Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Re: Pro-Lifers and Moral Bankruptcy

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:15:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against her will ?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:21:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Exactly.

This high ground that pro-life think is there has never existed. Run around screaming "murder" till you collapse you still have no idea what morality is, and life was ugly back not long ago.

F*ck pro-life, F*uk those that think a woman's choice is there business.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:33:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

1. What obligation would I have to such a person?
2. What negative effect would the removal of my kidneys have on me?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:35:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:33:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

1. What obligation would I have to such a person?

You tell me.

2. What negative effect would the removal of my kidneys have on me?

Taking one kidney, you won't die, you will live.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:38:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:35:33 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:33:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

1. What obligation would I have to such a person?

You tell me.

2. What negative effect would the removal of my kidneys have on me?

Taking one kidney, you won't die, you will live.

Okay then, the "right to live outweighs right to not be violated" argument does not have universal obligation (though the argument could be made by some people that my organ should be removed, forcibly even, for the stranger's sake). But whenever rape is not the cause of pregnancy, does not the woman have an obligation to the unborn baby?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:39:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
1. Do we as a society provide welfare to poor people who we would otherwise have no obligation to? (That is, are our tax dollars used with or without our consent to provide for the poor?)
2. Why?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:43:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
*does not have universal application
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:45:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:38:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:35:33 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:33:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

1. What obligation would I have to such a person?

You tell me.

2. What negative effect would the removal of my kidneys have on me?

Taking one kidney, you won't die, you will live.

Okay then, the "right to live outweighs right to not be violated" argument does not have universal obligation (though the argument could be made by some people that my organ should be removed, forcibly even, for the stranger's sake). But whenever rape is not the cause of pregnancy, does not the woman have an obligation to the unborn baby?

To vague question, "obligation" could mean many different things.

Let's narrow that down,does consenting to sex mean a woman loses bodily rights, that is to say, the woman loses the right to choose whether someone else can use their organs. That same right which prevents others taking our kidneys against our will even if it will save another life.

Is that really a justification ? or is it just an excuse to deny an abortion ?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:49:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:45:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:38:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:35:33 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:33:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

1. What obligation would I have to such a person?

You tell me.

2. What negative effect would the removal of my kidneys have on me?

Taking one kidney, you won't die, you will live.

Okay then, the "right to live outweighs right to not be violated" argument does not have universal obligation (though the argument could be made by some people that my organ should be removed, forcibly even, for the stranger's sake). But whenever rape is not the cause of pregnancy, does not the woman have an obligation to the unborn baby?

To vague question, "obligation" could mean many different things.

Let's narrow that down,does consenting to sex mean a woman loses bodily rights, that is to say, the woman loses the right to choose whether someone else can use their organs. That same right which prevents others taking our kidneys against our will even if it will save another life.

Yes. The reason is that the act of sex in this case results in the conception of a being with rights. If you give the being life, you have an obligation to see its basic rights met. That is the difference between a woman and her baby and me and a stranger.

Is that really a justification ? or is it just an excuse to deny an abortion ?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:54:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:49:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:45:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:38:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:35:33 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:33:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

1. What obligation would I have to such a person?

You tell me.

2. What negative effect would the removal of my kidneys have on me?

Taking one kidney, you won't die, you will live.

Okay then, the "right to live outweighs right to not be violated" argument does not have universal obligation (though the argument could be made by some people that my organ should be removed, forcibly even, for the stranger's sake). But whenever rape is not the cause of pregnancy, does not the woman have an obligation to the unborn baby?

To vague question, "obligation" could mean many different things.

Let's narrow that down,does consenting to sex mean a woman loses bodily rights, that is to say, the woman loses the right to choose whether someone else can use their organs. That same right which prevents others taking our kidneys against our will even if it will save another life.

Yes. The reason is that the act of sex in this case results in the conception of a being with rights. If you give the being life, you have an obligation to see its basic rights met. That is the difference between a woman and her baby and me and a stranger.

Notice how vague you talk about it's basic right ?

What is that right ? does that right include the use to the womans body against her will ? NO.


Is that really a justification ? or is it just an excuse to deny an abortion ?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:58:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:54:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:49:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:45:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:38:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:35:33 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:33:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

1. What obligation would I have to such a person?

You tell me.

2. What negative effect would the removal of my kidneys have on me?

Taking one kidney, you won't die, you will live.

Okay then, the "right to live outweighs right to not be violated" argument does not have universal obligation (though the argument could be made by some people that my organ should be removed, forcibly even, for the stranger's sake). But whenever rape is not the cause of pregnancy, does not the woman have an obligation to the unborn baby?

To vague question, "obligation" could mean many different things.

Let's narrow that down,does consenting to sex mean a woman loses bodily rights, that is to say, the woman loses the right to choose whether someone else can use their organs. That same right which prevents others taking our kidneys against our will even if it will save another life.

Yes. The reason is that the act of sex in this case results in the conception of a being with rights. If you give the being life, you have an obligation to see its basic rights met. That is the difference between a woman and her baby and me and a stranger.

Notice how vague you talk about it's basic right ?

What is that right ? does that right include the use to the womans body against her will ? NO.

Okay, by this point you're just being silly. I have already argued that rape cases aside, pregnancies result because women voluntarily have sex, a behavior that they know may result in pregnancy. A fetus does, therefore, reside inside her womb with her consent.


Is that really a justification ? or is it just an excuse to deny an abortion ?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:59:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
As for rights, I'm talking about human rights, which all human beings are endowed with.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 4:00:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:59:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
As for rights, I'm talking about human rights, which all human beings are endowed with.

As outlined by the Founding Fathers: The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 4:10:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:58:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:54:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:49:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:45:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:38:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:35:33 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:33:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

1. What obligation would I have to such a person?

You tell me.

2. What negative effect would the removal of my kidneys have on me?

Taking one kidney, you won't die, you will live.

Okay then, the "right to live outweighs right to not be violated" argument does not have universal obligation (though the argument could be made by some people that my organ should be removed, forcibly even, for the stranger's sake). But whenever rape is not the cause of pregnancy, does not the woman have an obligation to the unborn baby?

To vague question, "obligation" could mean many different things.

Let's narrow that down,does consenting to sex mean a woman loses bodily rights, that is to say, the woman loses the right to choose whether someone else can use their organs. That same right which prevents others taking our kidneys against our will even if it will save another life.

Yes. The reason is that the act of sex in this case results in the conception of a being with rights. If you give the being life, you have an obligation to see its basic rights met. That is the difference between a woman and her baby and me and a stranger.

Notice how vague you talk about it's basic right ?

What is that right ? does that right include the use to the womans body against her will ? NO.

Okay, by this point you're just being silly. I have already argued that rape cases aside, pregnancies result because women voluntarily have sex, a behavior that they know may result in pregnancy. A fetus does, therefore, reside inside her womb with her consent.

You've gone from knowledge of possible outcome to therefore Consent of outcome, that's hardly solid.

But lets for the sake of argument she gives consent. So a 3 day human embryo now exists. She now revokes consent to use of her body to the 3 day human embryo.

Let me guess, your going to strip away her usual bodily rights and demand she be forced against her will to use her organs to continue with the pregnancy.

BUt as put to you before, the right to life doesn't give some one the right to use some ones body organs against their will, that's why we can't take a kidney of yours to save another life.



Is that really a justification ? or is it just an excuse to deny an abortion ?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 4:23:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 4:10:56 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:58:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:54:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:49:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:45:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:38:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:35:33 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:33:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

1. What obligation would I have to such a person?

You tell me.

2. What negative effect would the removal of my kidneys have on me?

Taking one kidney, you won't die, you will live.

Okay then, the "right to live outweighs right to not be violated" argument does not have universal obligation (though the argument could be made by some people that my organ should be removed, forcibly even, for the stranger's sake). But whenever rape is not the cause of pregnancy, does not the woman have an obligation to the unborn baby?

To vague question, "obligation" could mean many different things.

Let's narrow that down,does consenting to sex mean a woman loses bodily rights, that is to say, the woman loses the right to choose whether someone else can use their organs. That same right which prevents others taking our kidneys against our will even if it will save another life.

Yes. The reason is that the act of sex in this case results in the conception of a being with rights. If you give the being life, you have an obligation to see its basic rights met. That is the difference between a woman and her baby and me and a stranger.

Notice how vague you talk about it's basic right ?

What is that right ? does that right include the use to the womans body against her will ? NO.

Okay, by this point you're just being silly. I have already argued that rape cases aside, pregnancies result because women voluntarily have sex, a behavior that they know may result in pregnancy. A fetus does, therefore, reside inside her womb with her consent.

You've gone from knowledge of possible outcome to therefore Consent of outcome, that's hardly solid.

It IS solid. The whole biological purpose of sex is reproduction, so it obviously runs a serious risk of causing pregnancies. This principle applies to car crashes; drivers understand that whenever they get behind the wheel they'll be made to take responsibility for any deaths that they may accidentally cause. If you don't want to run the risk of responsibility, don't drive/copulate.

But lets for the sake of argument she gives consent. So a 3 day human embryo now exists. She now revokes consent to use of her body to the 3 day human embryo.

You're implying that they should be able to "revoke" the contract? With some contracts you can't, though, and since this involves the unborn person's life this isn't a contract that should be revokable as long as the "artificial womb" does not exist.

Let me guess, your going to strip away her usual bodily rights and demand she be forced against her will to use her organs to continue with the pregnancy.

Yes.

BUt as put to you before, the right to life doesn't give some one the right to use some ones body organs against their will, that's why we can't take a kidney of yours to save another life.

Because I have no obligation to a stranger. The woman has an obligation to the person who was spawned because of actions she partook in willingly and with knowledge of what might happen. So she does have that obligation.



Is that really a justification ? or is it just an excuse to deny an abortion ?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 4:26:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I would like to add that drivers take responsibility for wrecks even though vehicles are essential to living in the modern world. Sex, rape aside, can be avoided.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 4:34:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 4:23:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 4:10:56 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:58:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:54:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:49:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:45:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:38:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:35:33 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:33:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

1. What obligation would I have to such a person?

You tell me.

2. What negative effect would the removal of my kidneys have on me?

Taking one kidney, you won't die, you will live.

Okay then, the "right to live outweighs right to not be violated" argument does not have universal obligation (though the argument could be made by some people that my organ should be removed, forcibly even, for the stranger's sake). But whenever rape is not the cause of pregnancy, does not the woman have an obligation to the unborn baby?

To vague question, "obligation" could mean many different things.

Let's narrow that down,does consenting to sex mean a woman loses bodily rights, that is to say, the woman loses the right to choose whether someone else can use their organs. That same right which prevents others taking our kidneys against our will even if it will save another life.

Yes. The reason is that the act of sex in this case results in the conception of a being with rights. If you give the being life, you have an obligation to see its basic rights met. That is the difference between a woman and her baby and me and a stranger.

Notice how vague you talk about it's basic right ?

What is that right ? does that right include the use to the womans body against her will ? NO.

Okay, by this point you're just being silly. I have already argued that rape cases aside, pregnancies result because women voluntarily have sex, a behavior that they know may result in pregnancy. A fetus does, therefore, reside inside her womb with her consent.

You've gone from knowledge of possible outcome to therefore Consent of outcome, that's hardly solid.

It IS solid. The whole biological purpose of sex is reproduction, so it obviously runs a serious risk of causing pregnancies. This principle applies to car crashes; drivers understand that whenever they get behind the wheel they'll be made to take responsibility for any deaths that they may accidentally cause. If you don't want to run the risk of responsibility, don't drive/copulate.

Consent to risk isn't the same as consent to outcome.


But lets for the sake of argument she gives consent. So a 3 day human embryo now exists. She now revokes consent to use of her body to the 3 day human embryo.

You're implying that they should be able to "revoke" the contract? With some contracts you can't, though, and since this involves the unborn person's life this isn't a contract that should be revokable as long as the "artificial womb" does not exist.

I think your screwed here, I don't think there is a contract, your just making that up.

But even if there is, what exactly is that contract ? again, you can only use my organs with my consent, I don't lose the right to withdraw consent just because you say so.

Once again, the pregnant woman's bodily rights are not different from yours.

Let me guess, your going to strip away her usual bodily rights and demand she be forced against her will to use her organs to continue with the pregnancy.

Yes.

BUt as put to you before, the right to life doesn't give some one the right to use some ones body organs against their will, that's why we can't take a kidney of yours to save another life.

Because I have no obligation to a stranger. The woman has an obligation to the person who was spawned because of actions she partook in willingly and with knowledge of what might happen. So she does have that obligation.

No your missing the point, deliberately here, it's not about obligations, its about rights and about how the woman can't just be stripped of the same rights you have cause you have an anti abortion agenda.

ANd a 3 day human embryo is a person ?................




Is that really a justification ? or is it just an excuse to deny an abortion ?

Your weakness of your position is showing, you have to talk in very broad terms to make this work, make all sorts of questionable assumptions to make it work.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 4:43:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 4:34:22 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 4:23:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 4:10:56 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:58:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:54:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:49:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:45:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:38:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:35:33 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:33:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Her right is superseded by the right of someone else to live. And with the exception of cases of rape, women in having sex sign an unspoken contract that "I am partaking in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy and as such I am to take provide through pregnancy for whatever human life form may be conceived as a result of my sexual activities."

Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

1. What obligation would I have to such a person?

You tell me.

2. What negative effect would the removal of my kidneys have on me?

Taking one kidney, you won't die, you will live.

Okay then, the "right to live outweighs right to not be violated" argument does not have universal obligation (though the argument could be made by some people that my organ should be removed, forcibly even, for the stranger's sake). But whenever rape is not the cause of pregnancy, does not the woman have an obligation to the unborn baby?

To vague question, "obligation" could mean many different things.

Let's narrow that down,does consenting to sex mean a woman loses bodily rights, that is to say, the woman loses the right to choose whether someone else can use their organs. That same right which prevents others taking our kidneys against our will even if it will save another life.

Yes. The reason is that the act of sex in this case results in the conception of a being with rights. If you give the being life, you have an obligation to see its basic rights met. That is the difference between a woman and her baby and me and a stranger.

Notice how vague you talk about it's basic right ?

What is that right ? does that right include the use to the womans body against her will ? NO.

Okay, by this point you're just being silly. I have already argued that rape cases aside, pregnancies result because women voluntarily have sex, a behavior that they know may result in pregnancy. A fetus does, therefore, reside inside her womb with her consent.

You've gone from knowledge of possible outcome to therefore Consent of outcome, that's hardly solid.

It IS solid. The whole biological purpose of sex is reproduction, so it obviously runs a serious risk of causing pregnancies. This principle applies to car crashes; drivers understand that whenever they get behind the wheel they'll be made to take responsibility for any deaths that they may accidentally cause. If you don't want to run the risk of responsibility, don't drive/copulate.

Consent to risk isn't the same as consent to outcome.

Explain what you mean here.


But lets for the sake of argument she gives consent. So a 3 day human embryo now exists. She now revokes consent to use of her body to the 3 day human embryo.

You're implying that they should be able to "revoke" the contract? With some contracts you can't, though, and since this involves the unborn person's life this isn't a contract that should be revokable as long as the "artificial womb" does not exist.

I think your screwed here, I don't think there is a contract, your just making that up.

There is no spoken contract. However, whenever people engage in activity that they know risks consequences for an innocent bystander, there is an unspoken contract that they'll assume responsibility if it ends up happening. Even if you didn't mean for it to happen, even if you thought the risk was miniscule, even if you didn't know what might happen, you still need to assume responsibility.

But even if there is, what exactly is that contract ? again, you can only use my organs with my consent, I don't lose the right to withdraw consent just because you say so.

Once again, the pregnant woman's bodily rights are not different from yours.

Let me guess, your going to strip away her usual bodily rights and demand she be forced against her will to use her organs to continue with the pregnancy.

Yes.

BUt as put to you before, the right to life doesn't give some one the right to use some ones body organs against their will, that's why we can't take a kidney of yours to save another life.

Because I have no obligation to a stranger. The woman has an obligation to the person who was spawned because of actions she partook in willingly and with knowledge of what might happen. So she does have that obligation.

No your missing the point, deliberately here, it's not about obligations, its about rights and about how the woman can't just be stripped of the same rights you have cause you have an anti abortion agenda.

ANd a 3 day human embryo is a person ?................

And you finally bring this up...
It is a member of the human species. Why should it not have rights granted to human beings?





Is that really a justification ? or is it just an excuse to deny an abortion ?

Your weakness of your position is showing, you have to talk in very broad terms to make this work, make all sorts of questionable assumptions to make it work.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 4:54:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 4:43:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 4:34:22 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 4:23:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 4:10:56 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:58:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:54:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:49:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:45:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:38:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:35:33 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:33:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?



Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

1. What obligation would I have to such a person?

You tell me.

2. What negative effect would the removal of my kidneys have on me?

Taking one kidney, you won't die, you will live.

Okay then, the "right to live outweighs right to not be violated" argument does not have universal obligation (though the argument could be made by some people that my organ should be removed, forcibly even, for the stranger's sake). But whenever rape is not the cause of pregnancy, does not the woman have an obligation to the unborn baby?

To vague question, "obligation" could mean many different things.

Let's narrow that down,does consenting to sex mean a woman loses bodily rights, that is to say, the woman loses the right to choose whether someone else can use their organs. That same right which prevents others taking our kidneys against our will even if it will save another life.

Yes. The reason is that the act of sex in this case results in the conception of a being with rights. If you give the being life, you have an obligation to see its basic rights met. That is the difference between a woman and her baby and me and a stranger.

Notice how vague you talk about it's basic right ?

What is that right ? does that right include the use to the womans body against her will ? NO.

Okay, by this point you're just being silly. I have already argued that rape cases aside, pregnancies result because women voluntarily have sex, a behavior that they know may result in pregnancy. A fetus does, therefore, reside inside her womb with her consent.

You've gone from knowledge of possible outcome to therefore Consent of outcome, that's hardly solid.

It IS solid. The whole biological purpose of sex is reproduction, so it obviously runs a serious risk of causing pregnancies. This principle applies to car crashes; drivers understand that whenever they get behind the wheel they'll be made to take responsibility for any deaths that they may accidentally cause. If you don't want to run the risk of responsibility, don't drive/copulate.

Consent to risk isn't the same as consent to outcome.

Explain what you mean here.

If I walk down the street I know there is a chance (how ever small) that a branch off a tree may fall and hit and kill me.

Never the less, that doesn't mean by walking down the street I consent to be hit by a a falling branch and death.



But lets for the sake of argument she gives consent. So a 3 day human embryo now exists. She now revokes consent to use of her body to the 3 day human embryo.

You're implying that they should be able to "revoke" the contract? With some contracts you can't, though, and since this involves the unborn person's life this isn't a contract that should be revokable as long as the "artificial womb" does not exist.

I think your screwed here, I don't think there is a contract, your just making that up.

There is no spoken contract. However, whenever people engage in activity that they know risks consequences for an innocent bystander, there is an unspoken contract that they'll assume responsibility if it ends up happening. Even if you didn't mean for it to happen, even if you thought the risk was miniscule, even if you didn't know what might happen, you still need to assume responsibility.

But even if there is, what exactly is that contract ? again, you can only use my organs with my consent, I don't lose the right to withdraw consent just because you say so.

Once again, the pregnant woman's bodily rights are not different from yours.

Let me guess, your going to strip away her usual bodily rights and demand she be forced against her will to use her organs to continue with the pregnancy.

Yes.

BUt as put to you before, the right to life doesn't give some one the right to use some ones body organs against their will, that's why we can't take a kidney of yours to save another life.

Because I have no obligation to a stranger. The woman has an obligation to the person who was spawned because of actions she partook in willingly and with knowledge of what might happen. So she does have that obligation.

No your missing the point, deliberately here, it's not about obligations, its about rights and about how the woman can't just be stripped of the same rights you have cause you have an anti abortion agenda.

ANd a 3 day human embryo is a person ?................

And you finally bring this up...
It is a member of the human species. Why should it not have rights granted to human beings?

Why should any and all human organisms be granted personhood ? because they are human ?

By that logic give a chicken personhood and grant all chicken organisms peronhood as well.





Is that really a justification ? or is it just an excuse to deny an abortion ?

Your weakness of your position is showing, you have to talk i
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 5:00:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 4:54:45 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 4:43:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 4:34:22 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 4:23:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 4:10:56 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:58:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:54:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:49:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:45:50 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:38:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:35:33 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:33:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:32:02 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:29:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:25:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:32 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?



Can we take a kidney of yours in order to prevent the death from some one else in the name of the right of some one else to live ?

If I engaged in an act which I knew ran the risk of harming the man in question and it did in fact end with his kidneys being destroyed then sure.

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

Can an embryo conceive and develop outside of the mother?

And where no such act is taken place by you, can we take a kidney of yours to prevent death in the name of some one else right to live ?

1. What obligation would I have to such a person?

You tell me.

2. What negative effect would the removal of my kidneys have on me?


To vague question, "obligation" could mean many different things.

Let's narrow that down,does consenting to sex mean a woman loses bodily rights, that is to say, the woman loses the right to choose whether someone else can use their organs. That same right which prevents others taking our kidneys against our will even if it will save another life.

Yes. The reason is that the act of sex in this case results in the conception of a being with rights. If you give the being life, you have an obligation to see its basic rights met. That is the difference between a woman and her baby and me and a stranger.

Notice how vague you talk about it's basic right ?

What is that right ? does that right include the use to the womans body against her will ? NO.

Okay, by this point you're just being silly. I have already argued that rape cases aside, pregnancies result because women voluntarily have sex, a behavior that they know may result in pregnancy. A fetus does, therefore, reside inside her womb with her consent.

You've gone from knowledge of possible outcome to therefore Consent of outcome, that's hardly solid.

It IS solid. The whole biological purpose of sex is reproduction, so it obviously runs a serious risk of causing pregnancies. This principle applies to car crashes; drivers understand that whenever they get behind the wheel they'll be made to take responsibility for any deaths that they may accidentally cause. If you don't want to run the risk of responsibility, don't drive/copulate.

Consent to risk isn't the same as consent to outcome.

Explain what you mean here.

If I walk down the street I know there is a chance (how ever small) that a branch off a tree may fall and hit and kill me.

Never the less, that doesn't mean by walking down the street I consent to be hit by a a falling branch and death.

There is no responsibility to be taken; it's just something that happened and it only involved you, provided that no one else caused that branch to fall.







But lets for the sake of argument she gives consent. So a 3 day human embryo now exists. She now revokes consent to use of her body to the 3 day human embryo.

You're implying that they should be able to "revoke" the contract? With some contracts you can't, though, and since this involves the unborn person's life this isn't a contract that should be revokable as long as the "artificial womb" does not exist.

I think your screwed here, I don't think there is a contract, your just making that up.

There is no spoken contract. However, whenever people engage in activity that they know risks consequences for an innocent bystander, there is an unspoken contract that they'll assume responsibility if it ends up happening. Even if you didn't mean for it to happen, even if you thought the risk was miniscule, even if you didn't know what might happen, you still need to assume responsibility.

But even if there is, what exactly is that contract ? again, you can only use my organs with my consent, I don't lose the right to withdraw consent just because you say so.

Once again, the pregnant woman's bodily rights are not different from yours.

Let me guess, your going to strip away her usual bodily rights and demand she be forced against her will to use her organs to continue with the pregnancy.

Yes.

BUt as put to you before, the right to life doesn't give some one the right to use some ones body organs against their will, that's why we can't take a kidney of yours to save another life.

Because I have no obligation to a stranger. The woman has an obligation to the person who was spawned because of actions she partook in willingly and with knowledge of what might happen. So she does have that obligation.

No your missing the point, deliberately here, it's not about obligations, its about rights and about how the woman can't just be stripped of the same rights you have cause you have an anti abortion agenda.

ANd a 3 day human embryo is a person ?................

And you finally bring this up...
It is a member of the human species. Why should it not have rights granted to human beings?

Why should any and all human organisms be granted personhood ? because they are human ?

Uh, yeah. That's how societies have generally decided who does and doesn't have rights.

By that logic give a chicken personhood and grant all chicken organisms peronhood as well.

Chickens aren't humans.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 5:01:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:15:21 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against her will ?

Cersei. No one has the right to kill anyone unless they are threatening your life.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 5:02:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:21:13 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:14:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:41:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
We are not the people who want to keep murder legal. That is all, resume your day.

Does a woman have a right to not let some one use their organs against their will ?

Exactly.

This high ground that pro-life think is there has never existed. Run around screaming "murder" till you collapse you still have no idea what morality is, and life was ugly back not long ago.

F*ck pro-life, F*uk those that think a woman's choice is there business.

Its their business if they're saving someone.