doyble post
Hey idiot. Can you read? I’ve posted on many other threads here on topics other than pregnancy and aboriton dimwit.
Who the hell do you think you are anyways? Is this your board?:rolleyes:
I don’t care what you call me. You’re crazy. Get help.
Is it that time of the month for you? You’re coming off as some kind of hormonal lunatic.
Oh, the irony, it buuuuuurns. 
Go take your afternoon nap Missy, you might save a bit of face (what’s left of it anyway) if you leave this thread alone for a while.
Just my two-bob’s worth anyway.
“Mistake” ?!? How in the holy fuck can you call it a mistake?!?
I actually checked, just for the sake of argument–of your last hundred posts, 90% were in this thread.
It might. It might not. The question is, who cares? Again, you can harp on this issue all you want, but the fact is that in the context of the abortion debate, it’s quite irrelevant.
So are you saying that, if society couldn’t handle emancipating the slaves, that they shouldn’t have been emancipated? It’s a very simple question. I mean, I know why you refuse to answer the question, but you could at least give the appearance of at least trying to do so, if just in the slightest.
It’s not? What about murder? Theft? Rape? Slavery? When are any of these things ever considered to be “morally right”?
Since when is murder a matter of personal opinion?
Yes, it’s odd; no, I didn’t say you were suggesting something along those lines; and, yes, that’s essentially the natural consequent of your argument. If, as you assert, the woman has a right to engage in sex and have an abortion that is higher than the unborn’s right to not be killed at the women’s discretion, then a woman can purposely engage in sex, purposely get pregnant and purposesly have an abortion, and you would still consider that acceptable (or at least acceptable enough to allow her to do it). Would you tell a woman she can’t have an abortion for any reason?
I know you’re okay with it. That doesn’t explain the question posed to you, of which I’ll ask again. Why you shouldn’t be held responsible for its welfare due to it existing, which it only does because of you?
How can an action be rationalized by the individual engaging in that action? The very fact that they engage in it, would mean that it’s okay, even if it’s not okay in actuality.
I meant exactly what I said. Choice is a misnomer, because it assumes that the two choices (to give birth or to have an abortion) are qualitatively similar and and equal in their outcomes. They aren’t, least because one of those situation results in a live baby and the other a dead baby. The correct term, therefore, is pro-abortion, because abortion is the action you support, much like pro-lifers carry around the anti-abortion label, because abortion is the action we oppose. It’s quite simple, really.
I don’t know. Who said anything about replacing pro-choice with “evil Satanic Commie-Nazi baby-killer”? It amazes me how apt the people who scream “strawman!” are to engage in straw men themselves.
And yet, it’s not foolishness. Don’t you find it odd how I can be both anti-choice and anti-abortion, but you can’t be anti-life and pro-abortion? You should.
It could, but for the sake of argument, we’re going to assume she brings no harm to herself, much like we’re assuming that she isn’t harmed in the abortion. Knowing this, I must ask again, why does it matter the manner in which she accomplishes no longer being pregnant? The end result is the same.
Let’s see… Based on recent history, about 15 years, give or take.
[QUOTE=purplehorseshoe]
Because “our” definition leaves everyone free to decide for themselves what is the right decision for their own bodies, while “your” definition comes with legislation that takes that ability (to decide for one’s own self) away from everyone."
[/quote]
lol, really? I don’t think so. You know, to save time, I’m just going to quote myself:
My definition is more restrictive than yours, and yours than the woman’s or, really, I should say philosopher’s like Peter Singer or Michael Tooley. So if it’s wrong of me to force a definition of personhood onto you by which you should operate, it’s also wrong to force your definition of personhood onto the latter by which they, or like-minded individuals, should operate. By refusing to do so, you’re either violating the notion that everyone has the right to decide for themselves personhood and act accordingly or the notion that it’s wrong to force someone to adhere to a definition of personhood which is not necessarily their own. Doing so would make you a, as has been said, religious zealot.
Done except for the 1 in 2,000 women whose epidurals are complicated and cause everything from daily, debilitating headaches for months to lifelong paralysis. More than 4 million women give birth in America every year and it’s estimated that 80% of them get epidurals. That means a not insubstantial number of women an epidural hurts for a lot longer than a minute.
And again, sadly, not only are other complications, including death, not that rare, their numbers are rising in the U.S. and completely disproportionate for non-white women. But if we die having babies, who the hell cares, right? We shouldn’t have had sex. (Leaving aside that those are wanted children.)
And in some cases it does. Or debilitates her health for life. If you care about life, why don’t you care about those women who die or are never physically or mentally capable again because they continued a pregnancy to term and gave birth?
If you’re not willing to learn anything, even factual information, while you’re here, then why are you here? Just to keep repeating your same trite, offensive proclamations and call whoever disagrees with you names?
You mentioned the law, then you mentioned precedents. It’s not a stretch by any sense of the imagination to assume you’re talking about legal precedents or at least a precedent which has effect on the law (of which there is none in the case of a woman abusing her unborn child, by the way).
Yes? Or, perhaps, that would be the conclusion you want to come to.
lolwut?
How about… not? The argument, as I’m sure you’re well aware, is that if you can rationalize killing the unborn because it raises utility, then you could also rationalize killing off the poor because it raises utility. You put yourself on a slippery slope when you start arguing utilitarianism. Of course, you’ll probably be like everyone else and play the-boy-or-girl-who-cried-strawman, but taking an idea to its logical conclusion is not a strawman, and should be carried out with every philosophy.
It hasn’t worked out because there is no way to measure utility in this manner. However, if we could easily measure the utility to be gained by killing off a couple of poor people and not killing off a couple of poor people, and found that killing them off to raise utility higher than what it otherwise would be, then you have no logical basis upon which to say that it shouldn’t be done. When you base your philosophy on one which ignores individual ethics, you’re bound to reach some rather abhorrent conclusion.
You know, I’d like to see you provide proof of this assertion.
My first inclination was to invoke Godwin’s Law and ask if you were a Nazi, but I resisted it. No, human rights are a perfectly valid justification. All humans are entitled to the same basic rights and protections as any other human is. The only way you don’t fit into that, is if you’re not a human. Again, I didn’t come up with the concept, but it’s a generally well-accepted concept.
Ummm, no. My argument is that a fetus is human, and as a result is entitled to human rights. That’s not defining a position that’s unassailable. That’s taking a position which cannot be assailed without first arguing that some humans aren’t entitled to the same basic protections as another, which would necessitate you giving the standard by which a human has to meet before (s)he is afforded the same rights and protections as someone else.
Arguments from utility are, frankly, pointless. But let’s move the timeframe a bit ahead. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that a woman has three children. If we knew for a fact that we could increase societal utility by allowing her to kill one of them more than we could any other way, does it therefore become morally acceptable to allow her to kill one child in order to increase utility?
Even if doing so decreases utility?
Increasing utility?
Your own link says that it chooses to define parasitism in a very wide sense. Parasitism, be definition, form of symbiosis in which one organism (called parasite) benefits at the expense of another organism usually of different species (called host). The association may also lead to the injury of the host.
A form of symbiosis in which one benefits and the other is neither helped nor hurt is commensalism.
And before some not-so-smart-ass comes by to response, I’ll point out that passing on one’s genetic information is the ultimate benefit (because I know someone wanted to go there).
I can’t tell which side is being assigned to what, in your commensalism example. Either way:
Assuming the fetus is neither helped nor hurt:
“… ultimate benefit?” Seriously? Some people don’t give a flying fuck about passing on their genetic information.
Assuming the mother is neither helped nor hurt
Paging DoperMoms to chime in about whether your body was “neither helped nor hurt” by pregnancy and labor.
What’s a benefit and what isn’t doesn’t change based on the what the individual in question is feeling. Humans ain’t above nature.
Haha. I love how everybody is a lunatic, rude, moron, idiot, and a million other things you’ve decided, but you seriously just asked me if I was being mean to you because I was on my period? Come on, the jig is up. Are you actually a 16 year old boy?
Because nowhere else in law do we have contracts which cannot be broken. Nowhere else in law do we have consent that cannot be revoked. Nowhere else in law do we have the ability to force a person to donate their own bodily fluids and organs to another human under any circumstances, even if that person is the proximate cause of the other human’s need for those fluids and organs.
You can say it as many times as you like, but that doesn’t make it true. That actually goes for literally every statement of “fact” in the above quote–you have begged the question in three out of the five sentences in that paragraph, and in one you did it twice. That may well be a new record.
I’m sure SOMEONE can be anti-life and pro-abortion, but no such person has posted in this thread.
IT’S BLUE! IT’S BLUE! IT’S BLUE!
No, wait. It’s only blue once it implants. 
Ahhhh. Most. Quite a comfort there.
“Don’t worry dear. You probably won’t die.”
Thank you for the clarity and directness of your opinion. A friend of mine had a brain tumor during her first pregnancy. It grew due to hormones during the pregnancy. If her birth control fails, I’ll be sure to tell he she’s a selfish bitch for saving her own life.
Oh, you say… You don’t mean those women, or those who have ectopic pregnancies, or , or, or… Well dear, those are the very women who are being hounded and harassed by the protesters outside clinics - you know, the topic of the original post here.
And while you’re here please tell us, when does a fertilized egg become a human?
Naw, he was banned.
Did I say anything about killing the woman?
Yup. So?
You should look up the definition of parasite.
Me pissed off? Nope. I think you are pathetically funny. Your cockeyed beliefs have zero affect on me, so I have no reason to get upset anyway.
I only have time for this at the moment.
You’re wrong. The term choice assumes nothing about the choices being equal in any way. You inserted that in your imagination. Not only that, since you liked to mention the technicalities of science earlier, one choice does not result in a dead baby. What pro choice indicates is that concerning this issue, pro choice supporters consider the individuals choice about their body to be the primary consideration. That is demonstrated by supporting full term or termination of a pregnancy.
She has given three different answers so far in this thread:
- It is a human being at conception(fertilization).
- It is a human being when the fertilized egg is implanted.
- It is a human being when the heart is beating.
Which of these do you really believe, classyladyhp?