On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 11:07:55 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Obviously it can be read two different ways, one as meaning therefore and one as meaning except.

No one has contested this.

And I do slip into old english on occasion, largely as a result of quoting the KJV so often.

And yet, despite the numerous times I've asked you to show me where God speaks against abortion, you've never once posted anything. Funny, considering you keep talking about "the Creator".

The style of using 'but' at the beginning of phrases like this has kind of gone out of style in English I think outside of the KJV, so unless you quote it a lot you don't really use the phrasing.

Cute, but a declaration and a question are two different things, and while "But" may make sense in the beginning of a declarative sentence, it makes little sense at the beginning of a question, even in old english. Which is my point.

However, I'm not about to let you divert this off into a pointless squabble about your typing errors. No, you're not getting away. Back to my first question: Do you wish to live in a world without the institution of bodily sovereignty? Yes or no?
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 11:00:34 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
This is basic grammar, look it up. Trouble with you liberals is too many of you don't have any reading comprehension.

Says the person who doesn't even have a proper comprehension of what self-ownership is.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Stop.

Did you seriously just say "it's basic grammar" and then show me definitions of a word?

You DO know what grammar is, right? Grammar is not vocabulary.

And I'm the one who supposedly lacks reading comprehension. Tch.

It's the same thing as saying "Notwithstanding in the cases of rape" or "Except in the cases of rape" and you're just trying to twist the words out of dishonesty.

No, I'm really not. You're just trying to pussyfoot your way around your own grammatical mistake, as evidenced by your pathetic attempts to scramble and excuse together. You were better off when you just admitted it was a typo. And even that I have a little difficulty believing.
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 10:55:17 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Again, look up the word "but." It can be a synonym for "saving" or "except."

No, I know that's true.

I'm calling bullsh*t on your pathetic attempt to make yourself seem "cool", by saying "I sometimes slip into old english bla bla bla". Yeah yeah bullsh*t. You f*cked up, don't pussyfoot your way around it.

Even if you meant it to have that meaning, which I don't believe, you still used it in a way which did not suggest that. Your grammar would have been off. So either you a liar, or you have no idea what you're talking about. So which is it?
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 10:46:44 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Technically it's not even a typo, since "but" has the same meaning as "except" it's just an archaic usage in that sense - sometimes I forget myself and switch over to old english phrases.

Bullsh*t.
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 10:28:03 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
As referenced where? Can you show this phrase "bodily sovereignty" existed before the past few decades?

The phrase "bodily sovereignty" doesn't matter, because whether or not that exact arrangement of sounds existed in recent history or ancient history, the idea behind it has always existed. Soe people prefer to use the term "self-ownership" or "individual autonomy". It's the same thing. Stop playing semantics.

There is no justification legally for declaring a right to do whatever one wants with their body to include harming others.

Again, self-defense.

The child is the one who should have the right to defend itself, it's the one being attacked for doing nothing but existing.

It's existence in the womb, when the mother does not want it there, is a violation of the mother's right to self-ownership. You can quit being disingenuous anytime you know.

Alright, so maybe you used the phrase invited over instead, same thing in essence.

No, not the same thing AT ALL. There is a BIG difference between "barging in" and "invited in" when it comes to accuracy in comparing it to pregnancy. Quit being intellectually dishonest.

Again, abortion doesn't simply remove the child from the body, but makes a conscious effort to kill it.

Because this is the only means available. As I previously stated, if you don't like, find a way to remove and preserve the fetus outside of the mother's body. Then we can talk about banning abortion.

That shows the goal isn't bodily sovereignty but slaughter of a child one is responsible for.

Nope.

Again, why not just induce premature birth if bodily sovereignty is all that's desired?

Birthing prematurely is still giving birth, which the woman may not wish to undergo. Also, if the fetus is born early, it will still, in most situation, die; it will simply die a more agonizing death. Abortion is a more humane death than this.

I'm sure there's also some risk to the mother in inducing premature births, but I wouldn't know enough about that to comment on it at this time. Maybe someone else has more information on that.

Which this clearly is not a case of. There is no attack by the child on the mother, to make that claim would be ridiculous. Why is killing justified here?

Good thing I'm not claiming she is being attacked; I'm claiming her right to bodily autonomy is being violated. And that's the justification.

It declares the basis of the rights that allowed us to leave England...

No, it doesn't. The Declaration of Independence did not make us independent of England.

And you have yet to explain why anyone outside of the US should give a flying f*ck what that document says.

...rights that you don't want to acknowledge so try to write off as irrelevant.

I've done neither of those things. Straw man.

You don't want to admit that what it says about a Creator giving them is valid either.

Give me evidence of a Creator. Until then, no, I will not believe such a thing, because there is no evidence to suggest it is true.

God does not give us "rights"; we give ourselves rights.

Which certainly has no relation to what the founding fathers, Jefferson and Madison stated.

Who cares? They were wrong. They're not infallible sources of wisdom you know.

Both Jefferson and Madison clearly stated that God gives rights to men, and put that in government legislation.

Holy sh*t, how many times do I have to tell you the Declaration is not a legal document?

Also, prove God exits. Until you do, this is all meaningless drivel.
Forums Home > Politics

The hypocrisy of abortion supportersPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 9:28:28 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
If I shut up how are wicked men going to be accountable for sin, there are not many who stand up for truth.
Also don't be so rude!

Will you respond to my post on the bottom of the previous page, please?
Forums Home > Philosophy

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

These posts have become way to long.

Let's make this simpler. Do you want to live in a world without the institution of bodily sovereignty? Yes or no?
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

The additional methods are used to ensure the child is dead so the parents don't have to care about it.

No, they're there to ensure the fetus' is dead before removing it. Again, drop your pathetic emotional appeals. They will not work on me.

This has nothing to do with wanting the child out of her body, that's just an excuse. The real reason is they don't want to care for the lives they create so they can have sex without family creation when birth control fails. In other words abortion is a failsafe to support the sacred right of promiscuity that is being defended.

Oh good f*cking lord, have you ever actually TALKED to a woman who has gotten an abortion before?

But in the case of rape, nobody forced them to get pregnant, did they? They made that choice of their own volition.

...........

I'm stunned. I do not know how to react. Unless I've misread this, you are literally claiming women choose to get pregnant from rape.

They want to be able to go to extremes to kill any resulting child under any conditions. If this were any other scenario the word 'murder' would easily be acknowledged.

No, because they don't want to kill under any condition, only conditions where their bodily sovereignty is being violated, and there is no other way to remove the fetus. You know, like any other self-defense situation.
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

Ultimately, there is more justification for defending the child's right to life and caring what God wants than caring what the mother wants when what she wants is to kill her child.

1) No, there isn't, hence why abortion has repeatedly been upheld by courts.
2) Again, you cite God. I redirect to these four questions again: (1) Prove God exists, (2) show me where God said anything relating to a fetus' right to life, (3) show me where God says a fetus' right to life supersedes a mother's bodily sovereignty, and finally, (4) explain why we should give two sh*ts about what God says.

Why is the state responsible for preserving another's unjust sovereignty to kill or control the lives of others?

I dunno, that question is really more appropriately directed at you, considering you're the one arguing to preserve the fetus over the mother's right to own her body.

Isn't that like saying the state was responsible for preserving the sovereignty slaveholders over slaves?

Nope, because slavery was unjustifiable, basically for the same reason abortion is justifiable; bodily sovereignty. The right to self-ownership.

It is according to the Declaration of Independence and our founding fathers.

Which I don't give two sh*ts about, because (1) the Declaration isn't even a legal document, (2) why should anyone outside the US give a flying f*ck what's written in the declaration, and more importantly, (3) the founding fathers indirectly, or in some cases, directly, caused the death of thousands of British and American soldier's lives. Obviously, whatever they wrote on paper, they did not beliebe the right to life was "inalienable".

You say it's superseded by bodily sovereignty. I say that's a recent feminist argument which makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense, and has been explained to you several times. If someone rapes you, for instance, their crime is violating your bodily sovereignty. If, in defending yourself, you end up killing them, that is justified, because your right to preserve your bodily sovereignty supersedes their right to life. Unless you're prepared to say that a rapists' right to life is more important than a rape victims' bodily sovereignty, and by consequence, a rape victim should sit there and take the rape, as opposed to kill the rapist, then you necessarily agree that bodily sovereignty overrides one's right to life.

This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you, because at this point, I'm simply repeating myself. If you don't get it after this, there's no helping you; you're an intellectually challenged schmuck.

The founders supported right to life as inalienable and said so in the Declaration of Independence. They said nothing about any "bodily sovereignty."

Because the right to bodily sovereignty is implicit in the right to life, as you cannot have a right to life, without self-ownership. Come on man. This is so damn simple.

As some have put it before, she made her choice when she had sex, what about the child's choice to live?

The child doesn't get to live when it continues to violate her bodily sovereignty against her will, just as a rapist doesn't get to live if the only way to get them to stop violating a rape victim's bodily sovereignty is to kill them.

Essentially this comes down to her not wanting to deal with the inconvenience of 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth by killing the child under any circumstances.

No, it doesn't. It comes down to a philosophical question of the importance of bodily sovereignty, which any sane person can see is imperative to any functioning, let alone mora, society.

Again, with no Declaration of Independence, we have no basis to be free of England.

Yes we do. It's called the US Constitution. It's what, you know, the document that actually MKEs us a nation. The declaration is meaningless. The declaration didn't even make us independent from England. Fighting England, writing the Constitution, and forming our own system of governance. THAT is what makes us a separate nation.

I'd say that's pretty relevant right there. That's the original basis of asserting a right to freedom in the first place...

Oh my god, the bloody arrogance. So no other nation can assert freedom, cause they ain't 'murika, amirite?

Pursuit of happiness and bodily sovereignty are no excuse for killing others.

According to you they are, because the founder's called those rights "inalienable" too.

Logically your right to throw a punch goes as far as another's nose. Your rights do not include the right to harm others

It does when it comes to self-defense and preservation.

There is no right to harm others, which is the right abortionists argue for.

Again, there is when it comes to self-defense and preservation.

If you disagree with me, tell me your address so I can come and kill you. Don't defend yourself though! You have no right to physically protect yourself from my assaults!

The fetus has sovereignty over the womb, that's where it belongs, right?

Whether or not the fetus "belongs" there has no bearing on whether or not it has sovereignty there. It's NOT the fetus' womb; it's the MOTHER'S womb. It's HER body. She can SHARE it with the fetus, but the fetus cannot OWN it.

The Constitution says nothing about the basis of rights whatsoever.

Yes it does. You said rights are obtained by the will of the people. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution lays out the system of governance, by which laws can be made or altered. That is how rights come into being, legalistically. You can get 51% of the US to say "We have a right to murder", but that 51% doesn't give them the right, according to the Constitution.

My point is, if you really want to go back to what determined our government and rights, you'd need to go back to 1682 and Penn's original government, the Province of Pennsylvania.

Bla bla bla, meaningless banter.

However, if that's the case, you should really stop referencing the Declaration. Also, actually, if we're going to play the wayback game, you'll have to go back even rather to discover the origin of "rights". Rights didn't spawn in America mate.

The Constitution says nothing about bodily sovereignty either or even where rights come from at all.

Not what I was talking about. the Constitution says nothing about the people's right to overthrow the government if they government does't do what they want. And the Constitution, not the Gettysburg Address, of the Declaration of Independence, despite what you may wish to believe, is the law of the land.

Why do you think it should be so absolute as to condone murder?

Murder implies aggressive, unjustified killing. That's not what abortion is. Abortion is a response to a mother's right to self-ownership being violated by the presence of a fetus. Different things entirely.

Drop the emotional appeals.

You also said forcing a man to pay child support is oppression.

Irrelevant to this discussion, outside of anything to do with freedom in inequality v. equality in oppression.

You state a woman having to bear her pregnancy and a man paying child support are both oppression. Essentially you don't want them to be at all responsible for their actions in creating human life, and think having them be accountable is oppression.

Straw man.

The very methods of abortion involve careful assurance that death is committed, using poisons to kill it before it leaves the body or vacuums to puncture the brain as it's being delivered. If the real goal was to just have it out of the body, those wouldn't be needed, as drugs can induce premature delivery WITHOUT killing the child.

1) I'm going to need evidence of that, though I don't necessarily find it unbelievable.
2) We have no way to sustain a fetus outside the womb currently. Killing it through abortion is, believe it or not, more humane that having it slowly die outsid
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

Again, the child is not attacking anyone, and by the mother's willful choice gains sovereignty of the womb as well when she chooses to create life.

No, it doesn't. The only time sovereignty can be suspended is when an individual has violated the rights of another being. The fetus does not somehow take the mother's sovereignty away by being brought into her womb, that's ridiculous. That would be like saying I give up ownership of my house to you by inviting you in. Utter nonsense.

She is responsible for life

Indeed, she is, and part of that responsibility is choosing whether it continues to live.

and accountable for any murder she perpetuates.

Good thing killing a fetus isn't murder, is it isn't illegal. ;)

So responsibility is 'barbaric' now?

No, just the kind of "responsibility" you are advocating for. You wonder why less and less people agree with you each day, well, that's why. The world is moving past such idiotic notions.

I don't think bodily sovereignty has basis in law...

Again, tell me what is the basis for anti-rape and anti-assault law, among other things? What right is being violated when you use someone's body without their permission?

and want to see you prove where this originates from. I think liberals invented this arbitrary, illogical term to defend abortion and that it didn't even exist until recently. Can you show this term even existed prior to Roe v. Wade?

The term itself doesn't matter. The term "bodily sovereignty" may not have been popularly used until recently, but that doesn't mean the idea behind it didn't exist until recently, just the saem as how "right to life" may not have existed as a phrase until recently (relatively speaking in terms of societal development), but the idea behind it has existed as far back as we can see in recorded history.

Your concept of bodily sovereignty as an absolute is an immoral concept that would allow one to use their body to harm others through murder, rape, theft, etc.

Again, all bullsh*t. Theft has nothing to do with bodily sovereignty, and rape and murder are prohibited BECAUSE of bodily sovereignty, not allowed by it. LEarn your terms before posting again.

You claim it has no right to it, so then how did it get there in the first place? If it doesn't belong there, how did it come to unnaturally arrive?

Having the right to something, and naturally arriving somewhere, are two totally different things. A guest "naturally" arrives at a patrons home. Does that mean they now own the home? Preposterous.

Learn to make better examples while you're at it.

Considering the term appears to be a feminist invention created in the last decade or two to support abortion, why should I?

Um, how about, because even if the term is "new", that doesn't make it irrelevant or worthy of dismissal? All terms, after all, were "new" at some point or another.

Or how about just the simple fact that if you're going to get into a debate about a given subject, you should probably know what the hell that subject IS.

This has no basis in historical law or rights...

Except, you know, all laws and rights regarding ownership of the body, including life itself.

but other than that, no, nothing at all. *rollseyes*

claiming one can do whatever they want with their body regardless of who else is affected or killed is fundamentally immoral.

THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM CLAIMING. You can stop with these pathetic straw men now.

You keep comparing the infant to an attacker or murderer, really?

You keep comparing the mother to one, but you don't see me whining.

You say it's "guilty of a violation." What violation?

The violation of the mother's bodily sovereignty. As I've said REPEATEDLY.

How did it get to be there unnaturally?

Irrelevant; natural arrival does not lead to a suspension of property rights., whether land, or your very body.

You're comparing it to breaking and entering, so how did it break in? How did it get to be where it's not supposed to be?

Straw man.

Logically, its natural place is in the womb, it belongs there, and it has sovereignty there as well until born.

Logically, none of those things. The womb may be the most suitable place for it, but that does not mean it "belongs" there. It does not have sovereignty of the womb just because it grows there either; it is still the mother's womb, not the fetus'. The mother allowing the fetus to stay in her womb is not the same as her losing her sovereignty of the womb, just as me allowing you to stay in my home is not the same as me surrendering my right to ownership of that home to you.

On the contrary, abortion violates the bodily sovereignty and more importantly right to life of the child.

Yes, it does. However, as the fetus' first violated the mother's body, by remaining there when she no longer desired it to be there, it's right to bodily sovereignty and right to life are suspended. Like any other human who violates another human's bodily sovereignty.

It has sovereignty there until born...

At what point does the fetus take ownership of the mother's womb, from the mother? Just because it needs it?

In that case, I need a new liver, or I will die. I'm taking yours, because I need it. You've lost your right to ownership of it, because I want it and need it.

...since that is its natural home until born.

That doesn't make it have sovereignty of that home. It's not its body. God, it's like talking toa f*cking two year old. "I want it, so it's mine!!!" That's literally what your justification boils down to.

You cannot show that it should not have sovereignty there.

Except, you know, the countless examples I've already given to explain how that is just the case.

Whether she desires it or not makes no difference to the fact that it belongs there until born...

And likewise, whether it "belongs there" or not has no bearing on whether or not it has sovereignty of the womb. It is still the mother's womb. It's part of her body. She owns it, not the fetus.

...has sovereignty there...

Nope.

and deserves to have its life preserved until born.

Not if it violates the mother's bodily sovereignty it doesn't.

Only in cases of rape and life of the mother can you clearly condone killing it otherwise.

Why? What makes those cases any more special? According to you, the fetus still has sovereignty of the womb, doesn't it? Killing it in cases of rape and the life of the mother would be violating it's bodily sovereignty and right to life, which as you like to claim, is inalienable.

Your argument literally makes no sense even to itself.

Why not? Where are you getting your definition of bodily sovereignty from?

More importantly, where are YOu getting YOUR definition from? Bodily sovereignty is the right to bodily ownership, not the right to do whatever you want with your body. Those are two totally different things.

How do I know you're not just making up this definition of bodily sovereignty to support abortion?

Well, first of all, all definitions are "made up".

But if you're looking for people who support what I'm saying...http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of his own body and life."

"John Locke wrote in his Two Treatises on Government, "every man has a Property in his own Person.""

I thought you might like that last one, since you keep repeatedly referencing the declaration of independence, which, as you should know, the writers behind were heavily inspired by the writings and ideals of John Locke.
Forums Home > Politics

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.