Every post you make
Every claim you fake
Every ball you break
Every post you make
I’ll be watching you
Oh can’t you see
You will never be
How my poor brain aches
With every post you make
Inspired by Sting and your stupidity
Someone pinch me! PINCH ME!!!
The question I asked first, and am still waiting for an answer to:
[QUOTE=Me]
Do you believe everyone is entitled to their own beliefs regarding personhood?
[/quote]
Why would an orthopaedic surgeon be performing an abortion?
I know. Someone needs to tell this to curlcoat, or Zeriel or cosmosdan.
You are attempting to put words in my mouth. Either that or I need to ship you some hooked on phonics. Women who abort their babies because the baby is an inconvenience view children as a punishment.
They are not donating their body to preserve the life of the unborn. It is her actions that put the baby there. If there was an artifical womb machine that could be used to grow the baby that would be great. Since there is no artificial womb machine the fetus needs the mother to survive.
Well can’t you figure that out? She thinks we think that orthopaedic surgeons insert IUD’s and that dermatologists perform c-sections and that proctologists prescribe accutane and that dentists perform gastric bypass surgery:rolleyes:
In 1859? The whole world was on an anti-woman trend, and had been for quite some time. Arguably it didn’t start to become pro-women until the various suffrage movements began gathering momentum.
That doesn’t surprise me at all - women are great at oppressing other women.
Oh but curlcoat is adamant that the fetus is not a human:p
Someone needs to tell him/her about the birds and the bees. A man and a woman can’t created anything but a human. Last time I checked anyways.
No people are great at oppressing each other. Men are great at oppressing women in the Islamic world as well.
Well, perhaps instead of saying “pro-choices say this” and “pro-choicers say that”, you’ll add the slight modifier and use “some pro-choicers say this…” and “some pro-choicers say that…” now that you recognize some minor variation in opinion.
We can however restrain someone from taking their own life or another’s.
Your position that surgery is only possible under a general anesthetic is noted.
Ah namecalling. How disappointing.
And that has been an important point all along. The prochoice movement is built on the fact that each person can and often does reach their own conclusions. I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised that an individual person has independent ideas on this.
It’s not some big gotcha.
Fetal rights don’t have anything to do with whether or not a fetus is human. Animals have rights, but they aren’t humans (usually).
Same with parasitic twins and co-joined twins, yet surgery is usually done at the expense of one to give the other a much better life. I don’t think anyone has designated a parasitic twin, or an incomplete co-joined one human.
No, it’s not in question. However, I place more emphasis on the word development - just as an infant isn’t an adult but will develop into one, so a fetus is not yet a human.
What is the difference between a person and a human?
Well, actually, we can but humans don’t tend to be unselfish enough to do so. Anyway, take it out of the realm of genetics - if a woman drinks heavily during every pregnancy and has produced three children all with FAS, should she be required to risk or give her life so one of these FAS children of her’s could live?
No, having never been pregnant and never knowing anyone with a seriously premature baby, I did not know that.
You just said it - it’s a fetus.
Also, if you don’t start quoting correctly, I won’t be fixing your posts so they can be answered. If you do this again, all you will be proving is that you want to pretend you are right rather than actually being right.
An unborn baby is not yet a human, it is either an unborn baby or a fetus, depending on state of gestation and whatever personal emotions the speaker has.
Certainly, but only under very specific circumstances do we require people to preserve the life of another. Let’s be clear–in my analogy, you can punish me for the proximate cause of your life being in danger (me stabbing you), but you can’t punish me by making me support your life with my own. Right?
For organ transplant surgery? Uh, yes.
We’re in the pit, ignatz. Go open a Great Debates thread. Christ on a pogo stick, I laid out a supportable pro-life set of axioms already, do you REALLY think the fact I called you a bonehead matters?
Oh yeah, I forgot in my last post too–you don’t think bodily autonomy is really a valid thing, because no rights are absolute. Since “all rights” includes the fetus’ right to life, that means we have to balance the two, or else the fetus’ right to life in absolute, yes?
…
…
Then explain to me why *you *continue to use the word ‘fault’ with regard to assuring that women are not to abort their pregnancies.
On what basis do women with unwanted pregnancies view children as punishment? What I refer to as punishment is you insisting that an unwanted pregnancy be continued solely because it’s the woman’s “fault” for getting pregnant. It is you who is placing blame and wielding the pregnancy as her punishment.
Those two sentences do not go together. You are right, though, donation implies that it’s voluntary. What you are talking about is forcibly turning her into an nothing more than an unwilling incubator. What part of sexual intercourse does not equate intentional pregnancy do you not understand?
Once again, the law should not compel her to provide that sustenance just as it does not compel her to provide her organs (or blood even) to sustain her born child.
Probably the part where people have sex without trying to get pregnant.
Pregnancy is a special case. It’s a stretch to try to construct analogous cases as we’ve both demonstrated.
Lets say you’re a crazy mad scientist and your idea of the ultimate punishment is making me physically dependent on you. You’ve confirmed that by some stroke of Fate, we’re perfectly blood compatible. You cut out my heart and hook us up. The police enter (surprising you because you were sure that you wouldn’t be caught - mad after all 
) and take us into custody and you demand I be disconnected.
Not only am I pretty sure that nobody is going to assist in this process, but I suspect you will be restrained and used as my life support until the situation can be resolved.
Since I think that’s true for all situations in which the rights of persons conflict, I would agree. For example, I dislike the idea of late term abortions very much, but in the case of life or long tern health threat of the mother, I have far less problem with it.
If I hold a revolver with a million chambers to someone’s head and pull the trigger, do I avoid the consequences if they get “lucky”? I mean, I had no intent to kill them and the odds were very much against the negative outcome.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, that question. But right before you asked that question, you indicated that I misunderstood you, so I wanted to clear that up. See?
[QUOTE=Omg a Black Conservative]
[QUOTE=Brown Eyed Girl]
You haven’t demonstrated that and I don’t see it.
If I understand you correctly, you believe abortion is murder. I don’t agree with you. You may not want to have an abortion. I’m okay with that. As a pro-choicer, I can respect your right to carry a pregnancy to term. Can you respect my right to not carry a pregnancy to term?
I didn’t think so.
[/QUOTE]
No, that’s not what I said. Let me try this a different way. Do you believe everyone is entitled to their own beliefs regarding personhood?
[/QUOTE]
I’m addressing the statement that preceded your question. See, I just want to know what I said wrong. What was that? Once we get that cleared up, I’ll be happy to move on to your next question.