Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Discrepancies in antiabortionists

Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 5:35:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
now first of all, I lack ability of explaining myself well, I will try.

The first point antiabortionists use is: it is killing a human(fetus) hence can not be allowed. There are 2 discrepancies in it: 1. No matter someone dies or not, the person has a right not to help others. If somebody is going to die in case I stop helping him/her I still have right not to help.
2. Even if we say it is a crime, there are cases in which the fetus dies reluctantly. For example, when a woman carries something heave it may result the death of a fetus. If you kill a person reluctantly, you will get jailed even if you did not kill intentionally, for example: if you have an accident and kill, you will be sentenced, considering fetus as a human, then such woman who killed her baby reluctantly needs to get jailed. But is there a rule like that? I have been in several places, in theocratic states, secular places but not even heard yet.
Even If we assume abortion as a crime(which indeed is not) then the women who killed her baby in such case need to get penalised.

In order to convince the audience for the first discrepancy of the first point, antiabortionists say: parents are obliged to care their children. First of all, I dont know the exact codex of the USA but in europe till the child gets born and a man and a woman accepts parentship via a document, they are not parents in front of law, they can not be held responsible. Even if we say parents are obliged then there is one more discrepancy:

now if I had a son who has illness which needs amount of money to get paid to the hospital which I have, I have right not to pay that money for therapy, if we deduce to have a right to force the woman to help the baby to survive then we need a right to help any person to pay such payment.

There are lots of discrepancies in it, write your points and I will reply. I have debated it several times in real life. here two times which I lost due to ignorance and biasedness.

However, if we have such debate here we will have limitations, the best choice is to do it in forum if we have no opportunity to do it face to face. There is no any rational and logical reason to justify the action which says "we have right to force women to help others."
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 9:08:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. No matter someone dies or not, the person has a right not to help others. If somebody is going to die in case I stop helping him/her I still have right not to help.

Not in France, Germany, Austria and many other european countries you do not. In fact, it is in many jurisdictions it is considered that a parent, or those acting in loco parentis, has a duty to protect a child.

2. Even if we say it is a crime, there are cases in which the fetus dies reluctantly. For example, when a woman carries something heave it may result the death of a fetus. If you kill a person reluctantly, you will get jailed even if you did not kill intentionally, for example: if you have an accident and kill, you will be sentenced, considering fetus as a human, then such woman who killed her baby reluctantly needs to get jailed. But is there a rule like that? I have been in several places, in theocratic states, secular places but not even heard yet.

Only if they are found to have committed an actus rea, with a mens rea. To be honest, I don't think anyone would seriously consider arresting a woman because she has a miscarriage.

Even If we assume abortion as a crime(which indeed is not) then the women who killed her baby in such case need to get penalised.

Yes. When somebody commits a crime, there's a penalty for it.
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 5:04:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
@Osiris,

In fact, it is in many jurisdictions it is considered that a parent, or those acting in loco parentis, has a duty to protect a child.

Can you give me a reference for this? For example: I am a millioner and my son had an accident who has been taken into hospital I say: I dont wanna pay for my son. In this case and cases like this, can you give me a reference where I am forced to help/protect my son? Which country does this?

Believe me, I think even a middle east countries have no such legal duty.

To be honest, I don't think anyone would seriously consider arresting a woman because she has a miscarriage.

Here is a fallacy dony by antiabortionists, here is a contradiction in antiabortionists, you yourself are an example.

Antiabortionists say "abortion is killing a human and needs to be illegal and penalised" considering and following this logic, woman who killed pregnancy reluctantly such as carrying something heavy needs to be punished. Why did not you agree considering killing a human is a crime? Same logic but you do not follow.

Yes. When somebody commits a crime, there's a penalty for it.

In fact, not helping others is not a crime but for the sake of arguement, let us say abortion is crime. Then, woman who killed fetus reluctantly needs to get punished.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 10:05:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yeah, I have a specific case law involving a millionaire whose son crashed a car while joyriding, was taken to hospital following a serious medical injury, whose parents then turned around and did not pay for their medical bills. I do know that in Ireland, for example, parents are legally required to pay for their child's healthcare.
Yes, if women end up having a miscarriage, they're not legally responsible for it. Ever hear of Good Samaritan laws, I wonder?
Yes it is. In Austria, in Germany, in France, for example.
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 4:02:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As I am familiar with Germany, let me talk about Germany:

in germany, parents are asked but that can always be refused. Person is allowed to refuse it.

Even if if the person had no right to refuse it(imagine), it has no relation with the case of abortion, because:

in european Union, in order person to be held responsible for the child, these cases need to happen:

parents have a joint right of custody if:
1. The child is born in wedlock.
2. Marry after the birth of the child.
3. Parents declare that they are prepared to accept joint custody.

Now, in any case, first the child is to be born and the second step is parents are to accept in order them to be held responsible.

In abortion the child is not born and saying "woman is responsible for fetus because parents are responsible for child" does not make sense.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 6:50:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 10:05:43 AM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
Yeah, I have a specific case law involving a millionaire whose son crashed a car while joyriding, was taken to hospital following a serious medical injury, whose parents then turned around and did not pay for their medical bills. I do know that in Ireland, for example, parents are legally required to pay for their child's healthcare.
Yes, if women end up having a miscarriage, they're not legally responsible for it. Ever hear of Good Samaritan laws, I wonder?
Yes it is. In Austria, in Germany, in France, for example.

by the way, do you agree with the point I made:

"if we assume abortion as a crime because fetus is a human, the women who killed fetus reluctantly should be penalised?!"

2. When we have abortion we dont kill fetus or somebody, we just stop the help we give to others. In order to justify forcing woman to help other, we need to right to force others to help others. For example: the rich are to be forced to help the poor :))

antiabortionists are ignorants and have so many fallacies.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:56:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If a person refuses to care for their child, or a child with which they are in loco parentis, they face punishment for that, also, you were the one who said that people do not have a right to help others, not me, and if the parent is unable to fulfil that responsibility, the child becomes a ward of the state, which interferes, not for the best interest of the parent, but for the life of the child. Hence, if a mother leaves her baby following birth in a gutter, she is liable for murder

As for the second point, I can't generalise with that, only to say yes, if the case is in mens rea. I referenced the Good Samaritan laws as many of them are designed to protect individuals who accidentally do something which inadvertently causes another's death.

Exactly. One has a duty to render aid to sustain life if one has the means to do so. Hence the reason, in Germany, as you are familiar with it, has such a law on its statute books along with many other european nations.
Knowing Stopping to support a human life is a killing, as it results in the death of the life.
Yes, they're called taxes.
Yes, I am ignorant of many things, but at least I'm not ignorant of good manners.
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 4:53:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If a person refuses to care for their child, or a child with which they are in loco parentis, they face punishment for that

as I am familiar with europe I am going to talk about it: there is no such punishment.

Now your turn: is it in USA/america? If so, give reference please.

you were the one who said that people do not have a right to help others, not me
I said such thing? Where and when I said?

and if the parent is unable to fulfil that responsibility, the child becomes a ward of the state
yes, there is such requirement. If we use this point in abortion, the conclusion and deduction will be:

woman does not want to care the fetus and it needs to be ward of government.

Conclusion: it is not a reason to force woman to help fetus. Rule: if there becomes an abortion that aborted fetus needs to be ward of state.

This is what gets concluded from the point above, not illegalisation of abortion.

which interferes, not for the best interest of the parent, but for the life of the child.
So, considering this, all the govenment can do against abortion is: to take fetus itself.

Hence, if a mother leaves her baby following birth in a gutter, she is liable for murder
she is not liable for murder, murder is to kill somebody on a person.

Abortion is not kill on purpose, abortion is to stop the help you give.

As for the second point, I can't generalise with that only to say yes, if the case is in mens rea.

as you yourself see, if it was something logical and rational it could have been generalised. (:

I referenced the Good Samaritan laws as many of them are designed to protect individuals who accidentally do something which inadvertently causes another's death.
If we are going to think with this logic and say forcing woman to help fetus is ok, then forcing the rich to help the poor is also ok. Do you agree? (:

forcing anybody to help anybody also need to be ok (: if otherwise, this can not be a case to justify to force woman to help fetus.

Exactly. One has a duty to render aid to sustain life if one has the means to do so.
One has duty? So, I am about to die due to lack of blood, does it mean that you have a duty to give me a blood? To donour me blood? (:

Hence the reason, in Germany, as you are familiar with it, has such a law on its statute books along with many other european nations.
Sprechen sie deutsch? (: in germany, even in parental responsibilities, there is no such thing (:

Knowing Stopping to support a human life is a killing, as it results in the death of the life.
Stopping the help you give is not killing, it is just not preventing the death. But if you are going to say it is killing, we can think in that way:

"in china, there sometimes becomes deaths due to not being given first aid, one falls in a street and people think he is fake and for doubt they dont help and that person dies. Everybody on that street killed that man and everybody needs to be sentenced to the jail" this is what concludes the statement I quoted abouve (:

Yes, I am ignorant of many things, but at least I'm not ignorant of good manners.

Maybe you are not ignorant of good manners but I am never ignorant, by the way, I never thought that forcing somebody is a good manner, do you think in that way? (:
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 10:43:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, they do. Either through civil or criminal law.
In the first post, unless I misread it.
No, the conclusion is it is the responsibility of the state to aid the foetus.
Ergo, if a mother leaves a child to die, it's not murder, just leaving a 2 month old baby to fend for itself.
Only depending on the context.
Yes, I do agree.
It depends on your blood type and Rhesus factor.
Yep. Section 323 of the German penal code.
No, because they never instigated that help in the first place. Like you said, they didn't stop to help.
I'm not a libertarian, I have no problem with force if used for a just cause in a just manner.
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 5:17:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
now I am using phone, I will reply tomorrow. I am not entering via computer, it is not comfortable to write from phone.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 11:21:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's all good, I hate discussing through text as well, it makes everything so slow and laking in fluidity.
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.