Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Godular]

Ah, gotcha.

Reminds me of that caninope fella.

That's hardly fair to Caninope…

True, caninope made fewer mistakes.

[Ardavia]

if you don't want to talk about abortion you should post in a different thread.

It's directly relevent. The argument for abortion ultimately rests on a false premise, i.e., on the all pervasive and all encompassing moral primacy of consent. That's just wrong.

No, it rests on the premise that we, as human beings, have certain rights, as explained in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights cannot be infringed upon.

The right to life, the right to bodily sovereignty, et cetera. You know, the things that basically let us function as a society.

It also rests on the premise that no person has the right to infringe on another's rights, and that fetuses aren't special or exempt from this.

Consent matters, because it's the central premise of the concept of "infringing on another's rights". If consent is given, rights are not being infringed upon. If consent is not given, it becomes a violation of rights, and the violator's rights are void.

[Mega City 5]

No, I am substantially disagreeing with you. You were absolutely, objectively, categorically wrong.

You don't understand physics - by your own admission.

Ok. I'll take the bait. Explain to me why stones fall.

[Dyakovo]

The definition provided is the legal definition of murder, thus since we're discussing legality, it is the only one that matters.

Basing a discussion on abortion purely in terms of popular plebiscite is a colossal waste of time, quite frankly. There's only one answer then, you have to be pro-choice and agree with the law, or anti-choice and disagree with it.

That doesn't engender discussion, really, it just leads to a polarized “debate” lacking anything resembling depth or intellectual value.

Being "pro-life" does not actually require that you misuse terms.

[Ardavia]

then you DO want to talk about your opposition to legal abortion. how confusing.

it turns out that the argument for abortion rests on whatever the arguer wants to use as a premise. I tend to argue that it is no one else's business since the state has zero interest in forcing women to remain pregnant when they don't want to be.

Oh, cool. In that case, then I'll answer that I could care less whether or not a woman remains pregnant. The State shouldn't command her to remain pregnant (such a command would be absolutely silly and meaningless). The State should forbid her from murdering her unborn child.

So, in other words, the State should force her to remain pregnant.

[Mavorpen]

No, I am substantially disagreeing with you. You were absolutely, objectively, categorically wrong.

You don't understand physics - by your own admission.

Ok. I'll take the bait. Explain to me why stones fall.

Because they exist. Do you ever pay attention?

[Dyakovo]

No, I am substantially disagreeing with you. You were absolutely, objectively, categorically wrong.

You don't understand physics - by your own admission.

Ok. I'll take the bait. Explain to me why stones fall.

Gravity.

[Ardavia]

No, I am substantially disagreeing with you. You were absolutely, objectively, categorically wrong.

You don't understand physics - by your own admission.

Ok. I'll take the bait. Explain to me why stones fall.

Because they exist. Like everything else.

And because they exist, they are subject to the fundamental force that is gravity. Like everything else.

Simple, really.

[Ashmoria]

Reread my previous post. You aren't substantially disagreeing with me. You are engaging in a mere verbal dispute.

No, I am substantially disagreeing with you. You were absolutely, objectively, categorically wrong.

You don't understand physics - by your own admission.

aren't y'all waiting for the moment that he states that a 5 pound stone falls 5 times faster than a 1 pound stone?

[Galloism]

then you DO want to talk about your opposition to legal abortion. how confusing.

it turns out that the argument for abortion rests on whatever the arguer wants to use as a premise. I tend to argue that it is no one else's business since the state has zero interest in forcing women to remain pregnant when they don't want to be.

Oh, cool. In that case, then I'll answer that I could care less whether or not a woman remains pregnant. The State shouldn't command her to remain pregnant (such a command would be absolutely silly and meaningless). The State should forbid her from murdering her unborn child.

Keeping in mind abortion isn't murder, can she remove the parasite-like being from her body at any point?

I mean, if it can't survive without her, that's basically its problem.

[Ardavia]

No, I am substantially disagreeing with you. You were absolutely, objectively, categorically wrong.

You don't understand physics - by your own admission.

aren't y'all waiting for the moment that he states that a 5 pound stone falls 5 times faster than a 1 pound stone?

yes

and now he knows that we're waiting for it

and thus he won't state it

great job at being a buzz kill

[Aelex]

You probably know more physics than me, since I haven't actually taken a physics course (either in high school or undergraduate college).

You managed to make your entire schooling without taking even once a physic class?!?
Damn, the U.S's education sure is an endless source of disappointment for me.

For the rest of your stone brick, I have only one man to quote "La culture, c'est comme la confiture. Moins on en a, plus on l'étale.", the "true" will understand it...

[Dyakovo]

then you DO want to talk about your opposition to legal abortion. how confusing.

it turns out that the argument for abortion rests on whatever the arguer wants to use as a premise. I tend to argue that it is no one else's business since the state has zero interest in forcing women to remain pregnant when they don't want to be.

Oh, cool. In that case, then I'll answer that I could care less whether or not a woman remains pregnant.

So you're pro-choice now...

[Ashmoria]

then you DO want to talk about your opposition to legal abortion. how confusing.

it turns out that the argument for abortion rests on whatever the arguer wants to use as a premise. I tend to argue that it is no one else's business since the state has zero interest in forcing women to remain pregnant when they don't want to be.

Oh, cool. In that case, then I'll answer that I could care less whether or not a woman remains pregnant. The State shouldn't command her to remain pregnant (such a command would be absolutely silly and meaningless). The State should forbid her from murdering her unborn child.

what an odd thing to say. there is no child if she gets an abortion. no murder and no child.

[Mega City 5]

Because they exist. Like everything else.

And because they exist, they are subject to the fundamental force that is gravity. Like everything else.

Simple, really.

You understand how silly this answer is, yes? What I effectively asked the interlocutor to do is explain gravitational influence.

[Shiraan]

Ok. I'll take the bait. Explain to me why stones fall.

Because they exist. Do you ever pay attention?

it's not that they exist, it's that they have mass, more precisely, they have more mass then air.

wait, what does this have to do with abortion? I jumped to the last page.

[Ithqington]

http://nsuberalles.deviantart.com/art/W ... -564878160

[Mega City 5]

So, in other words, the State should force her to remain pregnant.

Absolutely not. The State has no control over that. A woman shouldn't be punished for an accidental miscarriage. Again: the State should not and cannot command pregnancy. The prohibition is against murder.

[Ardavia]

Because they exist. Like everything else.

And because they exist, they are subject to the fundamental force that is gravity. Like everything else.

Simple, really.

You understand how silly this answer is, yes? What I effectively asked the interlocutor to do is explain gravitational influence.

I mean, there's not much more to say.

Gravity is a fundamental force of the universe. This has been explained.

If it exists in this universe, it's affected by gravity. Nothing is exempt. This has been explained.

Stones exist. They are thus affected by gravity. This has been explained.

Next.

[Galloism]

So, in other words, the State should force her to remain pregnant.

Absolutely not. The State has no control over that. A woman shouldn't be punished for an accidental miscarriage. Again: the State should not and cannot command pregnancy. The prohibition is against murder.

Since we're supposed to entertain your possibly nonexistent particle question, I have a question about a fictional character.

Let's suppose a vampire breaks into my house and latches onto me. It needs my blood to survive. It won't kill, but it will stay latched onto me for 9 months, draining my life-force and causing me all sorts of problems.

If I remove the vampire from my neck, he will die.

Can I remove him from my neck?

[Dyakovo]

Because they exist. Like everything else.

And because they exist, they are subject to the fundamental force that is gravity. Like everything else.

Simple, really.

You understand how silly this answer is, yes?

Yes, we understand that it isn't silly at all.

[Ardavia]

So, in other words, the State should force her to remain pregnant.

Absolutely not. The State has no control over that. A woman shouldn't be punished for an accidental miscarriage. Again: the State should not and cannot command pregnancy. The prohibition is against murder.

If the state bars a woman from getting an elective abortion, that is forcing her to remain pregnant.

Next.

[Mega City 5]

Keeping in mind abortion isn't murder, can she remove the parasite-like being from her body at any point?

I mean, if it can't survive without her, that's basically its problem.

To my mind, there's no difference between this question and asking whether or not a woman can leave the parasite-like being which is her newborn infant out overnight in icy weather and allow it to die from exposure.

After all. If it can't survive without her, that's basically it's problem, right?

[Washington Resistance Army]

then you DO want to talk about your opposition to legal abortion. how confusing.

it turns out that the argument for abortion rests on whatever the arguer wants to use as a premise. I tend to argue that it is no one else's business since the state has zero interest in forcing women to remain pregnant when they don't want to be.

Oh, cool. In that case, then I'll answer that I could care less whether or not a woman remains pregnant. The State shouldn't command her to remain pregnant (such a command would be absolutely silly and meaningless). The State should forbid her from murdering her unborn child.

Ignoring your continued misuse of words, these statements contradict.

[BK117B2]

Oh, and stones fall to the ground because of gravity, not because they're stones.

And they fall because of gravity because they are stones.

If they were apples, raindrops, leaves, pencils, or baskets, then they would STILL fall because of gravity. It turns out that being a stone is not why something falls due to gravity