Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Mississippi voters can decide 'personhood'

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 5:40:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So, on my iGoogle homepage, I noticed that this story came up: http://www.cnn.com...

Basically, it says that there will be a referendum of some kind for all Mississippi voters to decide whether life starts at conception or not.

I'm personally almost appalled by this concept--of a majority deciding what a woman can/cannot do with her body. I'd say that this is a severe violation of personal liberty if the referendum goes through--akin to fascism, except, instead of a government deciding (they'd still impose the law, though), it's the majority of the people.

What do you make of this?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 5:46:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

Way to take the words out of my mouth.
Andromeda_Z
Posts: 4,151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 5:48:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

I don't deny that it's a serious question; that's one of the reasons why I think deciding it democratically is a terrible idea. I don't care how many people agree with a view, I care whether or not it's correct.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 5:49:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 5:48:29 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

I don't deny that it's a serious question; that's one of the reasons why I think deciding it democratically is a terrible idea. I don't care how many people agree with a view, I care whether or not it's correct.

Took the words right out of MY mouth.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 7:10:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Only the owner of the womb has the right to determine the humanity of a fetus residing therein. If she decides it is a parasite, then that is her right.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 10:55:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

Forced quartering is an attack on liberty whether you're quartering something alive (or even human) or quartering a dead rat.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 11:07:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does...

life begins before conception..

the question is when life that ought to be protected begins... and Just After Conception there's Hardly any Further reason to say that the Sperm-Egg combo/ zygote should be protected over the Separate sperm and eggs..

it's hardly more complex.. and not more so in any significant manner.

by what standard is it sufficiently different from it's Former stages that Conception is a Magic Time of Moral Reckoning?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 4:06:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 11:07:04 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does...

life begins before conception..

the question is when life that ought to be protected begins... and Just After Conception there's Hardly any Further reason to say that the Sperm-Egg combo/ zygote should be protected over the Separate sperm and eggs..

...Because the zygote hasn't even formed yet, and thus the individual has not yet been created...

it's hardly more complex.. and not more so in any significant manner.

What? A zygote immediately starts splitting to form complex cells, tissues, and organs. Before the formation of the zygote, the egg or sperm could be substituted for another, changing the resulting baby, but after that, the deed is done.

by what standard is it sufficiently different from it's Former stages that Conception is a Magic Time of Moral Reckoning?

Its DNA code is first formed, and it is essentially an individual.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 4:08:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 10:55:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

Forced quartering is an attack on liberty whether you're quartering something alive (or even human) or quartering a dead rat.

I wouldn't consider a pregnancy a forced quartering, as the act of potentially becoming pregnant was consensual. If I invite you into my house, and then decide that I don't want you in my house anymore, and it'll take a week for you to pack up and leave, am I justified in killing you?
iamdrunkritenow
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 12:50:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 5:40:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, on my iGoogle homepage, I noticed that this story came up: http://www.cnn.com...

Basically, it says that there will be a referendum of some kind for all Mississippi voters to decide whether life starts at conception or not.

I'm personally almost appalled by this concept--of a majority deciding what a woman can/cannot do with her body. I'd say that this is a severe violation of personal liberty if the referendum goes through--akin to fascism, except, instead of a government deciding (they'd still impose the law, though), it's the majority of the people.

What do you make of this?

That if your father went into a coma for 9 months, doctors said he would recover and be perfectly fine after 9 months, your mother pulled the plug so as to not have to pay for the 9 months of hospital bills, you would support her in her decision and be angry that he government would deem her act as murder and prevent her from doing so.

Her defense would be that the state should have no say in what she does with her personal life and how she deals with her expenses. The father has no rights as his brain is not functioning and thus he is inhuman.
iamdrunkritenow
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 12:51:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 7:10:56 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
Only the owner of the womb has the right to determine the humanity of a fetus residing therein. If she decides it is a parasite, then that is her right.

By this rationale I should have the right to determine the humanity of the welfare recipients who I support through my tax money. If I decide they are a parasite, then it is my right to kill them.
ryan_thomas
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 8:51:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

This
All Hail Lord Ryan!
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 11:58:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 4:08:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/9/2011 10:55:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

Forced quartering is an attack on liberty whether you're quartering something alive (or even human) or quartering a dead rat.

I wouldn't consider a pregnancy a forced quartering, as the act of potentially becoming pregnant was consensual. If I invite you into my house, and then decide that I don't want you in my house anymore, and it'll take a week for you to pack up and leave, am I justified in killing you?

stupid analogy. you're certainly justified in kicking him out. is it your fault that if you kick him out he dies?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 2:38:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 11:58:59 PM, belle wrote:
At 9/10/2011 4:08:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/9/2011 10:55:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

Forced quartering is an attack on liberty whether you're quartering something alive (or even human) or quartering a dead rat.

I wouldn't consider a pregnancy a forced quartering, as the act of potentially becoming pregnant was consensual. If I invite you into my house, and then decide that I don't want you in my house anymore, and it'll take a week for you to pack up and leave, am I justified in killing you?

stupid analogy. you're certainly justified in kicking him out. is it your fault that if you kick him out he dies?
You know a baby dies if you kick it out, but you don't know for a certain that if you kick someone out of your house, he'll die.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 3:16:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Talk to a newborn baby, and tell me if you think it is anything other than a shapeless bag of fat.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 11:25:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 4:08:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/9/2011 10:55:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

Forced quartering is an attack on liberty whether you're quartering something alive (or even human) or quartering a dead rat.

I wouldn't consider a pregnancy a forced quartering, as the act of potentially becoming pregnant was consensual. If I invite you into my house, and then decide that I don't want you in my house anymore, and it'll take a week for you to pack up and leave, am I justified in killing you?
If you invite me into your tea room and I slip into your bedroom and steal your safe (roughly the proximity between the vagina and the egg in the uterus), yes, you are justified in killing me. The scenario you posed on the other hand is irrelevant unless you're analogizing to someone who dilates their cervix before sex in order to take their partner all the way into the uterus (Which aside from being extraordinarily painful, would be possibly fatal).

Let alone if I invite you onto my lawn and you break down my door before doing the same (condom failure), or if I didn't invite you at all (rape).

(And don't go telling me "The sperm doesn't have a choice, it does it automatically." I don't accept the insanity defense.)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 3:30:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 3:16:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Talk to a newborn baby, and tell me if you think it is anything other than a shapeless bag of fat.

Obvious appeal to emotion is obvious. Anyway, the abortion I support=/=late term abortion, which I have feelings against.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 3:45:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Life began before conception. I don't see anyone crying about all the animals we kill on a- oh yeah, PETA.. Well erm.. fvck them too!

However, embryos are fvcking retarded. Last I checked, they don't even know how to sh!t properly. If an embryo is so stupid that it can't even pronounce its name, wouldn't it be immoral to let the stupid little shrimp doppelganger run free and drown in a jar of marmalade? I say put the little fart out of its misery before this sort of thing becomes an issue.

It's not like they have to pay taxes either. At least old people with alzheimers and dementia worked their whole lives and paid for the right to be a drooling pile of worthless rotting meat. Last I checked, embryos didn't even bother to put the work in.

It's time for a change, people.I final solution to the EMBRYO problem. A final solution that begins with abortion.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 4:23:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 5:40:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, on my iGoogle homepage, I noticed that this story came up: http://www.cnn.com...

Basically, it says that there will be a referendum of some kind for all Mississippi voters to decide whether life starts at conception or not.

I'm personally almost appalled by this concept--of a majority deciding what a woman can/cannot do with her body. I'd say that this is a severe violation of personal liberty if the referendum goes through--akin to fascism, except, instead of a government deciding (they'd still impose the law, though), it's the majority of the people.

What do you make of this?

I find it interesting that all life on the planet begins at conception "except human life"

Anyone who is going to be scientifically and intellectually honest would concede that human life also begins at conception. The only reason the scientific community does not challenge this is because of abortion. The scientific community wasn't even consulted on this matter , It was decided by a bunch of know nothing politicians with an abortion agenda. This was the only way they could justify it, by saying Human life begins at birth other wise it would be killing defenseless human life. Mind you this is the argument for abortion for convenience. Medical reasons are a whole different thing.

There have been approx. 42 million abortions since 1973. If human life were deemed to start at conception like it was before 1973 this would be considered wholesale mass genocide. More than all the people killed in all the wars in the last 200 years.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 4:30:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 12:51:31 AM, iamdrunkritenow wrote:
At 9/9/2011 7:10:56 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
Only the owner of the womb has the right to determine the humanity of a fetus residing therein. If she decides it is a parasite, then that is her right.

By this rationale I should have the right to determine the humanity of the welfare recipients who I support through my tax money. If I decide they are a parasite, then it is my right to kill them.

I agree, give me a 9mm pistol and two 15 round clips and I could end 90% of all crime in my city in two days. And not a single innocent person would be hurt. I could do what law enforcement spends millions to do for a little over $400 and I will donate my time and you don't have to thank me and I will ask nothing in return.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 4:40:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 4:23:29 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/9/2011 5:40:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, on my iGoogle homepage, I noticed that this story came up: http://www.cnn.com...

Basically, it says that there will be a referendum of some kind for all Mississippi voters to decide whether life starts at conception or not.

I'm personally almost appalled by this concept--of a majority deciding what a woman can/cannot do with her body. I'd say that this is a severe violation of personal liberty if the referendum goes through--akin to fascism, except, instead of a government deciding (they'd still impose the law, though), it's the majority of the people.

What do you make of this?

I find it interesting that all life on the planet begins at conception "except human life"

Anyone who is going to be scientifically and intellectually honest would concede that human life also begins at conception. The only reason the scientific community does not challenge this is because of abortion. The scientific community wasn't even consulted on this matter , It was decided by a bunch of know nothing politicians with an abortion agenda. This was the only way they could justify it, by saying Human life begins at birth other wise it would be killing defenseless human life. Mind you this is the argument for abortion for convenience. Medical reasons are a whole different thing.


It would be scientifically inaccurate to state that it isn't indeed alive. The question is whether it has the value of a conscious human life. Most people would not believe it has the equivalent of a conscious human life.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 4:45:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 5:40:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, on my iGoogle homepage, I noticed that this story came up: http://www.cnn.com...

Basically, it says that there will be a referendum of some kind for all Mississippi voters to decide whether life starts at conception or not.

I'm personally almost appalled by this concept--of a majority deciding what a woman can/cannot do with her body. I'd say that this is a severe violation of personal liberty if the referendum goes through--akin to fascism, except, instead of a government deciding (they'd still impose the law, though), it's the majority of the people.

What do you make of this?

"personhood" is not universally well defined, and since the right to life trumps the right to one's body, it is vital to determine if an embryo is a "person" and as such, has a right to "life"

You own your car, you have a right to say who can be in your car, and who cannot. However, you cannot force someone out of your car while you go 60 mph down the highway, just because you feel like it (if they are attacking you and your life is in danger, that is a different matter), that doesn't mean the government is being a facist and telling you what you can and cannot do with your car.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:21:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 11:25:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/10/2011 4:08:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/9/2011 10:55:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

Forced quartering is an attack on liberty whether you're quartering something alive (or even human) or quartering a dead rat.

I wouldn't consider a pregnancy a forced quartering, as the act of potentially becoming pregnant was consensual. If I invite you into my house, and then decide that I don't want you in my house anymore, and it'll take a week for you to pack up and leave, am I justified in killing you?
If you invite me into your tea room and I slip into your bedroom and steal your safe (roughly the proximity between the vagina and the egg in the uterus), yes, you are justified in killing me. The scenario you posed on the other hand is irrelevant unless you're analogizing to someone who dilates their cervix before sex in order to take their partner all the way into the uterus (Which aside from being extraordinarily painful, would be possibly fatal).

Let alone if I invite you onto my lawn and you break down my door before doing the same (condom failure), or if I didn't invite you at all (rape).

(And don't go telling me "The sperm doesn't have a choice, it does it automatically." I don't accept the insanity defense.)

I'd say that the situation would be more analagous to if I invite you to the tea room, and the natural force of gravity pulls you into the bedroom in the safe (this is a really weird house), and then the safe attracts you to it by magnetism, as such forces are as natural as the sperm's actions. How would you handle such a situation?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:25:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:21:28 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/12/2011 11:25:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/10/2011 4:08:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/9/2011 10:55:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

Forced quartering is an attack on liberty whether you're quartering something alive (or even human) or quartering a dead rat.

I wouldn't consider a pregnancy a forced quartering, as the act of potentially becoming pregnant was consensual. If I invite you into my house, and then decide that I don't want you in my house anymore, and it'll take a week for you to pack up and leave, am I justified in killing you?
If you invite me into your tea room and I slip into your bedroom and steal your safe (roughly the proximity between the vagina and the egg in the uterus), yes, you are justified in killing me. The scenario you posed on the other hand is irrelevant unless you're analogizing to someone who dilates their cervix before sex in order to take their partner all the way into the uterus (Which aside from being extraordinarily painful, would be possibly fatal).

Let alone if I invite you onto my lawn and you break down my door before doing the same (condom failure), or if I didn't invite you at all (rape).

(And don't go telling me "The sperm doesn't have a choice, it does it automatically." I don't accept the insanity defense.)

I'd say that the situation would be more analagous to if I invite you to the tea room, and the natural force of gravity pulls you into the bedroom in the safe (this is a really weird house)
Vaginas DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. that's why sperm have tails, they have to swim to get there.

as such forces are as natural as the sperm's actions.
The sperm moves by its biological nature, not gravity or magenetism. I.e. you're doing the insanity defense.

How would you handle such a situation?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:25:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
ignore the question I forgot to delete.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:53:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 4:45:00 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/9/2011 5:40:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, on my iGoogle homepage, I noticed that this story came up: http://www.cnn.com...

Basically, it says that there will be a referendum of some kind for all Mississippi voters to decide whether life starts at conception or not.

I'm personally almost appalled by this concept--of a majority deciding what a woman can/cannot do with her body. I'd say that this is a severe violation of personal liberty if the referendum goes through--akin to fascism, except, instead of a government deciding (they'd still impose the law, though), it's the majority of the people.

What do you make of this?

"personhood" is not universally well defined, and since the right to life trumps the right to one's body, it is vital to determine if an embryo is a "person" and as such, has a right to "life"

You own your car, you have a right to say who can be in your car, and who cannot. However, you cannot force someone out of your car while you go 60 mph down the highway, just because you feel like it (if they are attacking you and your life is in danger, that is a different matter), that doesn't mean the government is being a facist and telling you what you can and cannot do with your car.

The problem is that, if the referendum is passed, abortion WILL equal murder. So, in a sense, the government WOULD be telling you what you can and cannot do.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:54:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:25:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:21:28 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/12/2011 11:25:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/10/2011 4:08:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/9/2011 10:55:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

Forced quartering is an attack on liberty whether you're quartering something alive (or even human) or quartering a dead rat.

I wouldn't consider a pregnancy a forced quartering, as the act of potentially becoming pregnant was consensual. If I invite you into my house, and then decide that I don't want you in my house anymore, and it'll take a week for you to pack up and leave, am I justified in killing you?
If you invite me into your tea room and I slip into your bedroom and steal your safe (roughly the proximity between the vagina and the egg in the uterus), yes, you are justified in killing me. The scenario you posed on the other hand is irrelevant unless you're analogizing to someone who dilates their cervix before sex in order to take their partner all the way into the uterus (Which aside from being extraordinarily painful, would be possibly fatal).

Let alone if I invite you onto my lawn and you break down my door before doing the same (condom failure), or if I didn't invite you at all (rape).

(And don't go telling me "The sperm doesn't have a choice, it does it automatically." I don't accept the insanity defense.)

I'd say that the situation would be more analagous to if I invite you to the tea room, and the natural force of gravity pulls you into the bedroom in the safe (this is a really weird house)
Vaginas DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. that's why sperm have tails, they have to swim to get there.

Natural force is natural force. I see no reason to differentiate them.

as such forces are as natural as the sperm's actions.
The sperm moves by its biological nature, not gravity or magenetism. I.e. you're doing the insanity defense.

Except they aren't insane, they aren't even thinking.

How would you handle such a situation?

I'd say, what did you think would happen with a house arranged like that?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 6:16:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:54:38 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:25:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:21:28 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/12/2011 11:25:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/10/2011 4:08:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/9/2011 10:55:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

Forced quartering is an attack on liberty whether you're quartering something alive (or even human) or quartering a dead rat.

I wouldn't consider a pregnancy a forced quartering, as the act of potentially becoming pregnant was consensual. If I invite you into my house, and then decide that I don't want you in my house anymore, and it'll take a week for you to pack up and leave, am I justified in killing you?
If you invite me into your tea room and I slip into your bedroom and steal your safe (roughly the proximity between the vagina and the egg in the uterus), yes, you are justified in killing me. The scenario you posed on the other hand is irrelevant unless you're analogizing to someone who dilates their cervix before sex in order to take their partner all the way into the uterus (Which aside from being extraordinarily painful, would be possibly fatal).

Let alone if I invite you onto my lawn and you break down my door before doing the same (condom failure), or if I didn't invite you at all (rape).

(And don't go telling me "The sperm doesn't have a choice, it does it automatically." I don't accept the insanity defense.)

I'd say that the situation would be more analagous to if I invite you to the tea room, and the natural force of gravity pulls you into the bedroom in the safe (this is a really weird house)
Vaginas DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. that's why sperm have tails, they have to swim to get there.

Natural force is natural force. I see no reason to differentiate them.

as such forces are as natural as the sperm's actions.
The sperm moves by its biological nature, not gravity or magenetism. I.e. you're doing the insanity defense.

Except they aren't insane, they aren't even thinking.
That's less reason to side with them, not more

I'd say, what did you think would happen with a house arranged like that?
A house built like that is the owner's fault for building it that way.

How the owner ever managed to leave the house is an open question.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 7:42:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 6:16:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:54:38 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:25:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:21:28 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/12/2011 11:25:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/10/2011 4:08:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/9/2011 10:55:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/9/2011 5:43:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm always annoyed when people decide that abortion is just another attack on liberty. It's a serious question of whether or not life begins at conception, and if it does, social abortions should be by all means criminal.

Forced quartering is an attack on liberty whether you're quartering something alive (or even human) or quartering a dead rat.

I wouldn't consider a pregnancy a forced quartering, as the act of potentially becoming pregnant was consensual. If I invite you into my house, and then decide that I don't want you in my house anymore, and it'll take a week for you to pack up and leave, am I justified in killing you?
If you invite me into your tea room and I slip into your bedroom and steal your safe (roughly the proximity between the vagina and the egg in the uterus), yes, you are justified in killing me. The scenario you posed on the other hand is irrelevant unless you're analogizing to someone who dilates their cervix before sex in order to take their partner all the way into the uterus (Which aside from being extraordinarily painful, would be possibly fatal).

Let alone if I invite you onto my lawn and you break down my door before doing the same (condom failure), or if I didn't invite you at all (rape).

(And don't go telling me "The sperm doesn't have a choice, it does it automatically." I don't accept the insanity defense.)

I'd say that the situation would be more analagous to if I invite you to the tea room, and the natural force of gravity pulls you into the bedroom in the safe (this is a really weird house)
Vaginas DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. that's why sperm have tails, they have to swim to get there.

Natural force is natural force. I see no reason to differentiate them.

as such forces are as natural as the sperm's actions.
The sperm moves by its biological nature, not gravity or magenetism. I.e. you're doing the insanity defense.

Except they aren't insane, they aren't even thinking.
That's less reason to side with them, not more

The sperm wasn't thinking, but the baby created can. From this discussion it seems we've assumed the fetus to be the equivalent of a human; if you disagree, then that's an entirely separate discussion from this.

I'd say, what did you think would happen with a house arranged like that?
A house built like that is the owner's fault for building it that way.

How the owner ever managed to leave the house is an open question.

Wall-climbing.