I wonder.
Yes and no, depends on the context (i.e., circumstances).
- Like I said, I tend not to have any interest in these semantic disputes. I want to get to the precise root of the disagreement here. So, when I use the word "person," I use it in a way that is generally used philosophically: denoting whether an entity has moral consideration/the right to life and other fundamental rights. When you use the person, do you mean something else?
You're the only one here whining about semantics. I am sticking to the facts of the things that factually apply and matter in this debate/discussion over abortion and women's rights.
Your use of the term "person" still doesn't apply because a pregnancy is NOT [a] person.
And I have made it patently clear what I mean by person. I will not repeat myself.
-->
@Double_R
You asked for the argument as to why abortion does not fall under the things we should prevent people from doing. The premise of that question is that we have the right to prevent people from doing things, and that we need a reason to keep abortion off of that list.
- Do we have a right to prevent people from murdering others? Just a yes/no
-->
@Novice_II
-->@Double_RYou asked for the argument as to why abortion does not fall under the things we should prevent people from doing. The premise of that question is that we have the right to prevent people from doing things, and that we need a reason to keep abortion off of that list.
- Do we have a right to prevent people from murdering others? Just a yes/no
FFS!!! You're just full of irrelevant red herring fallacies!!!
-->
@TWS1405
Okay...I think I can just accept that for the record you just refuse to answer the question.
You may not have discussed a topic in opposition to me before, but I just want to get to exactly where we disagree. People on this forum tend to have the long winded back and forth exchanges that diverge into short essays about multiple different claims. I see them as pointless. I don't want to talk past one another.
You seem to be resisting me on how I want to use "person," so I will try to focus more on things we can hopefully build off.
- Do you know what normative ethics are? This could be yes or no. If yes, we may have an easier time here. If no, I am just asking about your views. Let me try to make this as simple as possible just so we don't get sidetracked or derail the conversation.
- You claimed that an unborn person has no rights. Obviously, I take this to mean that you also believe an unborn should not have rights. Given that, can you give me your standard that determines whether or not any entity has rights?
-->
@TWS1405
None of them (pro-lifers) have the requisite intellect to grasp the simple fact that potentiality ≠ actuality. Never has. Never will.
The potentiality argument is one single argument for the pro-life position - the fetal potentiality position is not a requisite to the actual position.
The ONLY stage of gestational development where the fetus can be equates to that of [a] human being is the point of fetal viability. It is at this point of development within the womb that the viable fetus can survive outside the womb without further gestational development. With ir without medical intervention.
Do you believe that viability is the criteria for human life? What about people who are not viable (comatose people who would die without support). Would you believe that the unborn in Africa are worth less than those in America (the unborn in America have better access to healthcare and thus has an earlier potential for viability).
To call a zygote, blastocyst, embryo and unviable fetus the emotively charged term, “baby,” is an implicit misnomer. It’s factually inaccurate on all levels.
It's not a baby, I agree - babies must be born. However, it is an unborn human life.
-->
@Bones
The potentiality argument is one single argument for the pro-life position - the fetal potentiality position is not a requisite to the actual position.
- I am not sure I even understand what pro choice people mean when they say potentiality does not mean actuality as a response to pro life normative ethics these days. My impression is that most people tend to argue that (p1) humans ought to have human rights (p2) the unborn are human (c) unborn ought to have human rights. Maybe I am not considering where the "potential," is.
-->
@Novice_II
There are all kinds of things in the mother's body that are clumps of cells. The heart, liver, the kidneys the baby's the same thing. Half of that baby is the mother's own DNA it's sharing the mother's blood and oxygen and food. If you really want to make some kind of point with me that it's not the mother's body talk about the half that's the father's but that doesn't matter either because we don't even know if he hung around after dump the sperm. And even still she has a right to terminate life support because possessions 9/10 of the law right.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
- Okay, let me see if I can ask the question in a clearer way, because I only want to see specifically where the disconnect is. I am hoping for a yes/no: do you grant that the unborn is a separate biological human being than the mother scientifically?
Do you believe a person should be allowed to do anything to his/herself regardless of if she has an unborn inside of her while pregnant?
The thing is up until the fetus is viable outside the body anything the mother does that might cause miscarriage really isn't the law's business. Now after the point of a fetus being viable if the mother's engaging in activity that could damage the fetus once it's born and cause long-term problems of birth defects then she should certainly be charged for abuse and neglect. And this is usually what happens when a child is born addicted to drugs. DHHR becomes involved in the mother supervise and there's case plans and all that other stuff that happens when there's a neglect case. But very very rarely are women incarcerated for doing things that might be dangerous to the fetus while pregnant.
-->
@Novice_II
Until the point of viability no. It's nothing more than another clump of cells inside a woman's body. Like any other organ. And it shares some of the mother's DNA, it shares her blood and it shares her air. If she dies, it dies. It's not issue to birth certificate when she conceives the birth certificate comes when it's born. She cannot get insurance for it, she cannot get child support for it, she cannot get state benefits for it, it cannot have a social security number.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Do you believe a person should be allowed to do anything to his/herself regardless of if she has an unborn inside of her while pregnant?
- How about a yes or no? With all due respect, you kind of went on a ramble there. I just want an answer. Is that fair to ask? So, to be clear, I am talking about your normative ethical views, not what happens currently or what people do.