Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pro-choicers say the funniest things...

Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 3:26:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.

What is your position on abortion in life threatening and rape cases.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 3:46:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 3:26:14 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.

What is your position on abortion in life threatening and rape cases.

It's okay in life-threatening cases, but not okay in rape.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 4:00:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 3:46:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 3:26:14 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.

What is your position on abortion in life threatening and rape cases.

It's okay in life-threatening cases

Why does the mothers life take precedence

but not okay in rape.

Why force them to have it.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 4:07:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

This is a stupid argument. Do you think that there are no dumb/uneducated and desperate women out there? Seeing as this has happened in the past when abortion was banned, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that it will happen again, and to lay the blame at the feet of pro-lifers who decided that an inevitable black market for abortion and self-induced abortion is an acceptable cost when it comes to enshrining their ideology in law. Your argument is akin to saying that a person who advocates for the prohibition of alcohol wouldn't be morally responsible for the rise of organized crime around a new black market. It's a predictable result of your policy, and a germane criticism.

'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

This is like Jehovah's witnesses banning blood transfusions and then saying "it's nobody but an anemic person's fault if they get an infection from an improperly conducted transfusion". You are eliminating by legal action an entire field dedicated to safe medical procedures. Own the fact that, as a result, people will seek such treatments in unsafe ways. No one wants black markets to arise; that's a cop out, but we KNOW that they will because we have historical precedent to go by. You are presented with a choice between a world in which abortions are safe and legal, and one in which they are illegal and unsafe, and choosing the latter. That means that, pretty clearly, you would rather a few women die due to unsafe procedures than to live in a country in which this medical procedure can be conducted safely and in the open.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

And here you presuppose that abortion is equivalent to rape, which is just as asinine when you're arguing with someone who does not see a fetus as a person deserving of rights. The point is relevant: that there will be unsafe abortions for which prolife advocates would be directly culpable due to their elimination of any safe alternatives.

'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

It's about the fact that a woman, in the end, bears the emotional burden and the moral responsibility for the choice that she makes, not the father, and certainly not a man whom she does not even know. The abortion or birth will weigh on her conscience, not yours. You can see how stark the difference is when you look at things like the abortion of a fetus afflicted with trisomy 21. The decision to abort the fetus scales with actually having to face the moral responsibility of the decision at an incredible rate, with 23-33% of average non-pregnant women and 46-86% of high-risk pregnant women responding that they would terminate if the fetus tested positive. In the cases of women whose fetuses have tested positive for Down's syndrome, an astonishing 89-97% responded that they would terminate the pregnancy. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Obviously, it is much more easy to give lip service to the idea of 'choosing life' than it is it ACTUALLY choose it, and men, by definition, can do no more than give lip service to the idea, as they will never be forced to actually make that choice, and to bear the moral responsibility for it. In light of this, a man telling a pregnant woman what her choice must be is grotesque. Can he convince her? Present her with evidence? Offer aid if she chooses life? Certainly. But to authoritatively demand that a choice which he will never have to face is made for her by him is absurd.

'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'
____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.

Some of them are dumb, but no more dumb than 'everyone who is for abortion has already been born, herp derp'. Every movement has idiots in it.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 4:47:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 4:00:37 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 3:46:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 3:26:14 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.

What is your position on abortion in life threatening and rape cases.

It's okay in life-threatening cases

Why does the mothers life take precedence

It doesn't, but it comes under a self-defence scenario. Killing is justifiable if it is necessary to protect someone's life. An analogy I can think of would be that it is acceptable to kill a lunatic murderer if that was the only way to protect the life of people he is endangering.


but not okay in rape.

Why force them to have it.

Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 6:22:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 4:47:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

Are you familiar with the violinist thought experiment, in defense of abortion? You can read a full text of it here: http://spot.colorado.edu...

To summarize, pretend you wake up one day to find that you've been biologically tethered to another person (like the opposite of separating conjoined twins). This was done to save the other person's life, and that person will be completely dependent upon you for 9 months. After that time, you'll be separated and no one will bother you again. Do you, or should you, have the right to separate from that other person? Aside from being incredibly unlikely, this scenario is practically indistinct from an unwanted pregnancy that arises out of rape.

If you need a scenario that is more likely to occur, what if you found out that you were the only possible liver donor for a child that was dying. If you donate part of your liver, you'll save the child's life and you'll be fine in 6 months when what remains of your liver has fully regenerated. Should you have the right to refuse to donate?

If you think that you have a right to effectively kill the other person in either of those above scenarios, why do you think that a rape victim should not have the same right?
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 6:54:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 4:47:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:00:37 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 3:46:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 3:26:14 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.

What is your position on abortion in life threatening and rape cases.

It's okay in life-threatening cases

Why does the mothers life take precedence

It doesn't, but it comes under a self-defence scenario. Killing is justifiable if it is necessary to protect someone's life. An analogy I can think of would be that it is acceptable to kill a lunatic murderer if that was the only way to protect the life of people he is endangering.

Why can't the fetus claim self-defense?


but not okay in rape.

Why force them to have it.

Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

That sounds like an emotional appeal. There's nothing wrong with human death, it's necessary. I don't really see it as murder either since the fetus doesn't have a desire to live.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 8:47:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 4:07:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

This is a stupid argument. Do you think that there are no dumb/uneducated and desperate women out there? Seeing as this has happened in the past when abortion was banned, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that it will happen again, and to lay the blame at the feet of pro-lifers who decided that an inevitable black market for abortion and self-induced abortion is an acceptable cost when it comes to enshrining their ideology in law. Your argument is akin to saying that a person who advocates for the prohibition of alcohol wouldn't be morally responsible for the rise of organized crime around a new black market. It's a predictable result of your policy, and a germane criticism.

A woman who chooses to endanger her life takes responsibility for the risk she has put upon herself. Besides, if we accept that abortion is an immoral practice (as I would argue), then it is completely farcical to legalise it in order to protect the wellbeing of the perpetrator of the act.

For example, legalizing theft would no doubt decrease the number of people who die whilst choosing to commit theft, but this is a very bad argument for the legalization of theft.


'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

This is like Jehovah's witnesses banning blood transfusions and then saying "it's nobody but an anemic person's fault if they get an infection from an improperly conducted transfusion".

An anemic person needs a blood transfusion, a woman doesn't need an abortion.

You are eliminating by legal action an entire field dedicated to safe medical procedures. Own the fact that, as a result, people will seek such treatments in unsafe ways. No one wants black markets to arise; that's a cop out, but we KNOW that they will because we have historical precedent to go by. You are presented with a choice between a world in which abortions are safe and legal, and one in which they are illegal and unsafe, and choosing the latter. That means that, pretty clearly, you would rather a few women die due to unsafe procedures than to live in a country in which this medical procedure can be conducted safely and in the open.

To use my earlier example, that's like saying that people who think theft should be illegal supports the death of thieves who would die from the result of theft being illegal.

This begs the question because it assumes that there is nothing wrong with abortion.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

And here you presuppose that abortion is equivalent to rape, which is just as asinine when you're arguing with someone who does not see a fetus as a person deserving of rights. The point is relevant: that there will be unsafe abortions for which prolife advocates would be directly culpable due to their elimination of any safe alternatives.

Again, this just brings it back to the point of whether abortion is immoral. We clearly disagree.

I agree wholeheartedly that, if abortion were morally justified, it should be unrestrainedly legal. However, I contend that abortion isn't morally justified.


'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

It's about the fact that a woman, in the end, bears the emotional burden and the moral responsibility for the choice that she makes, not the father, and certainly not a man whom she does not even know. The abortion or birth will weigh on her conscience, not yours. You can see how stark the difference is when you look at things like the abortion of a fetus afflicted with trisomy 21. The decision to abort the fetus scales with actually having to face the moral responsibility of the decision at an incredible rate, with 23-33% of average non-pregnant women and 46-86% of high-risk pregnant women responding that they would terminate if the fetus tested positive. In the cases of women whose fetuses have tested positive for Down's syndrome, an astonishing 89-97% responded that they would terminate the pregnancy. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Obviously, it is much more easy to give lip service to the idea of 'choosing life' than it is it ACTUALLY choose it, and men, by definition, can do no more than give lip service to the idea, as they will never be forced to actually make that choice, and to bear the moral responsibility for it. In light of this, a man telling a pregnant woman what her choice must be is grotesque. Can he convince her? Present her with evidence? Offer aid if she chooses life? Certainly. But to authoritatively demand that a choice which he will never have to face is made for her by him is absurd.

I may never have to face the choice of whether to torture someone or not, but it doesn't follow that I cannot be vocally against torture.

Besides, it is a blatant ad hominem fallacy.


'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'
____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.

Some of them are dumb, but no more dumb than 'everyone who is for abortion has already been born, herp derp'. Every movement has idiots in it.

Agreed.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 9:01:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 6:22:43 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:47:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

Are you familiar with the violinist thought experiment, in defense of abortion? You can read a full text of it here: http://spot.colorado.edu...

I am familiar, yes.


To summarize, pretend you wake up one day to find that you've been biologically tethered to another person (like the opposite of separating conjoined twins). This was done to save the other person's life, and that person will be completely dependent upon you for 9 months. After that time, you'll be separated and no one will bother you again. Do you, or should you, have the right to separate from that other person? Aside from being incredibly unlikely, this scenario is practically indistinct from an unwanted pregnancy that arises out of rape.

A few important distinctions exist:

1. The state of the person being attached to you in the violinist analogy is not its natural place; your body is not designed for you to support the life of that person and so it cannot be expected to. However, a foetus's natural place is to exist in the womb, and as such, it can be expected that the womb take care of it - as that is what it is designed for.
The distinction between proper-purposes is demonstrated by this analogy: suppose you buy a chair and you stand on it, causing it to break. You have no reason to complain, because the chair wasn't designed for standing on. But if it were to break whilst you were sitting on it, you have got a reason to complain, because chairs are supposed to be used for sitting on.

2. Even if you have the right to separate yourself from the violinist, does this extend to the right to slit the violinist's throat in order to do this? There is a difference between separating yourself from a dependent being and actively killing it, since in the former case you are not the principal cause of his death (his illness is), whereas in the latter case you are the principal cause of his death.
However, abortion isn't just cutting off nutrients to the foetus, it actively poisons/dismembers it. But the violinist analogy would have to change to the 'slitting throat' scenario to be analogous to abortion, but many would see that you wouldn't be justified in slitting the violinist's throat.


If you need a scenario that is more likely to occur, what if you found out that you were the only possible liver donor for a child that was dying. If you donate part of your liver, you'll save the child's life and you'll be fine in 6 months when what remains of your liver has fully regenerated. Should you have the right to refuse to donate?

Again, you aren't the principal cause of the child's death; his kidney ailment is. Moreover, this isn't analogous to abortion because it is letting-die, not actively killing. Most would see that shooting the child in the head is far more immoral than simply declining to donate your liver.


If you think that you have a right to effectively kill the other person in either of those above scenarios, why do you think that a rape victim should not have the same right?
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 9:04:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 6:54:59 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:47:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:00:37 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 3:46:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 3:26:14 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.

What is your position on abortion in life threatening and rape cases.

It's okay in life-threatening cases

Why does the mothers life take precedence

It doesn't, but it comes under a self-defence scenario. Killing is justifiable if it is necessary to protect someone's life. An analogy I can think of would be that it is acceptable to kill a lunatic murderer if that was the only way to protect the life of people he is endangering.

Why can't the fetus claim self-defense?

Because, in this case, it is the foetus that instigated the danger (albeit unwillingly). So the foetus claiming self-defence would be like an attacker claiming self-defence from the attacked person's retaliation.



but not okay in rape.

Why force them to have it.

Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

That sounds like an emotional appeal. There's nothing wrong with human death, it's necessary. I don't really see it as murder either since the fetus doesn't have a desire to live.

Nor does a suicidal teenager or a religious fundamentalist desiring martyrdom, but are we justified in killing them?
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 9:32:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 9:04:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 6:54:59 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:47:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:00:37 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 3:46:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 3:26:14 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.

What is your position on abortion in life threatening and rape cases.

It's okay in life-threatening cases

Why does the mothers life take precedence

It doesn't, but it comes under a self-defence scenario. Killing is justifiable if it is necessary to protect someone's life. An analogy I can think of would be that it is acceptable to kill a lunatic murderer if that was the only way to protect the life of people he is endangering.

Why can't the fetus claim self-defense?

Because, in this case, it is the foetus that instigated the danger (albeit unwillingly). So the foetus claiming self-defence would be like an attacker claiming self-defence from the attacked person's retaliation.

I would say the mother instigated the danger by having sex. There are risks to pregnancy, I don't see how just because the mother is unlucky justifies killing the fetus.



but not okay in rape.

Why force them to have it.

Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

That sounds like an emotional appeal. There's nothing wrong with human death, it's necessary. I don't really see it as murder either since the fetus doesn't have a desire to live.

Nor does a suicidal teenager or a religious fundamentalist desiring martyrdom, but are we justified in killing them?

Death is a decision for themselves to make, because they're capable of making them.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 11:53:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

Are you familiar with the violinist thought experiment, in defense of abortion? You can read a full text of it here: http://spot.colorado.edu...

I am familiar, yes.


To summarize, pretend you wake up one day to find that you've been biologically tethered to another person (like the opposite of separating conjoined twins). This was done to save the other person's life, and that person will be completely dependent upon you for 9 months. After that time, you'll be separated and no one will bother you again. Do you, or should you, have the right to separate from that other person? Aside from being incredibly unlikely, this scenario is practically indistinct from an unwanted pregnancy that arises out of rape.

A few important distinctions exist:

1. The state of the person being attached to you in the violinist analogy is not its natural place; your body is not designed for you to support the life of that person and so it cannot be expected to. However, a foetus's natural place is to exist in the womb, and as such, it can be expected that the womb take care of it - as that is what it is designed for.

Irrelevant to the argument of what you are allowed to do with your body as opposed to have the state force you to do it. What is "natural" hardly makes for a good argument, considering what happens in the natural world in general when it comes to sex.

The distinction between proper-purposes is demonstrated by this analogy: suppose you buy a chair and you stand on it, causing it to break. You have no reason to complain, because the chair wasn't designed for standing on. But if it were to break whilst you were sitting on it, you have got a reason to complain, because chairs are supposed to be used for sitting on.

I could just as easily argue that if it can't bear my weight from standing, it can't bear my weight from sitting, the chair is defective.


2. Even if you have the right to separate yourself from the violinist, does this extend to the right to slit the violinist's throat in order to do this? There is a difference between separating yourself from a dependent being and actively killing it, since in the former case you are not the principal cause of his death (his illness is), whereas in the latter case you are the principal cause of his death.

I think a proper surgical procedure could be managed in which the fetus is extracted wholly, and left to die via whatever other means aside from direct damage. This still does nothing to the argument presented as a whole.

However, abortion isn't just cutting off nutrients to the foetus, it actively poisons/dismembers it. But the violinist analogy would have to change to the 'slitting throat' scenario to be analogous to abortion, but many would see that you wouldn't be justified in slitting the violinist's throat.

If the violinist in question is going to die, what would the difference be?



If you need a scenario that is more likely to occur, what if you found out that you were the only possible liver donor for a child that was dying. If you donate part of your liver, you'll save the child's life and you'll be fine in 6 months when what remains of your liver has fully regenerated. Should you have the right to refuse to donate?

Again, you aren't the principal cause of the child's death; his kidney ailment is. Moreover, this isn't analogous to abortion because it is letting-die, not actively killing. Most would see that shooting the child in the head is far more immoral than simply declining to donate your liver.

So then in the mean time, the whole body is being donated with regards to a fetus. Your line isn't firm where you are drawing it.


If you think that you have a right to effectively kill the other person in either of those above scenarios, why do you think that a rape victim should not have the same right?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 12:16:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.

No one group has a monopoly on irrationality/stupidity.

You don't think there is a whole list of Prolife/forced continuation of pregnancy arguments out there that are just as risible ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
CaptainAhab
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 12:53:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 11:53:09 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

Are you familiar with the violinist thought experiment, in defense of abortion? You can read a full text of it here: http://spot.colorado.edu...

I am familiar, yes.


To summarize, pretend you wake up one day to find that you've been biologically tethered to another person (like the opposite of separating conjoined twins). This was done to save the other person's life, and that person will be completely dependent upon you for 9 months. After that time, you'll be separated and no one will bother you again. Do you, or should you, have the right to separate from that other person? Aside from being incredibly unlikely, this scenario is practically indistinct from an unwanted pregnancy that arises out of rape.

A few important distinctions exist:

1. The state of the person being attached to you in the violinist analogy is not its natural place; your body is not designed for you to support the life of that person and so it cannot be expected to. However, a foetus's natural place is to exist in the womb, and as such, it can be expected that the womb take care of it - as that is what it is designed for.

Irrelevant to the argument of what you are allowed to do with your body as opposed to have the state force you to do it. What is "natural" hardly makes for a good argument, considering what happens in the natural world in general when it comes to sex.


The distinction between proper-purposes is demonstrated by this analogy: suppose you buy a chair and you stand on it, causing it to break. You have no reason to complain, because the chair wasn't designed for standing on. But if it were to break whilst you were sitting on it, you have got a reason to complain, because chairs are supposed to be used for sitting on.

I could just as easily argue that if it can't bear my weight from standing, it can't bear my weight from sitting, the chair is defective.


2. Even if you have the right to separate yourself from the violinist, does this extend to the right to slit the violinist's throat in order to do this? There is a difference between separating yourself from a dependent being and actively killing it, since in the former case you are not the principal cause of his death (his illness is), whereas in the latter case you are the principal cause of his death.

I think a proper surgical procedure could be managed in which the fetus is extracted wholly, and left to die via whatever other means aside from direct damage. This still does nothing to the argument presented as a whole.

In the violinist scenario the conjoining was done to save the life of the other human, after said human was born. In the case of a fetus it is not. A fetus does not exist prior union of sperm and egg. This also belies the fact that emergency contraception, which prevents implantation is a viable option.

If one waits after a rape and does not procure emergency contraception then that is a tacit agreement between mother and child, and the mother is obligated to carry the child to term. Essentially her inaction to prevent implantation caused the child to be in a situation where it is dependent on the mother.


However, abortion isn't just cutting off nutrients to the foetus, it actively poisons/dismembers it. But the violinist analogy would have to change to the 'slitting throat' scenario to be analogous to abortion, but many would see that you wouldn't be justified in slitting the violinist's throat.

If the violinist in question is going to die, what would the difference be?



If you need a scenario that is more likely to occur, what if you found out that you were the only possible liver donor for a child that was dying. If you donate part of your liver, you'll save the child's life and you'll be fine in 6 months when what remains of your liver has fully regenerated. Should you have the right to refuse to donate?

Again, you aren't the principal cause of the child's death; his kidney ailment is. Moreover, this isn't analogous to abortion because it is letting-die, not actively killing. Most would see that shooting the child in the head is far more immoral than simply declining to donate your liver.

So then in the mean time, the whole body is being donated with regards to a fetus. Your line isn't firm where you are drawing it.


If you think that you have a right to effectively kill the other person in either of those above scenarios, why do you think that a rape victim should not have the same right?

Interesting discussion. I have never personally heard this analogy, but I have heard the analogy of forced donation of blood and tissue.

I have come up with another hypothetical scenario:

Imagine that I announce that I have invented an artificial womb and a process to transfer a fetus to said artificial womb where it can gestate without the help of any outside beings. If the fetus in question is at 17 weeks gestation it would technically be within the mother's right to have an abortion when it is in her womb. Should it be protected by the law if it is occupying an artificial womb instead of a biological one?

If it is wrong to kill a 17 week fetus gestating in an artificial womb, it should be wrong to kill a 17 week fetus gestating in a biological womb. The substance of the fetus has not changed, only the location.

Philosophically speaking when we discuss rape/life of the mother cases we are picking at the fringe of the issue because of the minute amount of abortions done for these reasons. Most people I know that are active in the pro-life movement are not against abortion in the case of life of the mother.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 2:22:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 9:01:18 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 6:22:43 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:47:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

Are you familiar with the violinist thought experiment, in defense of abortion? You can read a full text of it here: http://spot.colorado.edu...

I am familiar, yes.


To summarize, pretend you wake up one day to find that you've been biologically tethered to another person (like the opposite of separating conjoined twins). This was done to save the other person's life, and that person will be completely dependent upon you for 9 months. After that time, you'll be separated and no one will bother you again. Do you, or should you, have the right to separate from that other person? Aside from being incredibly unlikely, this scenario is practically indistinct from an unwanted pregnancy that arises out of rape.

A few important distinctions exist:

1. The state of the person being attached to you in the violinist analogy is not its natural place; your body is not designed for you to support the life of that person and so it cannot be expected to. However, a foetus's natural place is to exist in the womb, and as such, it can be expected that the womb take care of it - as that is what it is designed for.
The distinction between proper-purposes is demonstrated by this analogy: suppose you buy a chair and you stand on it, causing it to break. You have no reason to complain, because the chair wasn't designed for standing on. But if it were to break whilst you were sitting on it, you have got a reason to complain, because chairs are supposed to be used for sitting on.

This appears to be an appeal to nature, which seems especially fallacious when we're talking about healthcare. Pretend we're talking about conjoined twins, instead. If one twin is unable to survive without being joined with the other, does the potentially independent twin have the right to demand separation anyway?

2. Even if you have the right to separate yourself from the violinist, does this extend to the right to slit the violinist's throat in order to do this? There is a difference between separating yourself from a dependent being and actively killing it, since in the former case you are not the principal cause of his death (his illness is), whereas in the latter case you are the principal cause of his death.
However, abortion isn't just cutting off nutrients to the foetus, it actively poisons/dismembers it. But the violinist analogy would have to change to the 'slitting throat' scenario to be analogous to abortion, but many would see that you wouldn't be justified in slitting the violinist's throat.


If you need a scenario that is more likely to occur, what if you found out that you were the only possible liver donor for a child that was dying. If you donate part of your liver, you'll save the child's life and you'll be fine in 6 months when what remains of your liver has fully regenerated. Should you have the right to refuse to donate?

Again, you aren't the principal cause of the child's death; his kidney ailment is. Moreover, this isn't analogous to abortion because it is letting-die, not actively killing. Most would see that shooting the child in the head is far more immoral than simply declining to donate your liver.

In most abortion procedures, which are done in the first trimester, the embryo or fetus dies due to nutrient loss as a result of separation from the uterus. It isn't actually killed as if shot or stabbed. I can understand the sense of horror over something like an extraction abortion where the fetus is directly killed. Do you not see a significant difference with a first trimester abortion?

If you think that you have a right to effectively kill the other person in either of those above scenarios, why do you think that a rape victim should not have the same right?
CaptainAhab
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 2:40:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 2:22:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/2/2015 9:01:18 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 6:22:43 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:47:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

Are you familiar with the violinist thought experiment, in defense of abortion? You can read a full text of it here: http://spot.colorado.edu...

I am familiar, yes.


To summarize, pretend you wake up one day to find that you've been biologically tethered to another person (like the opposite of separating conjoined twins). This was done to save the other person's life, and that person will be completely dependent upon you for 9 months. After that time, you'll be separated and no one will bother you again. Do you, or should you, have the right to separate from that other person? Aside from being incredibly unlikely, this scenario is practically indistinct from an unwanted pregnancy that arises out of rape.

A few important distinctions exist:

1. The state of the person being attached to you in the violinist analogy is not its natural place; your body is not designed for you to support the life of that person and so it cannot be expected to. However, a foetus's natural place is to exist in the womb, and as such, it can be expected that the womb take care of it - as that is what it is designed for.
The distinction between proper-purposes is demonstrated by this analogy: suppose you buy a chair and you stand on it, causing it to break. You have no reason to complain, because the chair wasn't designed for standing on. But if it were to break whilst you were sitting on it, you have got a reason to complain, because chairs are supposed to be used for sitting on.

This appears to be an appeal to nature, which seems especially fallacious when we're talking about healthcare. Pretend we're talking about conjoined twins, instead. If one twin is unable to survive without being joined with the other, does the potentially independent twin have the right to demand separation anyway?

2. Even if you have the right to separate yourself from the violinist, does this extend to the right to slit the violinist's throat in order to do this? There is a difference between separating yourself from a dependent being and actively killing it, since in the former case you are not the principal cause of his death (his illness is), whereas in the latter case you are the principal cause of his death.
However, abortion isn't just cutting off nutrients to the foetus, it actively poisons/dismembers it. But the violinist analogy would have to change to the 'slitting throat' scenario to be analogous to abortion, but many would see that you wouldn't be justified in slitting the violinist's throat.


If you need a scenario that is more likely to occur, what if you found out that you were the only possible liver donor for a child that was dying. If you donate part of your liver, you'll save the child's life and you'll be fine in 6 months when what remains of your liver has fully regenerated. Should you have the right to refuse to donate?

Again, you aren't the principal cause of the child's death; his kidney ailment is. Moreover, this isn't analogous to abortion because it is letting-die, not actively killing. Most would see that shooting the child in the head is far more immoral than simply declining to donate your liver.

In most abortion procedures, which are done in the first trimester, the embryo or fetus dies due to nutrient loss as a result of separation from the uterus. It isn't actually killed as if shot or stabbed. I can understand the sense of horror over something like an extraction abortion where the fetus is directly killed. Do you not see a significant difference with a first trimester abortion?

Most abortion procedures performed on a whole, 88.3%, are done by vacuum aspiration where the fetus is sucked out into an electric vacuum or a syringe. Not, "dying due to nutrient loss as a result of separation from the uterus" as you have stated.[1] Unless of course you consider being sucked through a vacuum tube "separation from the uterus" and being torn apart in the process "dying due to nutrient loss."

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 2:58:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 2:40:30 AM, CaptainAhab wrote:
At 9/3/2015 2:22:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/2/2015 9:01:18 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 6:22:43 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:47:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

Are you familiar with the violinist thought experiment, in defense of abortion? You can read a full text of it here: http://spot.colorado.edu...

I am familiar, yes.


To summarize, pretend you wake up one day to find that you've been biologically tethered to another person (like the opposite of separating conjoined twins). This was done to save the other person's life, and that person will be completely dependent upon you for 9 months. After that time, you'll be separated and no one will bother you again. Do you, or should you, have the right to separate from that other person? Aside from being incredibly unlikely, this scenario is practically indistinct from an unwanted pregnancy that arises out of rape.

A few important distinctions exist:

1. The state of the person being attached to you in the violinist analogy is not its natural place; your body is not designed for you to support the life of that person and so it cannot be expected to. However, a foetus's natural place is to exist in the womb, and as such, it can be expected that the womb take care of it - as that is what it is designed for.
The distinction between proper-purposes is demonstrated by this analogy: suppose you buy a chair and you stand on it, causing it to break. You have no reason to complain, because the chair wasn't designed for standing on. But if it were to break whilst you were sitting on it, you have got a reason to complain, because chairs are supposed to be used for sitting on.

This appears to be an appeal to nature, which seems especially fallacious when we're talking about healthcare. Pretend we're talking about conjoined twins, instead. If one twin is unable to survive without being joined with the other, does the potentially independent twin have the right to demand separation anyway?

2. Even if you have the right to separate yourself from the violinist, does this extend to the right to slit the violinist's throat in order to do this? There is a difference between separating yourself from a dependent being and actively killing it, since in the former case you are not the principal cause of his death (his illness is), whereas in the latter case you are the principal cause of his death.
However, abortion isn't just cutting off nutrients to the foetus, it actively poisons/dismembers it. But the violinist analogy would have to change to the 'slitting throat' scenario to be analogous to abortion, but many would see that you wouldn't be justified in slitting the violinist's throat.


If you need a scenario that is more likely to occur, what if you found out that you were the only possible liver donor for a child that was dying. If you donate part of your liver, you'll save the child's life and you'll be fine in 6 months when what remains of your liver has fully regenerated. Should you have the right to refuse to donate?

Again, you aren't the principal cause of the child's death; his kidney ailment is. Moreover, this isn't analogous to abortion because it is letting-die, not actively killing. Most would see that shooting the child in the head is far more immoral than simply declining to donate your liver.

In most abortion procedures, which are done in the first trimester, the embryo or fetus dies due to nutrient loss as a result of separation from the uterus. It isn't actually killed as if shot or stabbed. I can understand the sense of horror over something like an extraction abortion where the fetus is directly killed. Do you not see a significant difference with a first trimester abortion?

Most abortion procedures performed on a whole, 88.3%, are done by vacuum aspiration where the fetus is sucked out into an electric vacuum or a syringe. Not, "dying due to nutrient loss as a result of separation from the uterus" as you have stated.[1] Unless of course you consider being sucked through a vacuum tube "separation from the uterus" and being torn apart in the process "dying due to nutrient loss."

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...

If there's something in that link stating that the embryo or fetus is "torn apart" during aspiration, I don't see it. Perhaps you could indicate where that's stated? My understanding is that there is little, if any, damage because the embryo or fetus is so small. Granted that's based on some pretty old information about acquiring fetal tissue back in the '90s.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 3:14:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 8:47:32 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:07:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a stupid argument. Do you think that there are no dumb/uneducated and desperate women out there? Seeing as this has happened in the past when abortion was banned, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that it will happen again, and to lay the blame at the feet of pro-lifers who decided that an inevitable black market for abortion and self-induced abortion is an acceptable cost when it comes to enshrining their ideology in law. Your argument is akin to saying that a person who advocates for the prohibition of alcohol wouldn't be morally responsible for the rise of organized crime around a new black market. It's a predictable result of your policy, and a germane criticism.

A woman who chooses to endanger her life takes responsibility for the risk she has put upon herself. Besides, if we accept that abortion is an immoral practice (as I would argue), then it is completely farcical to legalise it in order to protect the wellbeing of the perpetrator of the act.

For example, legalizing theft would no doubt decrease the number of people who die whilst choosing to commit theft, but this is a very bad argument for the legalization of theft.

It's very easy to win arguments when you presuppose that the main article of contention favors your side.


'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

This is like Jehovah's witnesses banning blood transfusions and then saying "it's nobody but an anemic person's fault if they get an infection from an improperly conducted transfusion".

An anemic person needs a blood transfusion, a woman doesn't need an abortion.

According to you.

You are eliminating by legal action an entire field dedicated to safe medical procedures. Own the fact that, as a result, people will seek such treatments in unsafe ways. No one wants black markets to arise; that's a cop out, but we KNOW that they will because we have historical precedent to go by. You are presented with a choice between a world in which abortions are safe and legal, and one in which they are illegal and unsafe, and choosing the latter. That means that, pretty clearly, you would rather a few women die due to unsafe procedures than to live in a country in which this medical procedure can be conducted safely and in the open.

To use my earlier example, that's like saying that people who think theft should be illegal supports the death of thieves who would die from the result of theft being illegal.

They do, if they are honest with themselves. I do. It's a cost which is acceptable when faced with the alternative of a world in which theft is legal.

This begs the question because it assumes that there is nothing wrong with abortion.

... which is the stance of your opposition. If they agreed with you on that point, they wouldn't be pro-choice.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

And here you presuppose that abortion is equivalent to rape, which is just as asinine when you're arguing with someone who does not see a fetus as a person deserving of rights. The point is relevant: that there will be unsafe abortions for which prolife advocates would be directly culpable due to their elimination of any safe alternatives.

Again, this just brings it back to the point of whether abortion is immoral. We clearly disagree.

I agree wholeheartedly that, if abortion were morally justified, it should be unrestrainedly legal. However, I contend that abortion isn't morally justified.


'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

It's about the fact that a woman, in the end, bears the emotional burden and the moral responsibility for the choice that she makes, not the father, and certainly not a man whom she does not even know. The abortion or birth will weigh on her conscience, not yours. You can see how stark the difference is when you look at things like the abortion of a fetus afflicted with trisomy 21. The decision to abort the fetus scales with actually having to face the moral responsibility of the decision at an incredible rate, with 23-33% of average non-pregnant women and 46-86% of high-risk pregnant women responding that they would terminate if the fetus tested positive. In the cases of women whose fetuses have tested positive for Down's syndrome, an astonishing 89-97% responded that they would terminate the pregnancy. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Obviously, it is much more easy to give lip service to the idea of 'choosing life' than it is it ACTUALLY choose it, and men, by definition, can do no more than give lip service to the idea, as they will never be forced to actually make that choice, and to bear the moral responsibility for it. In light of this, a man telling a pregnant woman what her choice must be is grotesque. Can he convince her? Present her with evidence? Offer aid if she chooses life? Certainly. But to authoritatively demand that a choice which he will never have to face is made for her by him is absurd.

I may never have to face the choice of whether to torture someone or not, but it doesn't follow that I cannot be vocally against torture.

Torture doesn't involve making a decision for someone which is analogous to abortion. The mother is essentially faced with the problem 'should I bring this person into existence or not?' for which they face moral culpability.

Besides, it is a blatant ad hominem fallacy.

It's certainly ultimately an emotional argument, but it's not as ludicrous as you make it out to be.

Some of them are dumb, but no more dumb than 'everyone who is for abortion has already been born herp derp." Every movement has idiots in it.
Agreed.

And that's the main problem: the whole list of statements consists of an intellectual circle jerk. The resolution of the main contention (a fetus is a person which ought to be granted rights) in their favor is presupposed, and then they tear apart the opponent's arguments from that point. The same thing is done by pro-lifers, by LGBT activists, by feminists and MRAs, the religious and militant atheists. It's a ritualistic exercise to build group cohesion. But they are internally consistent, and not particularly asinine.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
CaptainAhab
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 3:35:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 2:58:04 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/3/2015 2:40:30 AM, CaptainAhab wrote:
At 9/3/2015 2:22:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/2/2015 9:01:18 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 6:22:43 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:47:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

Are you familiar with the violinist thought experiment, in defense of abortion? You can read a full text of it here: http://spot.colorado.edu...

I am familiar, yes.


To summarize, pretend you wake up one day to find that you've been biologically tethered to another person (like the opposite of separating conjoined twins). This was done to save the other person's life, and that person will be completely dependent upon you for 9 months. After that time, you'll be separated and no one will bother you again. Do you, or should you, have the right to separate from that other person? Aside from being incredibly unlikely, this scenario is practically indistinct from an unwanted pregnancy that arises out of rape.

A few important distinctions exist:

1. The state of the person being attached to you in the violinist analogy is not its natural place; your body is not designed for you to support the life of that person and so it cannot be expected to. However, a foetus's natural place is to exist in the womb, and as such, it can be expected that the womb take care of it - as that is what it is designed for.
The distinction between proper-purposes is demonstrated by this analogy: suppose you buy a chair and you stand on it, causing it to break. You have no reason to complain, because the chair wasn't designed for standing on. But if it were to break whilst you were sitting on it, you have got a reason to complain, because chairs are supposed to be used for sitting on.

This appears to be an appeal to nature, which seems especially fallacious when we're talking about healthcare. Pretend we're talking about conjoined twins, instead. If one twin is unable to survive without being joined with the other, does the potentially independent twin have the right to demand separation anyway?

2. Even if you have the right to separate yourself from the violinist, does this extend to the right to slit the violinist's throat in order to do this? There is a difference between separating yourself from a dependent being and actively killing it, since in the former case you are not the principal cause of his death (his illness is), whereas in the latter case you are the principal cause of his death.
However, abortion isn't just cutting off nutrients to the foetus, it actively poisons/dismembers it. But the violinist analogy would have to change to the 'slitting throat' scenario to be analogous to abortion, but many would see that you wouldn't be justified in slitting the violinist's throat.


If you need a scenario that is more likely to occur, what if you found out that you were the only possible liver donor for a child that was dying. If you donate part of your liver, you'll save the child's life and you'll be fine in 6 months when what remains of your liver has fully regenerated. Should you have the right to refuse to donate?

Again, you aren't the principal cause of the child's death; his kidney ailment is. Moreover, this isn't analogous to abortion because it is letting-die, not actively killing. Most would see that shooting the child in the head is far more immoral than simply declining to donate your liver.

In most abortion procedures, which are done in the first trimester, the embryo or fetus dies due to nutrient loss as a result of separation from the uterus. It isn't actually killed as if shot or stabbed. I can understand the sense of horror over something like an extraction abortion where the fetus is directly killed. Do you not see a significant difference with a first trimester abortion?

Most abortion procedures performed on a whole, 88.3%, are done by vacuum aspiration where the fetus is sucked out into an electric vacuum or a syringe. Not, "dying due to nutrient loss as a result of separation from the uterus" as you have stated.[1] Unless of course you consider being sucked through a vacuum tube "separation from the uterus" and being torn apart in the process "dying due to nutrient loss."

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...

If there's something in that link stating that the embryo or fetus is "torn apart" during aspiration, I don't see it. Perhaps you could indicate where that's stated? My understanding is that there is little, if any, damage because the embryo or fetus is so small. Granted that's based on some pretty old information about acquiring fetal tissue back in the '90s.

Torn apart is implied based on gestation. It all depends on the gauge of the cannula used. Most are between 6 and 10mm in diameter.[1] For reference most abortions are done prior to 13 weeks gestation. At 12 weeks a fetus is roughly 60mm and the abortionist will use a 10mm cannula.[1][2] Imagine sucking a lime through an 10mm diameter cannula. At 8 weeks (roughly 60% of abortions) they will use a 7mm cannula, to extract an embryo that is on average 18mm long.[1][3] The source states: "The diameter of the cannula should generally be 1-2 mm smaller than the operator's estimate of the gestational age in menstrual weeks"[1] Sometimes they will do the same size in mm as gestational weeks.

So like I said, being sucked through a tube that is smaller than the fetus/embryo is will result in ripping and tearing of the tissue.

Hope this clarifies things for you.

[1]http://www.glowm.com...
[2]http://www.baby2see.com...
[3]http://www.baby2see.com...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 4:01:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 3:35:03 AM, CaptainAhab wrote:
At 9/3/2015 2:58:04 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/3/2015 2:40:30 AM, CaptainAhab wrote:
At 9/3/2015 2:22:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/2/2015 9:01:18 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 6:22:43 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:47:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

Are you familiar with the violinist thought experiment, in defense of abortion? You can read a full text of it here: http://spot.colorado.edu...

I am familiar, yes.


To summarize, pretend you wake up one day to find that you've been biologically tethered to another person (like the opposite of separating conjoined twins). This was done to save the other person's life, and that person will be completely dependent upon you for 9 months. After that time, you'll be separated and no one will bother you again. Do you, or should you, have the right to separate from that other person? Aside from being incredibly unlikely, this scenario is practically indistinct from an unwanted pregnancy that arises out of rape.

A few important distinctions exist:

1. The state of the person being attached to you in the violinist analogy is not its natural place; your body is not designed for you to support the life of that person and so it cannot be expected to. However, a foetus's natural place is to exist in the womb, and as such, it can be expected that the womb take care of it - as that is what it is designed for.
The distinction between proper-purposes is demonstrated by this analogy: suppose you buy a chair and you stand on it, causing it to break. You have no reason to complain, because the chair wasn't designed for standing on. But if it were to break whilst you were sitting on it, you have got a reason to complain, because chairs are supposed to be used for sitting on.

This appears to be an appeal to nature, which seems especially fallacious when we're talking about healthcare. Pretend we're talking about conjoined twins, instead. If one twin is unable to survive without being joined with the other, does the potentially independent twin have the right to demand separation anyway?

2. Even if you have the right to separate yourself from the violinist, does this extend to the right to slit the violinist's throat in order to do this? There is a difference between separating yourself from a dependent being and actively killing it, since in the former case you are not the principal cause of his death (his illness is), whereas in the latter case you are the principal cause of his death.
However, abortion isn't just cutting off nutrients to the foetus, it actively poisons/dismembers it. But the violinist analogy would have to change to the 'slitting throat' scenario to be analogous to abortion, but many would see that you wouldn't be justified in slitting the violinist's throat.


If you need a scenario that is more likely to occur, what if you found out that you were the only possible liver donor for a child that was dying. If you donate part of your liver, you'll save the child's life and you'll be fine in 6 months when what remains of your liver has fully regenerated. Should you have the right to refuse to donate?

Again, you aren't the principal cause of the child's death; his kidney ailment is. Moreover, this isn't analogous to abortion because it is letting-die, not actively killing. Most would see that shooting the child in the head is far more immoral than simply declining to donate your liver.

In most abortion procedures, which are done in the first trimester, the embryo or fetus dies due to nutrient loss as a result of separation from the uterus. It isn't actually killed as if shot or stabbed. I can understand the sense of horror over something like an extraction abortion where the fetus is directly killed. Do you not see a significant difference with a first trimester abortion?

Most abortion procedures performed on a whole, 88.3%, are done by vacuum aspiration where the fetus is sucked out into an electric vacuum or a syringe. Not, "dying due to nutrient loss as a result of separation from the uterus" as you have stated.[1] Unless of course you consider being sucked through a vacuum tube "separation from the uterus" and being torn apart in the process "dying due to nutrient loss."

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...

If there's something in that link stating that the embryo or fetus is "torn apart" during aspiration, I don't see it. Perhaps you could indicate where that's stated? My understanding is that there is little, if any, damage because the embryo or fetus is so small. Granted that's based on some pretty old information about acquiring fetal tissue back in the '90s.

Torn apart is implied based on gestation. It all depends on the gauge of the cannula used. Most are between 6 and 10mm in diameter.[1] For reference most abortions are done prior to 13 weeks gestation. At 12 weeks a fetus is roughly 60mm and the abortionist will use a 10mm cannula.[1][2] Imagine sucking a lime through an 10mm diameter cannula. At 8 weeks (roughly 60% of abortions) they will use a 7mm cannula, to extract an embryo that is on average 18mm long.[1][3] The source states: "The diameter of the cannula should generally be 1-2 mm smaller than the operator's estimate of the gestational age in menstrual weeks"[1] Sometimes they will do the same size in mm as gestational weeks.

So like I said, being sucked through a tube that is smaller than the fetus/embryo is will result in ripping and tearing of the tissue.

Hope this clarifies things for you.

[1]http://www.glowm.com...
[2]http://www.baby2see.com...
[3]http://www.baby2see.com...

Okay, that all makes sense. So the question to Philo, and you if you want to answer, is whether your opinion would be different if the embryo or fetus was simply extracted whole and allowed to essentially die from malnutrition. In that case, the issue of bodily autonomy is no different from the conjoined twin analogy I mentioned earlier.
CaptainAhab
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 4:20:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 4:01:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:

If there's something in that link stating that the embryo or fetus is "torn apart" during aspiration, I don't see it. Perhaps you could indicate where that's stated? My understanding is that there is little, if any, damage because the embryo or fetus is so small. Granted that's based on some pretty old information about acquiring fetal tissue back in the '90s.

Torn apart is implied based on gestation. It all depends on the gauge of the cannula used. Most are between 6 and 10mm in diameter.[1] For reference most abortions are done prior to 13 weeks gestation. At 12 weeks a fetus is roughly 60mm and the abortionist will use a 10mm cannula.[1][2] Imagine sucking a lime through an 10mm diameter cannula. At 8 weeks (roughly 60% of abortions) they will use a 7mm cannula, to extract an embryo that is on average 18mm long.[1][3] The source states: "The diameter of the cannula should generally be 1-2 mm smaller than the operator's estimate of the gestational age in menstrual weeks"[1] Sometimes they will do the same size in mm as gestational weeks.

So like I said, being sucked through a tube that is smaller than the fetus/embryo is will result in ripping and tearing of the tissue.

Hope this clarifies things for you.

[1]http://www.glowm.com...
[2]http://www.baby2see.com...
[3]http://www.baby2see.com...

Okay, that all makes sense. So the question to Philo, and you if you want to answer, is whether your opinion would be different if the embryo or fetus was simply extracted whole and allowed to essentially die from malnutrition. In that case, the issue of bodily autonomy is no different from the conjoined twin analogy I mentioned earlier.

Honestly I look at it in relation to who caused the need for life support. In the instance of the bodily autonomy argument re the violinist, the person requiring life support is forcing the other party to sustain them. This is despite the fact that the supporter did nothing to cause the predicament of the supportee.

If you could extract a fetus/embryo intact and let it "die" by just being evicted from the mother's womb, it is still an action that you take against the fetus and is a violation of the non aggression principle.

In the case of abortion the embryo/fetus did nothing, the mother and father (in this case a rapist) caused him to come into existence, an existence in which he is entirely reliant on his mother. After a rape if a woman does not want to carry a child of rape to term she should immediately seek emergency contraception. This prevents implantation and hence prevents an abortion. If the woman does not seek emergency contraception she is agreeing to carry the child to term. In essence her decision not to procure emergency contraception to prevent implantation and hence prevent pregnancy, has caused the fetus to be reliant on her and she has a duty to carry it to term.

Think of it this way. If I hit you with my car can I drive off legally? Or am I required to remain at the scene until help arrives for you? In this instance I do not have the autonomy to leave because my actions, negligence perhaps, caused you harm and I have a duty to ensure that you receive medical attention.

Not sure if that makes logical sense to you, but in my mind it is entirely logical and conforms to my firm belief in the non aggression principle.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 4:55:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 4:20:15 AM, CaptainAhab wrote:
At 9/3/2015 4:01:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:

If there's something in that link stating that the embryo or fetus is "torn apart" during aspiration, I don't see it. Perhaps you could indicate where that's stated? My understanding is that there is little, if any, damage because the embryo or fetus is so small. Granted that's based on some pretty old information about acquiring fetal tissue back in the '90s.

Torn apart is implied based on gestation. It all depends on the gauge of the cannula used. Most are between 6 and 10mm in diameter.[1] For reference most abortions are done prior to 13 weeks gestation. At 12 weeks a fetus is roughly 60mm and the abortionist will use a 10mm cannula.[1][2] Imagine sucking a lime through an 10mm diameter cannula. At 8 weeks (roughly 60% of abortions) they will use a 7mm cannula, to extract an embryo that is on average 18mm long.[1][3] The source states: "The diameter of the cannula should generally be 1-2 mm smaller than the operator's estimate of the gestational age in menstrual weeks"[1] Sometimes they will do the same size in mm as gestational weeks.

So like I said, being sucked through a tube that is smaller than the fetus/embryo is will result in ripping and tearing of the tissue.

Hope this clarifies things for you.

[1]http://www.glowm.com...
[2]http://www.baby2see.com...
[3]http://www.baby2see.com...

Okay, that all makes sense. So the question to Philo, and you if you want to answer, is whether your opinion would be different if the embryo or fetus was simply extracted whole and allowed to essentially die from malnutrition. In that case, the issue of bodily autonomy is no different from the conjoined twin analogy I mentioned earlier.

Honestly I look at it in relation to who caused the need for life support. In the instance of the bodily autonomy argument re the violinist, the person requiring life support is forcing the other party to sustain them. This is despite the fact that the supporter did nothing to cause the predicament of the supportee.

What about conjoined twins? Twin A will be fine if they're separated, but twin B won't. Does twin A still have the right to request to be separated?

If you could extract a fetus/embryo intact and let it "die" by just being evicted from the mother's womb, it is still an action that you take against the fetus and is a violation of the non aggression principle.

In the case of abortion the embryo/fetus did nothing, the mother and father (in this case a rapist) caused him to come into existence, an existence in which he is entirely reliant on his mother. After a rape if a woman does not want to carry a child of rape to term she should immediately seek emergency contraception. This prevents implantation and hence prevents an abortion. If the woman does not seek emergency contraception she is agreeing to carry the child to term. In essence her decision not to procure emergency contraception to prevent implantation and hence prevent pregnancy, has caused the fetus to be reliant on her and she has a duty to carry it to term.

What if the contraception doesn't work? It isn't 100% effective. A rape victim can take every possible precaution to avoid pregnancy, but still wind up pregnant. Do you still not think her right to bodily autonomy trumps the rights anyone else involved?

Think of it this way. If I hit you with my car can I drive off legally? Or am I required to remain at the scene until help arrives for you? In this instance I do not have the autonomy to leave because my actions, negligence perhaps, caused you harm and I have a duty to ensure that you receive medical attention.

I don't think this is at all analogous. If you hit me with your car, I'm not at all reliant on your body for medical treatment. You're legally required to stay at the scene of an accident you're involved in because culpability has to be established, not because you have some duty to the other person(s) involved. It's illegal for me to flee the scene, too.

Not sure if that makes logical sense to you, but in my mind it is entirely logical and conforms to my firm belief in the non aggression principle.

It makes sense, I just don't see how any of it trumps an individual's right to bodily autonomy.
CaptainAhab
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 5:28:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 4:55:19 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/3/2015 4:20:15 AM, CaptainAhab wrote:
At 9/3/2015 4:01:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:

If there's something in that link stating that the embryo or fetus is "torn apart" during aspiration, I don't see it. Perhaps you could indicate where that's stated? My understanding is that there is little, if any, damage because the embryo or fetus is so small. Granted that's based on some pretty old information about acquiring fetal tissue back in the '90s.

Torn apart is implied based on gestation. It all depends on the gauge of the cannula used. Most are between 6 and 10mm in diameter.[1] For reference most abortions are done prior to 13 weeks gestation. At 12 weeks a fetus is roughly 60mm and the abortionist will use a 10mm cannula.[1][2] Imagine sucking a lime through an 10mm diameter cannula. At 8 weeks (roughly 60% of abortions) they will use a 7mm cannula, to extract an embryo that is on average 18mm long.[1][3] The source states: "The diameter of the cannula should generally be 1-2 mm smaller than the operator's estimate of the gestational age in menstrual weeks"[1] Sometimes they will do the same size in mm as gestational weeks.

So like I said, being sucked through a tube that is smaller than the fetus/embryo is will result in ripping and tearing of the tissue.

Hope this clarifies things for you.

[1]http://www.glowm.com...
[2]http://www.baby2see.com...
[3]http://www.baby2see.com...

Okay, that all makes sense. So the question to Philo, and you if you want to answer, is whether your opinion would be different if the embryo or fetus was simply extracted whole and allowed to essentially die from malnutrition. In that case, the issue of bodily autonomy is no different from the conjoined twin analogy I mentioned earlier.

Honestly I look at it in relation to who caused the need for life support. In the instance of the bodily autonomy argument re the violinist, the person requiring life support is forcing the other party to sustain them. This is despite the fact that the supporter did nothing to cause the predicament of the supportee.

What about conjoined twins? Twin A will be fine if they're separated, but twin B won't. Does twin A still have the right to request to be separated?

Is it a life long thing? Like will twin B never be able to survive without twin A? Or will twin B be able to live in 9 months?


If you could extract a fetus/embryo intact and let it "die" by just being evicted from the mother's womb, it is still an action that you take against the fetus and is a violation of the non aggression principle.

In the case of abortion the embryo/fetus did nothing, the mother and father (in this case a rapist) caused him to come into existence, an existence in which he is entirely reliant on his mother. After a rape if a woman does not want to carry a child of rape to term she should immediately seek emergency contraception. This prevents implantation and hence prevents an abortion. If the woman does not seek emergency contraception she is agreeing to carry the child to term. In essence her decision not to procure emergency contraception to prevent implantation and hence prevent pregnancy, has caused the fetus to be reliant on her and she has a duty to carry it to term.

What if the contraception doesn't work? It isn't 100% effective. A rape victim can take every possible precaution to avoid pregnancy, but still wind up pregnant. Do you still not think her right to bodily autonomy trumps the rights anyone else involved?

Plan B is 95% effective if taken within 12 hours of unprotected sex. I understand that this isn't 100%. EllaOne is 98% effective. So yes, I still think her bodily autonomy does not trump a child who is not at fault. This is because an embryo/fetus is an individual member of the human species. Bodily autonomy does not trump the right to not be murdered, ever. The only exception is when the life of the mother is threatened, which is not a violation of the non aggression principle.


Think of it this way. If I hit you with my car can I drive off legally? Or am I required to remain at the scene until help arrives for you? In this instance I do not have the autonomy to leave because my actions, negligence perhaps, caused you harm and I have a duty to ensure that you receive medical attention.

I don't think this is at all analogous. If you hit me with your car, I'm not at all reliant on your body for medical treatment. You're legally required to stay at the scene of an accident you're involved in because culpability has to be established, not because you have some duty to the other person(s) involved. It's illegal for me to flee the scene, too.

But you are legally required to stay because of tort law. Its called a duty of care.[1] You are required to provide reasonable assistance to a person injured in an accident that you are at fault for. While this doesn't mean you need to do CPR if you don't know how, it means you need to call the authorities to get the injured person help.

If I run you over crossing the street and you are bleeding and unconscious at 2am and my leaving the scene will lead to your death, I am obligated to stop and call for an ambulance and to notify the police. I am not "free" to leave. I have no autonomy, bodily or otherwise.


Not sure if that makes logical sense to you, but in my mind it is entirely logical and conforms to my firm belief in the non aggression principle.

It makes sense, I just don't see how any of it trumps an individual's right to bodily autonomy.

Because bodily autonomy doesn't trump the right for humans to not be murdered, which is aggression.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 8:53:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 9:32:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 9:04:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 6:54:59 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:47:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:00:37 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 3:46:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 3:26:14 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.

What is your position on abortion in life threatening and rape cases.

It's okay in life-threatening cases

Why does the mothers life take precedence

It doesn't, but it comes under a self-defence scenario. Killing is justifiable if it is necessary to protect someone's life. An analogy I can think of would be that it is acceptable to kill a lunatic murderer if that was the only way to protect the life of people he is endangering.

Why can't the fetus claim self-defense?

Because, in this case, it is the foetus that instigated the danger (albeit unwillingly). So the foetus claiming self-defence would be like an attacker claiming self-defence from the attacked person's retaliation.

I would say the mother instigated the danger by having sex. There are risks to pregnancy, I don't see how just because the mother is unlucky justifies killing the fetus.

I disagree, the act of having sex is not one that inherently leads to a state of being in mortal danger. But the foetus has instigated the danger by inadvertently causing the mother to be in danger of death.




but not okay in rape.

Why force them to have it.

Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

That sounds like an emotional appeal. There's nothing wrong with human death, it's necessary. I don't really see it as murder either since the fetus doesn't have a desire to live.

Nor does a suicidal teenager or a religious fundamentalist desiring martyrdom, but are we justified in killing them?

Death is a decision for themselves to make, because they're capable of making them.

But are they? We could justifiably say that a suicidal teenager or a religious wannabe-martyr are in a deranged mental state to the extent that we cannot really say that they are capable of making life-and-death decisions.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 9:08:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 11:53:09 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

Are you familiar with the violinist thought experiment, in defense of abortion? You can read a full text of it here: http://spot.colorado.edu...

I am familiar, yes.


To summarize, pretend you wake up one day to find that you've been biologically tethered to another person (like the opposite of separating conjoined twins). This was done to save the other person's life, and that person will be completely dependent upon you for 9 months. After that time, you'll be separated and no one will bother you again. Do you, or should you, have the right to separate from that other person? Aside from being incredibly unlikely, this scenario is practically indistinct from an unwanted pregnancy that arises out of rape.

A few important distinctions exist:

1. The state of the person being attached to you in the violinist analogy is not its natural place; your body is not designed for you to support the life of that person and so it cannot be expected to. However, a foetus's natural place is to exist in the womb, and as such, it can be expected that the womb take care of it - as that is what it is designed for.

Irrelevant to the argument of what you are allowed to do with your body as opposed to have the state force you to do it. What is "natural" hardly makes for a good argument, considering what happens in the natural world in general when it comes to sex.

True, something being natural doesn't render it, ipso facto , morally right. However, if something is purposed to do X, then it can be expected to do X and if it doesn't, then we have cause to complain (such as a chair breaking when one sits on it). Therefore, a womb is purposed to support a foetus and so it can be expected to support it. If it doesn't, then we have a moral case against it (the mother, that is).



The distinction between proper-purposes is demonstrated by this analogy: suppose you buy a chair and you stand on it, causing it to break. You have no reason to complain, because the chair wasn't designed for standing on. But if it were to break whilst you were sitting on it, you have got a reason to complain, because chairs are supposed to be used for sitting on.

I could just as easily argue that if it can't bear my weight from standing, it can't bear my weight from sitting, the chair is defective.

That's just nit-picking the analogy. Okay, let us suppose that one uses the chair to support a narrow mineshaft; since a chair isn't purposed to hold-up mineshafts, we have no grounds to complain if the chair breaks and the mineshaft collapses.


2. Even if you have the right to separate yourself from the violinist, does this extend to the right to slit the violinist's throat in order to do this? There is a difference between separating yourself from a dependent being and actively killing it, since in the former case you are not the principal cause of his death (his illness is), whereas in the latter case you are the principal cause of his death.

I think a proper surgical procedure could be managed in which the fetus is extracted wholly, and left to die via whatever other means aside from direct damage. This still does nothing to the argument presented as a whole.

But that is still an explicit act that places the foetus in an environment that it couldn't possibly be expected to survive in. For example, throwing someone into shark-infested waters is still a deliberate act of killing - it is not a adequate defence to claim that it was the sharks, not you, who killed him.


However, abortion isn't just cutting off nutrients to the foetus, it actively poisons/dismembers it. But the violinist analogy would have to change to the 'slitting throat' scenario to be analogous to abortion, but many would see that you wouldn't be justified in slitting the violinist's throat.

If the violinist in question is going to die, what would the difference be?

I'm not quite sure, but the purpose of analogies is to present a scenario to further elucidate a particular moral dilemma, often using an intuitive response as evidence of a certain solution. So, if the violinist analogy is to be analogous to the vast majority of abortions, then it would have to change to a scenario where you slit the violinist's throat. Intuitively, we can see that this isn't morally permissible even if detaching yourself is permissible. So whilst I cannot point to a particular consequentialist distinction between killing and letting-die, the analogy suggests that there is one.




If you need a scenario that is more likely to occur, what if you found out that you were the only possible liver donor for a child that was dying. If you donate part of your liver, you'll save the child's life and you'll be fine in 6 months when what remains of your liver has fully regenerated. Should you have the right to refuse to donate?

Again, you aren't the principal cause of the child's death; his kidney ailment is. Moreover, this isn't analogous to abortion because it is letting-die, not actively killing. Most would see that shooting the child in the head is far more immoral than simply declining to donate your liver.

So then in the mean time, the whole body is being donated with regards to a fetus. Your line isn't firm where you are drawing it.

You make it sound like the mother's whole body is completely donated to the foetus, whereas real pregnancy is just a 9 month long period of mild physical weakness, the mother can still live a fairly normal life whilst pregnant.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 9:10:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 12:16:46 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.

No one group has a monopoly on irrationality/stupidity.

You don't think there is a whole list of Prolife/forced continuation of pregnancy arguments out there that are just as risible ?

I know, there are plenty of very intelligent pro-choicers around, including many in this very thread.

I also accept that there are plenty of awful pro-life arguments, but all the OP was doing was showing that these bad pro-life arguments are replicated by bad pro-choice arguments, and that the latter cannot claim to be an intellectually-superior ideology.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 9:17:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 2:22:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/2/2015 9:01:18 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/2/2015 6:22:43 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:47:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
Because otherwise it means that a fellow human being is murdered. Hardship does not justify homicide. In effect, the foetus is being punished for his rapist father's crimes - which has no place in a just society.

Are you familiar with the violinist thought experiment, in defense of abortion? You can read a full text of it here: http://spot.colorado.edu...

I am familiar, yes.


To summarize, pretend you wake up one day to find that you've been biologically tethered to another person (like the opposite of separating conjoined twins). This was done to save the other person's life, and that person will be completely dependent upon you for 9 months. After that time, you'll be separated and no one will bother you again. Do you, or should you, have the right to separate from that other person? Aside from being incredibly unlikely, this scenario is practically indistinct from an unwanted pregnancy that arises out of rape.

A few important distinctions exist:

1. The state of the person being attached to you in the violinist analogy is not its natural place; your body is not designed for you to support the life of that person and so it cannot be expected to. However, a foetus's natural place is to exist in the womb, and as such, it can be expected that the womb take care of it - as that is what it is designed for.
The distinction between proper-purposes is demonstrated by this analogy: suppose you buy a chair and you stand on it, causing it to break. You have no reason to complain, because the chair wasn't designed for standing on. But if it were to break whilst you were sitting on it, you have got a reason to complain, because chairs are supposed to be used for sitting on.

This appears to be an appeal to nature, which seems especially fallacious when we're talking about healthcare. Pretend we're talking about conjoined twins, instead. If one twin is unable to survive without being joined with the other, does the potentially independent twin have the right to demand separation anyway?

It isn't an appeal to nature per se, it is an appeal to the purpose of things. As I said before, this is seen in how we do have cause to complain if a chair breaks whilst we sit on it but how we have no cause to complain if it breaks whilst we stand on it. This is because the chair is purposed to be sat on, not stood on.

Therefore, the womb can be expected to support the foetus because that is its purpose.


2. Even if you have the right to separate yourself from the violinist, does this extend to the right to slit the violinist's throat in order to do this? There is a difference between separating yourself from a dependent being and actively killing it, since in the former case you are not the principal cause of his death (his illness is), whereas in the latter case you are the principal cause of his death.
However, abortion isn't just cutting off nutrients to the foetus, it actively poisons/dismembers it. But the violinist analogy would have to change to the 'slitting throat' scenario to be analogous to abortion, but many would see that you wouldn't be justified in slitting the violinist's throat.


If you need a scenario that is more likely to occur, what if you found out that you were the only possible liver donor for a child that was dying. If you donate part of your liver, you'll save the child's life and you'll be fine in 6 months when what remains of your liver has fully regenerated. Should you have the right to refuse to donate?

Again, you aren't the principal cause of the child's death; his kidney ailment is. Moreover, this isn't analogous to abortion because it is letting-die, not actively killing. Most would see that shooting the child in the head is far more immoral than simply declining to donate your liver.

In most abortion procedures, which are done in the first trimester, the embryo or fetus dies due to nutrient loss as a result of separation from the uterus. It isn't actually killed as if shot or stabbed. I can understand the sense of horror over something like an extraction abortion where the fetus is directly killed. Do you not see a significant difference with a first trimester abortion?

With procedures that simply disconnect the mother from the foetus, my second objection to the violinist analogy isn't as solid, I admit that. But then I would just revert to my first objection.


If you think that you have a right to effectively kill the other person in either of those above scenarios, why do you think that a rape victim should not have the same right?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 9:25:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 9:10:58 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/3/2015 12:16:46 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 9/2/2015 2:25:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
Recently on Facebook I saw a post from the feminist group 'Womens' Rights news' about Jeb Bush's recent comments regarding abortion. Looking at the comments section, I was flabbergasted at the sheer, unabashed stupidity of some comments; including:

'if you don't like abortion then don't get one'

Which is like saying, 'if you don't like owning slaves, don't get one'.

'Can you imagine what would happen if women weren't allowed to get abortions in safe clinics and hospitals? If a woman wants to get an abortion, she will find a way'

Which totally insults the intelligence of women. This statement implies that women, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, are stupid enough to poke a rusty piece of metal up their vagina and hope for the best, instead of choosing life.

'you don't want people making their own choices?'

Every single person doesn't want people to make some choices. We don't want people to make the choice to kill or not to kill someone or to rape or not to rape someone.

'every person who opposes Roe v Wade support the deaths of all the women who died in illegal abortion clinics because they felt they had no choice.'

This is just utterly slanderous and asinine. People who oppose Roe would have rather nobody died at all; but it is nobody but a woman's fault if she freely decides to stick a coathanger up her vagina.

'Making a law against abortion will not make it go away.'

Outlawing rape won't make rape go away - I guess it shouldn't be illegal then?

'You have not an uterus to talk about women matters. Keep your mouth shut!!'

'If you don't have a uterus and boobs you have no say!!!'

'I'm pro-choice and I believe that men shouldn't have a say when it comes to female issues'

'YOURE NOT A WOMAN AND YOU HAVE NO UTERUS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT DICTATING WHAT A WOMAN DOES TO HER BODY ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS NOOO EFFECT ON YOU'

'No vagina; no opinion.'

'he is not even entitled to an opinion-he cannot give birth to a child'

'Men have no say ... ignore these fools ladies'


The most dense, unintelligent argument ever made. Apart from being utterly fallacious (ad hominem), it alienates men who are indeed very affected by abortion. After all, each foetus is a man's son. Furthermore, it asserts that possession of some body part qualifies someone to have a valid voice on a matter.

'It's about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

Do we see this defence in court? No, because it is idiotic to the highest degree.
For example: 'I plead not-guilty your honour! Whether or not I raped this person is about MY ability to make a CHOICE!'

____________________________________________________________________________

There are hundreds more of these comments, and every single one makes me lose slightly more hope in humanity.

No one group has a monopoly on irrationality/stupidity.

You don't think there is a whole list of Prolife/forced continuation of pregnancy arguments out there that are just as risible ?

I know, there are plenty of very intelligent pro-choicers around, including many in this very thread.

I also accept that there are plenty of awful pro-life arguments, but all the OP was doing was showing that these bad pro-life arguments are replicated by bad pro-choice arguments, and that the latter cannot claim to be an intellectually-superior ideology.

All the OP was doing................hang on you are the OP ? Did you just refer to yourself in the 3rd person ? Illegalcombatant doesn't like it when people do that, illegalcombatant get very mad.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 9:26:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 3:14:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/2/2015 8:47:32 PM, Philocat wrote:


A woman who chooses to endanger her life takes responsibility for the risk she has put upon herself. Besides, if we accept that abortion is an immoral practice (as I would argue), then it is completely farcical to legalise it in order to protect the wellbeing of the perpetrator of the act.

For example, legalizing theft would no doubt decrease the number of people who die whilst choosing to commit theft, but this is a very bad argument for the legalization of theft.

It's very easy to win arguments when you presuppose that the main article of contention favors your side.

True, but that's what many pro-choicers assume with these arguments (that it is a given that abortion is morally acceptable).



An anemic person needs a blood transfusion, a woman doesn't need an abortion.

According to you.

I cannot see a case where she would *need* an abortion save in cases where she is in severe danger from the pregnancy.



To use my earlier example, that's like saying that people who think theft should be illegal supports the death of thieves who would die from the result of theft being illegal.

They do, if they are honest with themselves. I do. It's a cost which is acceptable when faced with the alternative of a world in which theft is legal.

People who are against theft genuinely don't want anyone to die as a result of theft being legal (so they don't, at least directly, support their deaths), but it is not the responsibility of those who made theft illegal, since the reason that thieves die is because thieves decide, willingly, to commit theft. So it is they who take responsibility.


This begs the question because it assumes that there is nothing wrong with abortion.

... which is the stance of your opposition. If they agreed with you on that point, they wouldn't be pro-choice.

Agreed, but a pro-choice argument cannot have any affect if it assumes that the opposition (pro-lifers) accept the premise that abortion is morally permissible, which is the premise that separates them in the first place!




Again, this just brings it back to the point of whether abortion is immoral. We clearly disagree.

I agree wholeheartedly that, if abortion were morally justified, it should be unrestrainedly legal. However, I contend that abortion isn't morally justified.



I may never have to face the choice of whether to torture someone or not, but it doesn't follow that I cannot be vocally against torture.

Torture doesn't involve making a decision for someone which is analogous to abortion. The mother is essentially faced with the problem 'should I bring this person into existence or not?' for which they face moral culpability.

But I would argue that the foetus already exists.


Besides, it is a blatant ad hominem fallacy.

It's certainly ultimately an emotional argument, but it's not as ludicrous as you make it out to be.

Perhaps not 'ludicrous', but really any blatant fallacy irritates me.


Agreed.

And that's the main problem: the whole list of statements consists of an intellectual circle jerk. The resolution of the main contention (a fetus is a person which ought to be granted rights) in their favor is presupposed, and then they tear apart the opponent's arguments from that point. The same thing is done by pro-lifers, by LGBT activists, by feminists and MRAs, the religious and militant atheists. It's a ritualistic exercise to build group cohesion. But they are internally consistent, and not particularly asinine.

The reason I made this post was to get it off my chest, since I saw all these arguments made completely unopposed.