Abortion Denied

[Hurdegaryp]

You don't seem to understand that there is always more than one solution besides killing the child

Why not spare them both from further suffering?

Vindex Nation craves the suffering, it seems. We prefer to make the suffering go away.

[Zottistan]

And screwing up their own lives, their interpersonal relationships, the life of the child they give birth to, causing a buttload of expenses, etc... to force them into allowing a person inhabit them that they don't even want inside them aren't mistakes?

You should not be entitled to exist at the expense of another person.

Adoption is the answer to that

Adoption still messes with interpersonal relationships, can mess up the life of the child they give birth to, cause a buttload of expenses, causes a lot of physical pain, can cause psychological trauma, wastes nine months of life, puts you at risk of death, and can permanently damage their body.

And still gives somebody the backwards, twisted entitlement to exist at the expense of another person.

[Bottle]

Adoption is the answer to that

Adoption does not remove the fact that a fetus is growing inside a human being and the resources of that human being are leeched away.

Also, some folks--like me!--believe it is morally wrong to use your body to build a new human being if you are not personally prepared to provide care for said new human being. (Pre-arranged surrogacy would be the sole exception.)

[Lordieth]

I kind of feel like if Men had to share the burden of child-bearing that Abortion laws would coincidentally be a bit more lax.

Maybe I'm just a cold-hearted cynic. Who's right.

[Liriena]

1. That's all you've done for the past couple of ours: deny. Not argue, not propose any alternative. Only deny. Deny medical and legal definitions of terms you want to use for your own emotionally manipulative means. Deny legal and ethical conventions to falsely validate your philosophy.
2. Perhaps, but for a moment I thought it required clarification, seeing how you insist on expressing opinions that are factually untrue.
3. Read (1)
4. That seems unlikely, given that you deny the existence of positive rights, despite them being recognized as such by both international organizations and dozens of countries, yet you claim your views are well acquainted with reality.

1. I have indeed proposed an alternative: Respecting the absolute rights of all human beings in allowing them to exercise those rights in any way they see fit that does not infringe upon another's. I have not denied the legal definition, I have argued that the legal definition is improper and should be changed, hence changing the law.
2. No one may express any opinion that is factually untrue. If it is an opinion, it is neither factually true nor untrue. If it is factually true or untrue, it is not an opinion.
3. This is a primary source of contention, in that you do not believe that rights are absolute, whereas I do.
4. I do indeed deny the existence of positive rights. I'm well aware that they are recognized by international organizations and the governments of countries; these bodies are just as liable to be wrong as any individual is. The mere recognition of a right by a person or persons does not entail the existence of a right any more than the recognition of an entity by a person or persons entails the existence of that entity.

1. You've provided no actual arguments to substantiate your claims. Your alternative, on the other hand, is as awfully simplistic as it is myopic. What of the physical integrity of the mother? Is her right to control her own body inexistent when the "human being" inside her is her fetus? Would you say the same of any other human being? If I were to forcibly implant my organs in somebody else's body and leech-off their nutrients, would you say my right to live trumps their right to control their own body?
2. Alrighty then.
3. I believe human rights apply only to actual, existing people. I do not recognize fetuses as such, and even if I did, I would not have somebody else use them as an excuse to control the body of their mothers.
4. And where does that leave your beliefs, then?

[The Tovian Way]

1. I have indeed proposed an alternative: Respecting the absolute rights of all human beings in allowing them to exercise those rights in any way they see fit that does not infringe upon another's. I have not denied the legal definition, I have argued that the legal definition is improper and should be changed, hence changing the law.
2. No one may express any opinion that is factually untrue. If it is an opinion, it is neither factually true nor untrue. If it is factually true or untrue, it is not an opinion.
3. This is a primary source of contention, in that you do not believe that rights are absolute, whereas I do.
4. I do indeed deny the existence of positive rights. I'm well aware that they are recognized by international organizations and the governments of countries; these bodies are just as liable to be wrong as any individual is. The mere recognition of a right by a person or persons does not entail the existence of a right any more than the recognition of an entity by a person or persons entails the existence of that entity.

1. What is a human beings' absolute rights? Are those not derived from bodies of people and organizations which, reading number 4, "are just as liable to be wrong as any individual is"?
2. The part in blue is a lie, people express opinions that are factually untrue all the time. As for the last part, here is an opinion that is factually true: I believe gravity exists and there are other solar systems.
3. You are right, it is contested.
4. What gives a human being negative rights, if they are not the opposite of positive rights that are granted by bodies of human beings?

1. Life, property and liberty. No, they are not derived from bodies of people and organizations.
2. No, people express beliefs that are factually untrue all the time. A belief is a proposition one gives one's intellectual assent to, as in the case of your giving intellectual assent to the propositions "Gravity exists" and "There are other solar systems." These are beliefs about facts, but one can also have a belief about opinions, such as "I believe Pinkie Pie is best pony." Who is best pony is an opinion - a matter of preference, and therefore "Pinkie Pie is best pony" is neither factually true nor untrue.
3. We are in agreement, so no response is necessary on this point.
4. Human rights are innate, rights we possess either by virtue of our humanity or by grace of God, depending on how one answers the theism question. They are inviolable and absolute; they do not depend on recognition by others to exist. Those so-called positive rights are merely a state of affairs in which the government currently mandates that some good or service be provided to some person, or set of people. This may change at any time, simply by government action, and no one has any legitimate claim to these goods or services.

[Bottle]

I kind of feel like if Men had to share the burden of child-bearing that Abortion laws would coincidentally be a bit more lax.

"If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
-Florynce Kennedy

[Liriena]

The majority of women who get abortions already have at least one child.

Pretty sure they're aware of where babies come from.

Then why are they getting it

Because shit happens. Unwanted, unexpected shit.

Seriously, what a stupid question.

[Liriena]

And screwing up their own lives, their interpersonal relationships, the life of the child they give birth to, causing a buttload of expenses, etc... to force them into allowing a person inhabit them that they don't even want inside them aren't mistakes?

You should not be entitled to exist at the expense of another person.

Adoption is the answer to that

No. Adoption is a solution that only solves the problem of what to do after the infant is born. It provides no solution to the traumas of pregnancy and childbirth themselves.

[Liriena]

Consensuses: 18 years of debt, Wasted time, Extreme pain, Emotional Trauma
Action: Condom broke


Punishment to fit the crime right? People like ya make me sic k

So how is abortion going to help anything?

It removes the problem before it becomes even more harmful for everyone involved.

[Neutraligon]

No answer?

Again you are using a term in a way in which it cannot be used, as it does not fulfill the definition of that term. We are dealing with a legal and medical problem, thus we are using the legal and medical definitions. You must back up your claim that your definitions can indeed be used, considering your definitions are not the common definitions used by most of society. Your claim that it is descriptive rather than normative also needs to be backed up given, the fact that we are dealing with a medical and legal case. The definitions you are using have no standing due to the fact that they cannot be used in a court of law, which is what we are dealing with.
Please explain to me then, why we should use your definitions considering these cases, if you continue to refuse to do so (I have asked repeatedly), I feel that continuing this discussion with you would be an utter waste of my time.

We are indeed dealing with a legal problem. And the source of that problem is that the legal definition of infanticide is incorrect.
My solution to this is to change the legal definition of infanticide - and therefore the law - to remove any conditional statement requiring that the victim must have first been
born.

Then back up why your definition of infanticide is accurate, given the fact (not question fact) that an infant is by definition a born child between the ages of birth and around 2 years. In addition, abortion has already been determined by the Supreme Court, to be legal. We are dealing with a current case, meaning we are dealing with current law, meaning how things ought to be does not matter. What matters at this point and time is what are the current legal definitions. The current legal definitions do not match the ones you are claiming. Until you can explain why your definitions matter in this particular case, your definitions are completely and utterly useless. This is the last time, explain why your definitions should be used in this particular circumstance, and in addition why your definitions should hold in any circumstance given the current legal climate.

[The Tovian Way]

1. I have indeed proposed an alternative: Respecting the absolute rights of all human beings in allowing them to exercise those rights in any way they see fit that does not infringe upon another's. I have not denied the legal definition, I have argued that the legal definition is improper and should be changed, hence changing the law.
2. No one may express any opinion that is factually untrue. If it is an opinion, it is neither factually true nor untrue. If it is factually true or untrue, it is not an opinion.
3. This is a primary source of contention, in that you do not believe that rights are absolute, whereas I do.
4. I do indeed deny the existence of positive rights. I'm well aware that they are recognized by international organizations and the governments of countries; these bodies are just as liable to be wrong as any individual is. The mere recognition of a right by a person or persons does not entail the existence of a right any more than the recognition of an entity by a person or persons entails the existence of that entity.

1. You've provided no actual arguments to substantiate your claims. Your alternative, on the other hand, is as awfully simplistic as it is myopic. What of the physical integrity of the mother? Is her right to control her own body inexistent when the "human being" inside her is her fetus? Would you say the same of any other human being? If I were to forcibly implant my organs in somebody else's body and leech-off their nutrients, would you say my right to live trumps their right to control their own body?
2. Alrighty then.
3. I believe human rights apply only to actual, existing people. I do not recognize fetuses as such, and even if I did, I would not have somebody else use them as an excuse to control the body of their mothers.
4. And where does that leave your beliefs, then?

1. Her right to control her body while pregnant is the same as it ever was before she got pregnant: She may exercise her bodily sovereignty in any way that does not infringe upon the rights of another. The difference between the pregnant woman and the non-pregnant woman is not one of her rights, but of the state of affairs. In the case of pregnancy, certain actions infringe upon the rights of another that would not do so were she not pregnant, so while she is pregnant, certain actions may not be taken that could have been taken were she not pregnant.
2. No argument given, no response necessary.
3. Your personal beliefs and preferences do not bear on my claims. I too believe that human rights apply only to those who are actual and existant; what I deny is that there are any other kind of human beings. I do not use any excuse to control another; I do not seek to control another. The tenet of respecting individual liberty in all expressions that do not infringe upon the rights of another stands, regardless of whether a woman is pregnant or not. What changes between the two situations is the state of affairs.
4. My beliefs are either true or they are untrue, and which truth-value they hold, they hold irrespective of my belief. As with all beliefs I hold, I hold these beliefs because I believe them to be more likely to be true that their negation.

[Zottistan]

Adoption is the answer to that

No. Adoption is a solution that only solves the problem of what to do after the infant is born. It provides no solution to the traumas of pregnancy and childbirth themselves.

And causes its own traumas even after the infant is born.

[Bottle]

Adoption is the answer to that

No. Adoption is a solution that only solves the problem of what to do after the infant is born. It provides no solution to the traumas of pregnancy and childbirth themselves.

The part that dudes, in particular, seem to struggle with is that pregnancy is the problem.

I don't want to be pregnant. I don't want to carry a pregnancy. I don't want to give birth.

The only way adoption 'solve the problem' is if you don't consider it a problem to violate a woman's body. And if you don't consider violating women to be a problem, then why should anybody care what you have to say about "life"?

[Kronstad]

...Supreme Court, which concluded that because the girl was financially dependent on her foster parents, had never lived on her own, and had no work experience, she wasn’t mature enough to choose an abortion.

All those seem to point out that all measures should be taken for her NOT to become a parent.
Still, she shouldn't have become pregnant; now, she should just move to another state or go wherever she can obtain an abortion.

Nevertheless, inadmissible lack of logic from the "Supreme" Court, saying that "financially dependent persons who have never lived on their own and have no work experience should become parents". It is strikingly depressing and disgusting at the same time that this happens.

[Hurdegaryp]

So how is abortion going to help anything?

It removes the problem before it becomes even more harmful for everyone involved.

What Liriena said. Removing a variable makes the equation simpler.

[Liriena]

1. You've provided no actual arguments to substantiate your claims. Your alternative, on the other hand, is as awfully simplistic as it is myopic. What of the physical integrity of the mother? Is her right to control her own body inexistent when the "human being" inside her is her fetus? Would you say the same of any other human being? If I were to forcibly implant my organs in somebody else's body and leech-off their nutrients, would you say my right to live trumps their right to control their own body?
2. Alrighty then.
3. I believe human rights apply only to actual, existing people. I do not recognize fetuses as such, and even if I did, I would not have somebody else use them as an excuse to control the body of their mothers.
4. And where does that leave your beliefs, then?

1. Her right to control her body while pregnant is the same as it ever was before she got pregnant: She may exercise her bodily sovereignty in any way that does not infringe upon the rights of another. The difference between the pregnant woman and the non-pregnant woman is not one of her rights, but of the state of affairs. In the case of pregnancy, certain actions infringe upon the rights of another that would not do so were she not pregnant, so while she is pregnant, certain actions may not be taken that could have been taken were she not pregnant.
2. No argument given, no response necessary.
3. Your personal beliefs and preferences do not bear on my claims. I too believe that human rights apply only to those who are actual and existant; what I deny is that there are any other kind of human beings. I do not use any excuse to control another; I do not seek to control another. The tenet of respecting individual liberty in all expressions that do not infringe upon the rights of another stands, regardless of whether a woman is pregnant or not. What changes between the two situations is the state of affairs.
4. My beliefs are either true or they are untrue, and which truth-value they hold, they hold irrespective of my belief. As with all beliefs I hold, I hold these beliefs because I believe them to be more likely to be true that their negation.

1. Yeah... thanks for not actually responding to my argument, buddy!
3. Read above.
4. Even in the face of an overwhelming consensus that disagrees with your beliefs?

[The Tovian Way]

No answer?

We are indeed dealing with a legal problem. And the source of that problem is that the legal definition of infanticide is incorrect.
My solution to this is to change the legal definition of infanticide - and therefore the law - to remove any conditional statement requiring that the victim must have first been
born.

Then back up why your definition of infanticide is accurate, given the fact (not question fact) that an infant is by definition a born child between the ages of birth and around 2 years. In addition, abortion has already been determined by the Supreme Court, to be legal. We are dealing with a current case, meaning we are dealing with current law, meaning how things ought to be does not matter. What matters at this point and time is what are the current legal definitions. The current legal definitions do not match the ones you are claiming. Until you can explain why your definitions matter in this particular case, your definitions are completely and utterly useless. This is the last time, explain why your definitions should be used in this particular circumstance, and in addition why your definitions should hold in any circumstance given the current legal climate.

The infant is only a born child by legal definition. I seek to change this definition, and thus the law, by amending it to more properly reflect the accurate descriptive definition.
I agree that abortion is legal; that is the problem. Where the law errs, it should be corrected.
My definitions should be used in this case because I am the one addressing the case in argument; obviously everyone brings their own preferred definitions in any matter relating to changing the legal status of some act. My contention is that, properly understood, abortion is infanticide, and so the legal definition should be altered to reflect this.

[Kepler-22]

1. What is a human beings' absolute rights? Are those not derived from bodies of people and organizations which, reading number 4, "are just as liable to be wrong as any individual is"?
2. The part in blue is a lie, people express opinions that are factually untrue all the time. As for the last part, here is an opinion that is factually true: I believe gravity exists and there are other solar systems.
3. You are right, it is contested.
4. What gives a human being negative rights, if they are not the opposite of positive rights that are granted by bodies of human beings?

1. Life, property and liberty. No, they are not derived from bodies of people and organizations.
2. No, people express beliefs that are factually untrue all the time. A belief is a proposition one gives one's intellectual assent to, as in the case of your giving intellectual assent to the propositions "Gravity exists" and "There are other solar systems." These are beliefs about facts, but one can also have a belief about opinions, such as "I believe Pinkie Pie is best pony." Who is best pony is an opinion - a matter of preference, and therefore "Pinkie Pie is best pony" is neither factually true nor untrue.
3. We are in agreement, so no response is necessary on this point.
4. Human rights are innate, rights we possess either by virtue of our humanity or by grace of God, depending on how one answers the theism question. They are inviolable and absolute; they do not depend on recognition by others to exist. Those so-called positive rights are merely a state of affairs in which the government currently mandates that some good or service be provided to some person, or set of people. This may change at any time, simply by government action, and no one has any legitimate claim to these goods or services.

1. I did not know I was naturally ingrained with "Life, property, and liberty". Those seem like positive rights, however, as they do grant something to a person and property and liberty she can be argued about. for instance, people and organizations once considered other people to be able to be property, so was it an absolute right back then to own another person? As for liberty, does the mere restriction that people and organizations put on other people count as hindering my absolute right?
2. However if "Pinkie Pie" is then awarded and regarded as the best pony by all of humanity, does that make that opinion a fact?
4. How do human beings recognize their own rights through virtue of humanity? We must have some way of saying what is and is not a right to human beings for simply being human beings. As for the theism question, it can also be argued that human beings were, and still are, beasts that evolved on Earth so are the rights of humans not to be equal to that of parrots, sharks, dogs, mice, monkeys, and other animals?

[Bottle]

1. Her right to control her body while pregnant is the same as it ever was before she got pregnant: She may exercise her bodily sovereignty in any way that does not infringe upon the rights of another. The difference between the pregnant woman and the non-pregnant woman is not one of her rights, but of the state of affairs.

No human person has the right to use my organs, tissues, or body without my consent. Even if I'm a convicted serial killer on death row, I can't be forced to so much as donate plasma. Even if I am dead, my organs cannot be harvested if I said no.

If you want to assert that a fetus should have rights which no born human has, or that pregnant women should have fewer rights over their bodily fluids than dead people have, then you probably should get to work...it should be interesting to watch!

[The Tovian Way]

1. Her right to control her body while pregnant is the same as it ever was before she got pregnant: She may exercise her bodily sovereignty in any way that does not infringe upon the rights of another. The difference between the pregnant woman and the non-pregnant woman is not one of her rights, but of the state of affairs. In the case of pregnancy, certain actions infringe upon the rights of another that would not do so were she not pregnant, so while she is pregnant, certain actions may not be taken that could have been taken were she not pregnant.
2. No argument given, no response necessary.
3. Your personal beliefs and preferences do not bear on my claims. I too believe that human rights apply only to those who are actual and existant; what I deny is that there are any other kind of human beings. I do not use any excuse to control another; I do not seek to control another. The tenet of respecting individual liberty in all expressions that do not infringe upon the rights of another stands, regardless of whether a woman is pregnant or not. What changes between the two situations is the state of affairs.
4. My beliefs are either true or they are untrue, and which truth-value they hold, they hold irrespective of my belief. As with all beliefs I hold, I hold these beliefs because I believe them to be more likely to be true that their negation.

1. Yeah... thanks for not actually responding to my argument, buddy!
3. Read above.
4. Even in the face of an overwhelming consensus that disagrees with your beliefs?

1. It responds to your argument quite well; you simply disagree with the response.
4. The appeal to mass belief has always been and will always be fallacious.

[Neutraligon]

...Supreme Court, which concluded that because the girl was financially dependent on her foster parents, had never lived on her own, and had no work experience, she wasn’t mature enough to choose an abortion.

All those seem to point out that all measures should be taken for her NOT to become a parent.
Still, she shouldn't have become pregnant; now, she should just move to another state or go wherever she can obtain an abortion.

Nevertheless, inadmissible lack of logic from the "Supreme" Court, saying that "financially dependent persons who have never lived on their own and have no work experience should become parents". It is strikingly depressing and disgusting at the same time that this happens.

She is a minor, moving to another state would be "difficult" and expensive. Whether she should or should not have gotten pregnant is unimportant, the fact that she currently is pregnant is what is important.

[Neutraligon]

1. Her right to control her body while pregnant is the same as it ever was before she got pregnant: She may exercise her bodily sovereignty in any way that does not infringe upon the rights of another. The difference between the pregnant woman and the non-pregnant woman is not one of her rights, but of the state of affairs.

No human person has the right to use my organs, tissues, or body without my consent. Even if I'm a convicted serial killer on death row, I can't be forced to so much as donate plasma. Even if I am dead, my organs cannot be harvested if I said no.

If you want to assert that a fetus should have rights which no born human has, or that pregnant women should have fewer rights over their bodily fluids than dead people have, then you probably should get to work...it should be interesting to watch!

Considering the definitions of infant and infanticide this person used (apparently a fetus is an infant, and any death of an infant is infanticide), I am looking forward to it.

[Enadail]

1. Her right to control her body while pregnant is the same as it ever was before she got pregnant: She may exercise her bodily sovereignty in any way that does not infringe upon the rights of another.

You keep saying this, but you don't respond to my straight forward question: why does the fetus get to infringe on the woman's right to bodily sovereignty? Specially if, as you claim, all rights are equal. Seems like you're giving preference to one right over the other.

[The Tovian Way]

1. Her right to control her body while pregnant is the same as it ever was before she got pregnant: She may exercise her bodily sovereignty in any way that does not infringe upon the rights of another. The difference between the pregnant woman and the non-pregnant woman is not one of her rights, but of the state of affairs.

No human person has the right to use my organs, tissues, or body without my consent. Even if I'm a convicted serial killer on death row, I can't be forced to so much as donate plasma. Even if I am dead, my organs cannot be harvested if I said no.

If you want to assert that a fetus should have rights which no born human has, or that pregnant women should have fewer rights over their bodily fluids than dead people have, then you probably should get to work...it should be interesting to watch!

Indeed they cannot, and neither can the unborn child's body be destroyed or used without its consent.
I do not assert that a fetus should have rights which no born human has, nor that pregnant women should have fewer rights over their bodily fluids. What I assert is that both the fetus and the woman do in fact have the same right to life and self-autonomy, and that this precludes the woman from exercising that right to bodily sovereignty in a way that infringes upon the rights of the fetus, and that hence, abortion should not be allowed.