Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The hypocrisy of abortion supporters

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 9:43:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I never understood how some supporters of abortion rights justify charging someone with two accounts of murders if they kill a pregnant women (let's just assume the women would have kept the child). How does a women's preference in keeping her child determine if said child has rights ? How can an abortion rights supporter justify someone being charged with the murder of a potential on the one hand and condone this very practice on another?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 11:16:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 9:43:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I never understood how some supporters of abortion rights justify charging someone with two accounts of murders if they kill a pregnant women (let's just assume the women would have kept the child). How does a women's preference in keeping her child determine if said child has rights ? How can an abortion rights supporter justify someone being charged with the murder of a potential on the one hand and condone this very practice on another?

We do?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 11:20:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've always thought that such stricter penalties ought to exist not because the fetus is being injured but because only the mother has the right to end the pregnancy because the existence of the fetus is dependent on her support and doesn't necessarily inconvenience other people. You are injuring the mother by taking her choice away from her. I don't agree with charging the person who does it with murder; there should be a special category for such a crime with similar repercussions.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 11:23:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"You are injuring the mother by taking her choice away from her. I don't agree with charging the person who does it with murder; there should be a special category for such a crime with similar repercussions."

Exactly. For instance, if someone clandestinely gave her a pill that would terminate her pregnancy (without physically harming her), they should be charged with something.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 11:24:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 11:16:48 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/18/2013 9:43:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I never understood how some supporters of abortion rights justify charging someone with two accounts of murders if they kill a pregnant women (let's just assume the women would have kept the child). How does a women's preference in keeping her child determine if said child has rights ? How can an abortion rights supporter justify someone being charged with the murder of a potential on the one hand and condone this very practice on another?

We do?

I said some... obviously not all as I'm writing this as an abortion rights supporter.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 11:33:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think this stems from the nonsense that can be summarized in the dictum "It's a women's right to choose." No. Either the fetus has rights or it doesn't; it's not up to the woman.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 12:06:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
They use the same logic as pro-life people who believe rape, incest, and death of the mother are meant to happen because of God.

But I agree with Skeps. Killing a pregnant woman should be charged with one murder, plus something like intentionally disabling someone. Because we are assuming that the mother would have kept the unborn baby.
0x5f3759df
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 12:07:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 11:33:11 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I think this stems from the nonsense that can be summarized in the dictum "It's a women's right to choose." No. Either the fetus has rights or it doesn't; it's not up to the woman.

I can legally drive where as a 5 year old legally cannot. Rights are not absolute.
0x5f3759df
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 12:07:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 12:06:00 PM, Bullish wrote:
They use the same logic as pro-life people who believe rape, incest, and death of the mother are meant to happen because of God.

But I agree with Skeps. Killing a pregnant woman should be charged with one murder, plus something like intentionally disabling someone. Because we are assuming that the mother would have kept the unborn baby.

" plus something like intentionally disabling someone. Because we are assuming that the mother would have kept the unborn baby."

This would be a violation of the would-be mother's rights.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 12:09:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 12:07:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/18/2013 12:06:00 PM, Bullish wrote:
They use the same logic as pro-life people who believe rape, incest, and death of the mother are meant to happen because of God.

But I agree with Skeps. Killing a pregnant woman should be charged with one murder, plus something like intentionally disabling someone. Because we are assuming that the mother would have kept the unborn baby.

" plus something like intentionally disabling someone. Because we are assuming that the mother would have kept the unborn baby."

This would be a violation of the would-be mother's rights.

Uh, yes it would be a violation... Did you understand what I was trying to say?
0x5f3759df
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 12:10:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 12:07:24 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 5/18/2013 11:33:11 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I think this stems from the nonsense that can be summarized in the dictum "It's a women's right to choose." No. Either the fetus has rights or it doesn't; it's not up to the woman.

I can legally drive where as a 5 year old legally cannot. Rights are not absolute.

Legal = moral? I would agree with you that a 5 year old does not have the right to drive, but this is only because of the fact that they cannot be held responsible for their actions and they are a hazard to others and thus their rights would be a violation to another's.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 12:11:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 12:09:00 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 5/18/2013 12:07:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/18/2013 12:06:00 PM, Bullish wrote:
They use the same logic as pro-life people who believe rape, incest, and death of the mother are meant to happen because of God.

But I agree with Skeps. Killing a pregnant woman should be charged with one murder, plus something like intentionally disabling someone. Because we are assuming that the mother would have kept the unborn baby.

" plus something like intentionally disabling someone. Because we are assuming that the mother would have kept the unborn baby."

This would be a violation of the would-be mother's rights.

Uh, yes it would be a violation... Did you understand what I was trying to say?

Well what do you mean by 'disabling someone.' Whom are you talking about?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 12:14:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"I can legally drive where as a 5 year old legally cannot. Rights are not absolute."

Rights are absolute. Just because a single sentence cannot describe the extent to which these rights apply for whom doesn't make them not absolute.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 12:15:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 12:10:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/18/2013 12:07:24 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 5/18/2013 11:33:11 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I think this stems from the nonsense that can be summarized in the dictum "It's a women's right to choose." No. Either the fetus has rights or it doesn't; it's not up to the woman.

I can legally drive where as a 5 year old legally cannot. Rights are not absolute.

Legal = moral?

I checked your profile.. You are pro abortion. I am now confused.

I don't get your legal=moral reference. Most laws are there to ban obviously immoral things.

I would agree with you that a 5 year old does not have the right to drive, but this is only because of the fact that they cannot be held responsible for their actions and they are a hazard to others and thus their rights would be a violation to another's.

And similarly, if the birth of a child will pose a hazard to society and itself, it ought not be born.
0x5f3759df
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 12:17:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"I don't get your legal=moral reference. Most laws are there to ban obviously immoral things."

I mean that you cannot equate legality with morality. The law of the land in Nazi Germany was that it was legal to execute Jews (I've heard conflicting reports on this, but it's irrelevant to my point), and elsewhere it was illegal. So which is it? Unless morality is a subjective, floating abstraction this contradiction cannot be reconciled.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 12:18:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 12:14:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"I can legally drive where as a 5 year old legally cannot. Rights are not absolute."

Rights are absolute. Just because a single sentence cannot describe the extent to which these rights apply for whom doesn't make them not absolute.

This argument contains zero logic. I just gave an example of how rights are not absolute (may the definitions ever be in my favor), yet dylancatlow basically just said "no". What? Trolling?
0x5f3759df
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 1:15:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 12:18:23 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 5/18/2013 12:14:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"I can legally drive where as a 5 year old legally cannot. Rights are not absolute."

Rights are absolute. Just because a single sentence cannot describe the extent to which these rights apply for whom doesn't make them not absolute.

This argument contains zero logic. I just gave an example of how rights are not absolute (may the definitions ever be in my favor), yet dylancatlow basically just said "no". What? Trolling?

Rights are absolute within the person. Who said the same thing applies for everyone?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 1:16:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 1:15:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/18/2013 12:18:23 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 5/18/2013 12:14:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"I can legally drive where as a 5 year old legally cannot. Rights are not absolute."

Rights are absolute. Just because a single sentence cannot describe the extent to which these rights apply for whom doesn't make them not absolute.

This argument contains zero logic. I just gave an example of how rights are not absolute (may the definitions ever be in my favor), yet dylancatlow basically just said "no". What? Trolling?

Rights are absolute within the person. Who said the same thing applies for everyone?

Of course, the same rights do apply to everyone once they reach 18, but before that, a person is not fully developed and therefore can't expect to have the same rights as an adult.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 2:23:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 11:20:20 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I've always thought that such stricter penalties ought to exist not because the fetus is being injured but because only the mother has the right to end the pregnancy because the existence of the fetus is dependent on her support and doesn't necessarily inconvenience other people. You are injuring the mother by taking her choice away from her. I don't agree with charging the person who does it with murder; there should be a special category for such a crime with similar repercussions.

Basically this. It isn't that pro-choicers are implicitly conceding that the foetus being injured is morally wrong. It's that the choice isn't up to anyone except the mother.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 8:18:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 12:07:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/18/2013 12:06:00 PM, Bullish wrote:
They use the same logic as pro-life people who believe rape, incest, and death of the mother are meant to happen because of God.

But I agree with Skeps. Killing a pregnant woman should be charged with one murder, plus something like intentionally disabling someone. Because we are assuming that the mother would have kept the unborn baby.

" plus something like intentionally disabling someone. Because we are assuming that the mother would have kept the unborn baby."

This would be a violation of the would-be mother's rights.

Rights to what exactly?

Right to life? No, she would still live even if the baby dies.

Rights to motherhood? That is irrelevant to pregnancy.

Right to pregnancy? lolwut. Maybe this is the issue...we need to spell out the rights to pregnancy. As of now we simply don't, so some people see the fetus as a human with human rights, others see the fetus as an appendage of the mother.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 12:28:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Supreme Court ruled that prior to 26 weeks, the fetus is part of the mother and it is therefore the mother's right to choose abortion. After 26 weeks, the Court implies, the fetus has an independently viable life and therefore abortion may be prohibited.

Consistent with that logic, killing a fetus after 26 weeks would be homicide, and before 26 weeks only an attack on the mother.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 12:35:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 12:28:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The Supreme Court ruled that prior to 26 weeks, the fetus is part of the mother and it is therefore the mother's right to choose abortion. After 26 weeks, the Court implies, the fetus has an independently viable life and therefore abortion may be prohibited.

Consistent with that logic, killing a fetus after 26 weeks would be homicide, and before 26 weeks only an attack on the mother.

Fiats are irrelevant to morality IMO. But to avoid any confusion, let's assume the people in question support the notion that two counts of murder should be brought to someone who murders a pregnant women < 26 weeks along.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 12:43:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 12:35:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2013 12:28:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The Supreme Court ruled that prior to 26 weeks, the fetus is part of the mother and it is therefore the mother's right to choose abortion. After 26 weeks, the Court implies, the fetus has an independently viable life and therefore abortion may be prohibited.

Consistent with that logic, killing a fetus after 26 weeks would be homicide, and before 26 weeks only an attack on the mother.

Fiats are irrelevant to morality IMO. But to avoid any confusion, let's assume the people in question support the notion that two counts of murder should be brought to someone who murders a pregnant women < 26 weeks along.

You are basically now asking the question, "are stupid people stupid?"

And we have said once and once again, it is the mother's choice to abort the fetus, not the murderer's.
0x5f3759df
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 12:46:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 9:43:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I never understood how some supporters of abortion rights justify charging someone with two accounts of murders if they kill a pregnant women (let's just assume the women would have kept the child). How does a women's preference in keeping her child determine if said child has rights ? How can an abortion rights supporter justify someone being charged with the murder of a potential on the one hand and condone this very practice on another?

Not that I care either way - it can be ruled as a single homicide or double homicide - but even if it did qualify as a double homicide. Why must there be a consistent standard between homicide and abortion? Who says we can't use a double standard? Will the world end if we do?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 12:49:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"And we have said once and once again, it is the mother's choice to abort the fetus, not the murderer's."

Yes, but the notion that the fetus is a human by permission of the mother's choice to keep it is plain drivel.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 12:56:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Whether the Supremes rule it or not, it is reasonable to say that before some point the fetus should be considered part of the mother an after that point an independent being. There are a few pro-abortion advocates who would allow abortion any time before birth, but not many.

The fetus may be killed while the mother survives. Then it's a question of whether there is a single homicide or not.

Denying the right of the mother to choose abortion or not would not be murder, it would be a denial of a civil right. That's a lesser crime.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 12:56:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 12:46:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/18/2013 9:43:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I never understood how some supporters of abortion rights justify charging someone with two accounts of murders if they kill a pregnant women (let's just assume the women would have kept the child). How does a women's preference in keeping her child determine if said child has rights ? How can an abortion rights supporter justify someone being charged with the murder of a potential on the one hand and condone this very practice on another?

Not that I care either way - it can be ruled as a single homicide or double homicide - but even if it did qualify as a double homicide. Why must there be a consistent standard between homicide and abortion? Who says we can't use a double standard? Will the world end if we do?

Chiming in on a discussion about morality when you don't believe morality exists is a bit like claiming a certain song is bad when you hate ALL music.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 1:00:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 12:56:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2013 12:46:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/18/2013 9:43:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I never understood how some supporters of abortion rights justify charging someone with two accounts of murders if they kill a pregnant women (let's just assume the women would have kept the child). How does a women's preference in keeping her child determine if said child has rights ? How can an abortion rights supporter justify someone being charged with the murder of a potential on the one hand and condone this very practice on another?

Not that I care either way - it can be ruled as a single homicide or double homicide - but even if it did qualify as a double homicide. Why must there be a consistent standard between homicide and abortion? Who says we can't use a double standard? Will the world end if we do?

Chiming in on a discussion about morality when you don't believe morality exists is a bit like claiming a certain song is bad when you hate ALL music.

Reminds me of WSA's rant on the US Constitution... when he's an anarchist.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 1:02:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 12:56:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2013 12:46:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/18/2013 9:43:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I never understood how some supporters of abortion rights justify charging someone with two accounts of murders if they kill a pregnant women (let's just assume the women would have kept the child). How does a women's preference in keeping her child determine if said child has rights ? How can an abortion rights supporter justify someone being charged with the murder of a potential on the one hand and condone this very practice on another?

Not that I care either way - it can be ruled as a single homicide or double homicide - but even if it did qualify as a double homicide. Why must there be a consistent standard between homicide and abortion? Who says we can't use a double standard? Will the world end if we do?

Chiming in on a discussion about morality when you don't believe morality exists is a bit like claiming a certain song is bad when you hate ALL music.

* I mean a discussion about morality that's not discussing whether it exists...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 1:03:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 12:56:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2013 12:46:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/18/2013 9:43:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I never understood how some supporters of abortion rights justify charging someone with two accounts of murders if they kill a pregnant women (let's just assume the women would have kept the child). How does a women's preference in keeping her child determine if said child has rights ? How can an abortion rights supporter justify someone being charged with the murder of a potential on the one hand and condone this very practice on another?

Not that I care either way - it can be ruled as a single homicide or double homicide - but even if it did qualify as a double homicide. Why must there be a consistent standard between homicide and abortion? Who says we can't use a double standard? Will the world end if we do?

Chiming in on a discussion about morality when you don't believe morality exists is a bit like claiming a certain song is bad when you hate ALL music.

Well when you frame it that way, sure. But my contention isn't that "I don't believe in morality"; my contention is that moral claims are unjustifiable. And this isn't an argument that allows me to disengage in any debate. I'm pressing you for a justification that is eventually self-sufficient. Logical justifications become self-sufficient when they eventually invoke axioms. There are no axioms in morality - and by asking you for justifications that what I'm trying to reveal.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault