DescentBB

snoopy wrote:

Pandora wrote:Individual human life should be respected and protected. However, I also believe that this principle should be tempered by other principles, in this case, the right of the woman to decide about her body. After all, it is her that supports the fetus for 9 months and goes through the pain of birth.

....And beyond, in most cases.

I have serious problems with this notion of a woman's "right to decide about her own body."

What does that even mean from a legal standpoint? Do I have the right to decide about my own body pulling the trigger on a gun pointed at someone else's head? Do I have the right to decide about my own body by running around naked in the streets? Do I have the right to decide about my own body killing my two year old who's dependent upon me? I'm fine with you saying that any person has a right to decide to or not to play the pregnancy lottery.... but when you do the deed and it creates another human life (presuming that we're to the stage of it being defined as another human life) then that life has rights, too. Considering the fact that in one case these supposed "rights" are being infringed upon by a party that has no other choice, and only for a limit term; compared to permanently and finally infringing upon the other's right to life... I'd say that the woman's rights are going to have to suffer.

Furthermore, if you set aside the cases where there wasn't consensual intercourse, the woman entered into the situation willfully, knowing the possible consequences that could occur and the effect that said consequences would have on her body. In short, if consensual intercourse happened, she put herself into the situation that you're trying to use to justify permanently ending a human life.

In the cases where it wasn't consensual, yes the woman's rights were violated.... so prosecute the violator and protect the collateral damage.

The bottom line is this: The whole argument about a woman "choosing about her body" pits one person's temporary comfort and convenience against another's life... and when stated in those terms the verdict is clear. I'll give you civil lawsuits against rapists and the like pain and suffering of violating the woman's right to choose for nine months... I won't give you killing a human life over someone's comfort.

callmeslick wrote: Still 5 to 7 times CUDA's claim.

Dehumanization (or dehumanisation) describes the denial of “humanness” to others and is theorized to take on two forms: animalistic dehumanization, which is employed on a largely intergroup basis, and mechanistic dehumanization, which is employed on a largely interpersonal basis.[1] Dehumanization can occur discursively (e.g., idiomatic language that likens certain human beings to non-human animals, verbal abuse, erasing one's voice from discourse), symbolically (e.g., imagery), or physically (e.g., chattel slavery, physical abuse, refusing eye contact). Dehumanization often ignores the target's individuality (i.e., the creative and interesting aspects of his or her personality) and prevents one from showing compassion towards stigmatized groups.

CUDA wrote:

Dehumanization (or dehumanisation) describes the denial of “humanness” to others and is theorized to take on two forms: animalistic dehumanization, which is employed on a largely intergroup basis, and mechanistic dehumanization, which is employed on a largely interpersonal basis.[1] Dehumanization can occur discursively (e.g., idiomatic language that likens certain human beings to non-human animals, verbal abuse, erasing one's voice from discourse), symbolically (e.g., imagery), or physically (e.g., chattel slavery, physical abuse, refusing eye contact). Dehumanization often ignores the target's individuality (i.e., the creative and interesting aspects of his or her personality) and prevents one from showing compassion towards stigmatized groups.

Prove me wrong ANYONE.

CUDA wrote:And you chose to ignore the definition of viable. The pro-abortion crowd say its OK to abort because its not viable life.

CUDA wrote:But by the very wording that they choose, an embryo is viable life. Anyway you cut it most cases of infanticide is a choice of convenience. I never said the choice was easy, or that I understood the pressures each individual faces. I just stated that its a choice. And it's a choice that doesn't need to be made. There are other options.

CUDA wrote:And they are dehumanizing it. Because it they weren't then they wouldn't be so insistent on calling it a fetus. And that's the justification that they use. It's just a lump of cells, its not viable, it's not able to sustain itself without a host.

flip wrote:My argument is a simple one. Is it or is it not a potential person? If so, then it is being disenfranchised of it's personhood.

callmeslick wrote:what vision says is likely true......then, the question will become what to do with all these people sucking the resources dry?

callmeslick wrote:There already are more people than this planet ought to be supporting, and the numbers keep growing. At some point, basic population dynamics kicks in, and you'll have a massive die-off.

• "Legalization makes it safe for women" - Snoopy referred to the hypocrisy of using 'safety' as a moral rationale when considering a question about intentional life-taking.
• "Life begins at conception" - Spidey noted life began long before that, and Jeff250 pointed out the fallacy of "magic 0-or-1 moments".
• "The line should be drawn at [ trimester X / week Y / independence / birth / measure Z of personhood or viability ]" - Multiple folks pointed out how ill-defined and arbitrary these metrics are.
• "You should ask, 'What if your mother had aborted you?'" - Vision pointed out this is a nonsensical / illogical question.
• "It's the woman's body / functions like one of the woman's organs" - Multiple people pointed out that the fetus is medically a separate-but-supported body, and that there is no comparable organ.
• "It's murder, plain and simple" - This is a presumption of personhood, not an argument demonstrating a reason for it.
• "It's not you, so it's not your choice / you can't tell someone else what to do / kiss my ass" - Top Gun and Snoopy and others pointed to the fact that protective law overrides personal privacy.
• "Women have done this for centuries / it's never been illegal" - callmeslick clarified that this excludes post-1920's moral legislation.
• "It happens because of unthinkable situations / out of convenience" - The relative sizes aside, both reasons are statistically significant, and warrant consideration.
• "It's because we've dehumanized the embryo/fetus" - Jeff250 pointed to the pre-suppositions this argument depends on.
• "Medical science will render this moot" - Until then, this is a legitimate topic.

Foil wrote:Is there anything both sides can agree on here?

Foil wrote:Back to the topic, are you arguing that population dynamics (i.e. the risk of overpopulation) is a valid ethical rationale for abortion?

Jeff250 wrote:

Foil wrote:Is there anything both sides can agree on here?

Certainly we can all agree that Heretic's example [ link ]is wrong.

Jeff250 wrote:Perhaps we can all agree that waiting until the third trimester is wrong, except for perhaps when the mother's life is in grave danger?

Jeff250 wrote:Can we agree that abortion is justified when not terminating the pregnancy puts the mother's life in grave danger? When the mother is expected to die but the child is expected to live? When both the mother and the child are expected to die?

Jeff250 wrote:Can we agree that taking the morning after pill--even if you think it is morally wrong--isn't first degree murder?