Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion should be illegal

LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 2:06:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.debate.org...
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 10:08:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
it isn't murder, and even if it were, the only grounds for making it illegal would be tautological as a result.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 10:13:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Murder should NOT be illegal. If it's illegal, then we have to create a police force, a prison system, a court system... There are natural disincentives to murder and those are enough to keep control.
Rob
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 10:15:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 10:13:23 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Murder should NOT be illegal. If it's illegal, then we have to create a police force, a prison system, a court system... There are natural disincentives to murder and those are enough to keep control.

are you being serious?
"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
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 10:54:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 10:13:23 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Murder should NOT be illegal. If it's illegal, then we have to create a police force, a prison system, a court system... There are natural disincentives to murder and those are enough to keep control.

Really? What are these natural disincentives, and why do they fail to deter murder in the world?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:02:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no doubt that abortion is an act that results in the death of a living creature. Whether or not that living creature holds the same value as human life is up for debate. We kill creatures that are more self aware than a human fetus all the time; cattle, insects, deer, etc.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:05:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not to mention that making abortion illegal isn't going to stop people from having abortions. It will only succeed in creating more criminals for the government to put into prison.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:07:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A mother smokes and drinks while pregnant, resulting in a significantly low birthweight baby that doesn't survive long after being born.

Should she be guilty of negligent homocide?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:15:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 11:07:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
A mother smokes and drinks while pregnant, resulting in a significantly low birthweight baby that doesn't survive long after being born.

Should she be guilty of negligent homocide?

yes.

What's the difference between what she's doing, and outright putting poison in a baby's food?
"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
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:25:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 11:15:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:07:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
A mother smokes and drinks while pregnant, resulting in a significantly low birthweight baby that doesn't survive long after being born.

Should she be guilty of negligent homocide?

yes.

What's the difference between what she's doing, and outright putting poison in a baby's food?

Nothing.

In a similar vein, failing to ... say eat properly and maintain the appropriate nutritional levels could result in the same thing and could be compared to starving a baby.

Still guilty?

Should we legisltate what pregnant women can and cannot eat? Should we make prenatal vitamins mandatory? Should cops arrest pregnant women at fast food restaurants?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:36:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 11:25:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:15:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:07:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
A mother smokes and drinks while pregnant, resulting in a significantly low birthweight baby that doesn't survive long after being born.

Should she be guilty of negligent homocide?

yes.

What's the difference between what she's doing, and outright putting poison in a baby's food?

Nothing.

In a similar vein, failing to ... say eat properly and maintain the appropriate nutritional levels could result in the same thing and could be compared to starving a baby.

Still guilty?

Should we legisltate what pregnant women can and cannot eat? Should we make prenatal vitamins mandatory? Should cops arrest pregnant women at fast food restaurants?

I'd be okay if anarchist legal code included taking your kid to McDonald's all the time as a form of child abuse. I'm sure we can ask "how much is too much", but that isn't really the point--that's for the legal structure to determine arbitrarily, based on whatever number they're comfortable with.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:39:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 11:36:29 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:25:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:15:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:07:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
A mother smokes and drinks while pregnant, resulting in a significantly low birthweight baby that doesn't survive long after being born.

Should she be guilty of negligent homocide?

yes.

What's the difference between what she's doing, and outright putting poison in a baby's food?

Nothing.

In a similar vein, failing to ... say eat properly and maintain the appropriate nutritional levels could result in the same thing and could be compared to starving a baby.

Still guilty?

Should we legisltate what pregnant women can and cannot eat? Should we make prenatal vitamins mandatory? Should cops arrest pregnant women at fast food restaurants?

I'd be okay if anarchist legal code included taking your kid to McDonald's all the time as a form of child abuse. I'm sure we can ask "how much is too much", but that isn't really the point--that's for the legal structure to determine arbitrarily, based on whatever number they're comfortable with.

Also, inb4 "What if they do it like twice a week and..."--The point is that, if you're such a lazy, useless f*ck that you only routinely feed your kid stuff that causes obesity and diabetes (a case in which it's blatantly obvious that there's a causal link between Big Macs and big bellies), which causes plenty of other complications, you probably have no business raising a child. :P
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:44:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 11:39:58 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:36:29 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:25:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:15:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:07:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
A mother smokes and drinks while pregnant, resulting in a significantly low birthweight baby that doesn't survive long after being born.

Should she be guilty of negligent homocide?

yes.

What's the difference between what she's doing, and outright putting poison in a baby's food?

Nothing.

In a similar vein, failing to ... say eat properly and maintain the appropriate nutritional levels could result in the same thing and could be compared to starving a baby.

Still guilty?

Should we legisltate what pregnant women can and cannot eat? Should we make prenatal vitamins mandatory? Should cops arrest pregnant women at fast food restaurants?

I'd be okay if anarchist legal code included taking your kid to McDonald's all the time as a form of child abuse. I'm sure we can ask "how much is too much", but that isn't really the point--that's for the legal structure to determine arbitrarily, based on whatever number they're comfortable with.

Also, inb4 "What if they do it like twice a week and..."--The point is that, if you're such a lazy, useless f*ck that you only routinely feed your kid stuff that causes obesity and diabetes (a case in which it's blatantly obvious that there's a causal link between Big Macs and big bellies), which causes plenty of other complications, you probably have no business raising a child. :P

No, but once we reach the point of an drawing an arbitrary line, then we're just describing the situation as it is: we've drawn the line at born/not-born (or, more alternatively, viable fetus/non-viable fetus).
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:48:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Abortion is against the U.S. constitution. Everyone desevres the right to Life, Liberty and the persuit of happines.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:49:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 11:44:01 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:39:58 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:36:29 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'd be okay if anarchist legal code included taking your kid to McDonald's all the time as a form of child abuse. I'm sure we can ask "how much is too much", but that isn't really the point--that's for the legal structure to determine arbitrarily, based on whatever number they're comfortable with.

Also, inb4 "What if they do it like twice a week and..."--The point is that, if you're such a lazy, useless f*ck that you only routinely feed your kid stuff that causes obesity and diabetes (a case in which it's blatantly obvious that there's a causal link between Big Macs and big bellies), which causes plenty of other complications, you probably have no business raising a child. :P

No, but once we reach the point of an drawing an arbitrary line, then we're just describing the situation as it is: we've drawn the line at born/not-born (or, more alternatively, viable fetus/non-viable fetus).

Fat-bottom kids, you make the fast-food world go roooooooooooooooooound~

That's the issue for me, though--once you start drawing lines between the human and the non-human, or living and dead, it's basically just an exclusionary game. Who's in, who's out? Who lives, who dies? Who's a person, who isn't?

On the other hand, I mean "arbitrary" in the sense that there is never going to be some transcendental anchor that we can tie law to. When you're trying to determine "How much fast food is too much?", or "How obese does a kid have to become?", there isn't some metajuridical set of values that you need to go out and discover to get the answer; the task is much more profane and down-to-earth than that.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:57:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 11:48:11 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Abortion is against the U.S. constitution. Everyone desevres the right to Life, Liberty and the persuit of happines.

That's the Declaration of Independence, numb nuts.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:02:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 11:49:58 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:44:01 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:39:58 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:36:29 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'd be okay if anarchist legal code included taking your kid to McDonald's all the time as a form of child abuse. I'm sure we can ask "how much is too much", but that isn't really the point--that's for the legal structure to determine arbitrarily, based on whatever number they're comfortable with.

Also, inb4 "What if they do it like twice a week and..."--The point is that, if you're such a lazy, useless f*ck that you only routinely feed your kid stuff that causes obesity and diabetes (a case in which it's blatantly obvious that there's a causal link between Big Macs and big bellies), which causes plenty of other complications, you probably have no business raising a child. :P

No, but once we reach the point of an drawing an arbitrary line, then we're just describing the situation as it is: we've drawn the line at born/not-born (or, more alternatively, viable fetus/non-viable fetus).

Fat-bottom kids, you make the fast-food world go roooooooooooooooooound~

That's the issue for me, though--once you start drawing lines between the human and the non-human, or living and dead, it's basically just an exclusionary game. Who's in, who's out? Who lives, who dies? Who's a person, who isn't?

Well, if we prevent drawing a line at the start of life, wouldn't that equally apply to drawing a line at the end of life too?

While there are some objective guidelines in either determination, ultimately whether or not something is a viable fetus or a dead person relies on the judgement of the doctor making the call at that time and place, which gives them a helluva lot of power.

But, they're lines that need to be drawn. Is 20 year, 364 day, 23 hour, 59 minute, 59 second old person different enough from a 21 year old to justify the legal differences in how, when, and where they can purchase and drink alcohol?

Why is a 34 year old less qualified to be presidant than a 35 year old?

We need these lines to function as a society, and have to draw them somewhere. But, once we push the life-start line to conception, we're starting to delve into "Every Sperm is Sacred" territory.

On the other hand, I mean "arbitrary" in the sense that there is never going to be some transcendental anchor that we can tie law to. When you're trying to determine "How much fast food is too much?", or "How obese does a kid have to become?", there isn't some metajuridical set of values that you need to go out and discover to get the answer; the task is much more profane and down-to-earth than that.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:03:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ooooh... Me likey abortionz stuffz.

By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent.

In essence, you are engaging in consensual sex, you are letting the fetus residence in your body because you accept the risk that the sex can result in the pregnancy.

However, the reason why you cannot abort it when you have given permissibility to it, is because it has a right to life and no rights are capable of violating this. This is obviously the major point of disagreement between the two sides of the abortion debate. In this case, exercising your property rights is mutual with violating the right to life.

Inb4 crappy analogies about how you have to accept risks.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:06:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 12:03:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ooooh... Me likey abortionz stuffz.

By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent.

In essence, you are engaging in consensual sex, you are letting the fetus residence in your body because you accept the risk that the sex can result in the pregnancy.

However, the reason why you cannot abort it when you have given permissibility to it, is because it has a right to life and no rights are capable of violating this. This is obviously the major point of disagreement between the two sides of the abortion debate. In this case, exercising your property rights is mutual with violating the right to life.

Inb4 crappy analogies about how you have to accept risks.

Where do rights come from LK?
"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
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:09:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 12:06:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2012 12:03:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ooooh... Me likey abortionz stuffz.

By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent.

In essence, you are engaging in consensual sex, you are letting the fetus residence in your body because you accept the risk that the sex can result in the pregnancy.

However, the reason why you cannot abort it when you have given permissibility to it, is because it has a right to life and no rights are capable of violating this. This is obviously the major point of disagreement between the two sides of the abortion debate. In this case, exercising your property rights is mutual with violating the right to life.

Inb4 crappy analogies about how you have to accept risks.

Where do rights come from LK?

Not this again. Rights come from society.

However, that's not what I'm trying to discuss here.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:10:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 12:03:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ooooh... Me likey abortionz stuffz.

By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent.

In essence, you are engaging in consensual sex, you are letting the fetus residence in your body because you accept the risk that the sex can result in the pregnancy.

However, the reason why you cannot abort it when you have given permissibility to it, is because it has a right to life and no rights are capable of violating this. This is obviously the major point of disagreement between the two sides of the abortion debate. In this case, exercising your property rights is mutual with violating the right to life.

Inb4 crappy analogies about how you have to accept risks.

So... IVF should be criminlized?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:10:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 12:09:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2012 12:06:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2012 12:03:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ooooh... Me likey abortionz stuffz.

By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent.

In essence, you are engaging in consensual sex, you are letting the fetus residence in your body because you accept the risk that the sex can result in the pregnancy.

However, the reason why you cannot abort it when you have given permissibility to it, is because it has a right to life and no rights are capable of violating this. This is obviously the major point of disagreement between the two sides of the abortion debate. In this case, exercising your property rights is mutual with violating the right to life.

Inb4 crappy analogies about how you have to accept risks.

Where do rights come from LK?

Not this again. Rights come from society.

However, that's not what I'm trying to discuss here.

You invoke rights in your argument so it's clearly what you're discussing.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:11:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 12:10:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/2/2012 12:03:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ooooh... Me likey abortionz stuffz.

By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent.

In essence, you are engaging in consensual sex, you are letting the fetus residence in your body because you accept the risk that the sex can result in the pregnancy.

However, the reason why you cannot abort it when you have given permissibility to it, is because it has a right to life and no rights are capable of violating this. This is obviously the major point of disagreement between the two sides of the abortion debate. In this case, exercising your property rights is mutual with violating the right to life.

Inb4 crappy analogies about how you have to accept risks.

So... IVF should be criminlized?

How do you derive that?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:14:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 12:09:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2012 12:06:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2012 12:03:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ooooh... Me likey abortionz stuffz.

By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent.

In essence, you are engaging in consensual sex, you are letting the fetus residence in your body because you accept the risk that the sex can result in the pregnancy.

However, the reason why you cannot abort it when you have given permissibility to it, is because it has a right to life and no rights are capable of violating this. This is obviously the major point of disagreement between the two sides of the abortion debate. In this case, exercising your property rights is mutual with violating the right to life.

Inb4 crappy analogies about how you have to accept risks.

Where do rights come from LK?

Not this again. Rights come from society.

However, that's not what I'm trying to discuss here.

If rights come from society, that makes them subjective....yet you reference the right to life like it's some cosmic law. As a matter of fact, society doesn't even have an obligation to be consistent. It can give a right to life to whatever it wants, be it contradictory or idiotic. It's a matter of collective opinion. So your moral argument is moot.
"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
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:16:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 12:11:59 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2012 12:10:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/2/2012 12:03:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ooooh... Me likey abortionz stuffz.

By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent.

In essence, you are engaging in consensual sex, you are letting the fetus residence in your body because you accept the risk that the sex can result in the pregnancy.

However, the reason why you cannot abort it when you have given permissibility to it, is because it has a right to life and no rights are capable of violating this. This is obviously the major point of disagreement between the two sides of the abortion debate. In this case, exercising your property rights is mutual with violating the right to life.

Inb4 crappy analogies about how you have to accept risks.

So... IVF should be criminlized?

How do you derive that?

Because not all fertilized embryos will ever develop into fetus' and subsequently living persons. Plenty will be voluntarily and deliberately destroyed before even being transfered to the mother and the general strategy is to implant more than one, in the hopes that one takes, conceding that, more often than not, one or more embryos will die in the womb.

What about all of those embyro's "right to life" that cannot be trumped?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:18:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 12:14:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2012 12:09:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2012 12:06:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2012 12:03:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ooooh... Me likey abortionz stuffz.

By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent.

In essence, you are engaging in consensual sex, you are letting the fetus residence in your body because you accept the risk that the sex can result in the pregnancy.

However, the reason why you cannot abort it when you have given permissibility to it, is because it has a right to life and no rights are capable of violating this. This is obviously the major point of disagreement between the two sides of the abortion debate. In this case, exercising your property rights is mutual with violating the right to life.

Inb4 crappy analogies about how you have to accept risks.

Where do rights come from LK?

Not this again. Rights come from society.

However, that's not what I'm trying to discuss here.

If rights come from society, that makes them subjective....yet you reference the right to life like it's some cosmic law. As a matter of fact, society doesn't even have an obligation to be consistent. It can give a right to life to whatever it wants, be it contradictory or idiotic. It's a matter of collective opinion. So your moral argument is moot.

I am using the modern morals that current society places on its habitats as a given in this argument. If society ever places a right to life on a carrot, I'll be sure to change some of the wording.

As well, I don't really see from what you got that I think that the right to life is some kind of "cosmic law." I clearly never stated that.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:34:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 12:02:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:49:58 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:44:01 AM, drafterman wrote:
No, but once we reach the point of an drawing an arbitrary line, then we're just describing the situation as it is: we've drawn the line at born/not-born (or, more alternatively, viable fetus/non-viable fetus).

Fat-bottom kids, you make the fast-food world go roooooooooooooooooound~

That's the issue for me, though--once you start drawing lines between the human and the non-human, or living and dead, it's basically just an exclusionary game. Who's in, who's out? Who lives, who dies? Who's a person, who isn't?

Well, if we prevent drawing a line at the start of life, wouldn't that equally apply to drawing a line at the end of life too?

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly.

While there are some objective guidelines in either determination, ultimately whether or not something is a viable fetus or a dead person relies on the judgement of the doctor making the call at that time and place, which gives them a helluva lot of power.

That's the point--the very categories and structures of power that give rise to these kinds of scenarios are, for me, extremely problematic. And it's not just doctors that get to decide--it's originally a completely political decision. In cases where the state hasn't already made a decision about who may be killed without the commission of homicide--a legal standard to which the doctor is accountable--it is the state that renders such a decision. It's all about delimiting a sphere of life characterized by abandonment to violence.

But, they're lines that need to be drawn. Is 20 year, 364 day, 23 hour, 59 minute, 59 second old person different enough from a 21 year old to justify the legal differences in how, when, and where they can purchase and drink alcohol?

Why is a 34 year old less qualified to be presidant than a 35 year old?

We need these lines to function as a society, and have to draw them somewhere. But, once we push the life-start line to conception, we're starting to delve into "Every Sperm is Sacred" territory.

See, it's funny. I don't think we need those lines. I have a problem with the mechanisms that produce the "need" for those things to exist. Conceptions of time boiled down to paradoxical instants that separate the categories of age. Conceptions of ethics which are inseparable from law. The notion of "sacredness". The notion of qualifying, separating, excluding. Who's in, who's out? Who's native, who's foreign? Who's a person, who isn't? Who has a right to live? Whose life isn't worthy of being allowed to live? Who is protected, who deserves to be abandoned by protection?

According to the categories-in-use, this is necessary. But that such has presented itself to be the case is, on my view, incredibly frightening and problematic.