[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Kernen]

No it isn't.

What exactly is, then? I'm quite curious...

Embezzlement.

[Antarctic Swabia]

Cars existing isn't forcing risk on anyone. One could feasibly move to the countryside where there are fewer cars. Since there are options to get away from the risk, the risk isn't being forced. If someone was forced to live on the freeway with no option of escape then you might have an argument, as that'd be a bit more equivalent to banning abortion.


Not equivalent, because of the aforementioned.

One can conceivably live celibately, eliminating all risk of pregnancy. That's a lot more feasible than living without going near cars...

Yeah, on paper, abstinence is the best way to prevent a pregnancy. In practice, it's quite impractical for some people (i.e. married couples, people in long-term relationships wanting to find someone to marry, etc.)

[Antarctic Swabia]

No it isn't.

What exactly is, then? I'm quite curious...

Crimes like Terrorism, crimes against the state, and war crimes are worse in my opinion. And are, to me, the only ones that deserve capital punishment.

[Antityranicals]

That's all very subjective. Why is any of this "good"?

Universal applicability etc isn't subjective at all; only engaging in doublethink makes it so. And the Categorical Imperative isn't in and of itself "good", it allows us to determine the good. But I'm not actually Kantian, so I'm merely arguing this from a Kantian perspective.

But this is also getting close to threadjack territory, so...

The problem with the Categorical Imperative is it doesn't bother to explain the source of goodness itself and badness itself, which is somewhat essential to knowing which is which. But you're right, we are getting towards a thread-jack.

[Kernen]

One can conceivably live celibately, eliminating all risk of pregnancy. That's a lot more feasible than living without going near cars...

Yeah, on paper, abstinence is the best way to prevent a pregnancy. In practice, it's quite impractical for some people (i.e. married couples, people in long-term relationships wanting to find someone to marry, etc.)

Amen. My wife and I would like to continue enjoying life and not suffering through a squalling larva.

[Makdon]

One can conceivably live celibately, eliminating all risk of pregnancy. That's a lot more feasible than living without going near cars...

What if someone is raped?

[Antityranicals]

What exactly is, then? I'm quite curious...

Crimes like Terrorism, crimes against the state, and war crimes are worse in my opinion. And are, to me, the only ones that deserve capital punishment.

Ah, a statist... Crimes against the mafia-in-chief are, of course, evil incarnate. I see... These crimes are only worse than a single murder if they consist of multiple murders.

[Antarctic Swabia]

One can conceivably live celibately, eliminating all risk of pregnancy. That's a lot more feasible than living without going near cars...

What if someone is raped?

You're quoting the wrong person lol.

[Makdon]

What if someone is raped?

You're quoting the wrong person lol.

oops, sorry

[Antarctic Swabia]

Crimes like Terrorism, crimes against the state, and war crimes are worse in my opinion. And are, to me, the only ones that deserve capital punishment.

Ah, a statist...

Do you even know what a statist is? You, I, and most people are statists.

Crimes against the mafia-in-chief are, of course, evil incarnate. I see... These crimes are only worse than a single murder if they consist of multiple murders.

How is the government like a mafia? That philosophically makes no sense. Also, even if crimes against the doesn't involve murder, it's still worse.

[Neutraligon]

Ah, a statist...

Do you even know what a statist is? You, I, and most people are statists.

Crimes against the mafia-in-chief are, of course, evil incarnate. I see... These crimes are only worse than a single murder if they consist of multiple murders.

How is the government like a mafia? That philosophically makes no sense. Also, even if crimes against the doesn't involve murder, it's still worse.

I think we should get back on topic.

[Kernen]

One can conceivably live celibately, eliminating all risk of pregnancy. That's a lot more feasible than living without going near cars...

What if someone is raped?

Clearly god intended it to occur, so boohoo.

[Antityranicals]

One can conceivably live celibately, eliminating all risk of pregnancy. That's a lot more feasible than living without going near cars...

What if someone is raped?

Then that is tragic, but it still doesn't give license to murder. Say that I am on life support in a hospital, in need of a heart transplant. The issue is, the hospital will not have a donor available for the next nine months. I will most likely survive these nine months, but since I did not consent to this heart issue, are the doctors, for the sake of my medical well-being, allowed to go out and kill a homeless person, and use his heart as a transplant? Of course not! Why is this any different?

[Antityranicals]

Ah, a statist...

Do you even know what a statist is? You, I, and most people are statists.

I believe the government ought to be entirely privatized. I think that makes me not a statist. But let's get back on topic...

[Kernen]

What if someone is raped?

Then that is tragic, but it still doesn't give license to murder. Say that I am on life support in a hospital, in need of a heart transplant. The issue is, the hospital will not have a donor available for the next nine months. I will most likely survive these nine months, but since I did not consent to this heart issue, are the doctors, for the sake of my medical well-being, allowed to go out and kill a homeless person, and use his heart as a transplant? Of course not! Why is this any different?

Because that's two legal people in being, and an abortion involves only one legal person in being. Which is why abortion is legal in the US.

[Antityranicals]

Then that is tragic, but it still doesn't give license to murder. Say that I am on life support in a hospital, in need of a heart transplant. The issue is, the hospital will not have a donor available for the next nine months. I will most likely survive these nine months, but since I did not consent to this heart issue, are the doctors, for the sake of my medical well-being, allowed to go out and kill a homeless person, and use his heart as a transplant? Of course not! Why is this any different?

Because that's two legal people in being, and an abortion involves only one legal person in being. Which is why abortion is legal in the US.

Look, Mr. legal, I understand, but if the law allowed this example I posit, what would be the difference?

[The New California Republic]

Say that I am on life support in a hospital, in need of a heart transplant. The issue is, the hospital will not have a donor available for the next nine months. I will most likely survive these nine months, but since I did not consent to this heart issue, are the doctors, for the sake of my medical well-being, allowed to go out and kill a homeless person, and use his heart as a transplant? Of course not! Why is this any different?

A really shitty comparison. The homeless person is a person. The fetus is not. And the homeless person hasn't took control of your body against your will for nine months.

[Cantelo]

What if someone is raped?

Then that is tragic, but it still doesn't give license to murder. Say that I am on life support in a hospital, in need of a heart transplant. The issue is, the hospital will not have a donor available for the next nine months. I will most likely survive these nine months, but since I did not consent to this heart issue, are the doctors, for the sake of my medical well-being, allowed to go out and kill a homeless person, and use his heart as a transplant? Of course not! Why is this any different?

Yeah let’s totally ignore the emotional and physical trauma that every birth entails, then magnify it by a thousand when we factor in the pregnancy was due to a rape.

You might as well say that you’re okay with women bearing the burden of a horrific and traumatic experience for the rest of their lives and tell us to go fuck ourselves.

[Kernen]

Because that's two legal people in being, and an abortion involves only one legal person in being. Which is why abortion is legal in the US.

Look, Mr. legal, I understand, but if the law allowed this example I posit, what would be the difference?

There really needn't be one other than the law. Acting immorally but legally has no penalty.

[Antityranicals]

Say that I am on life support in a hospital, in need of a heart transplant. The issue is, the hospital will not have a donor available for the next nine months. I will most likely survive these nine months, but since I did not consent to this heart issue, are the doctors, for the sake of my medical well-being, allowed to go out and kill a homeless person, and use his heart as a transplant? Of course not! Why is this any different?

A really shitty comparison. The homeless person is a person. The fetus is not. And the homeless person hasn't took control of your body against your will for nine months.

Nor has the fetus. It's not there because it wants to be there. And yes, a fetus is a person, because it is a human, and the definition of a person is a single human.

[The New California Republic]

A really shitty comparison. The homeless person is a person. The fetus is not. And the homeless person hasn't took control of your body against your will for nine months.

Nor has the fetus.

It has if the woman doesn't want it to be there and she is prevented from seeking any recourse.

a fetus is a person, because it is a human, and the definition of a person is a single human.

No, we have been over this with you repeatedly. Again and again and again. Come on man.

[Antityranicals]

Then that is tragic, but it still doesn't give license to murder. Say that I am on life support in a hospital, in need of a heart transplant. The issue is, the hospital will not have a donor available for the next nine months. I will most likely survive these nine months, but since I did not consent to this heart issue, are the doctors, for the sake of my medical well-being, allowed to go out and kill a homeless person, and use his heart as a transplant? Of course not! Why is this any different?

Yeah let’s totally ignore the emotional and physical trauma that every birth entails, then magnify it by a thousand when we factor in the pregnancy was due to a rape.

You might as well say that you’re okay with women bearing the burden of a horrific and traumatic experience for the rest of their lives and tell us to go fuck ourselves.

I think women are stronger than you give them credit for. In any case, I'd like to recall the example I gave you yesterday: If by killing you, some woman could, for reasons that are irrelevant, alleviate the burden of a horrific and traumatic experience which she suffered, would she be justified in killing you?

[The New California Republic]

If by killing you, some woman could, for reasons that are irrelevant, alleviate the burden of a horrific and traumatic experience which she suffered, would she be justified in killing you?

No, because they are a person. Your refusal to see the difference doesn't make said difference disappear.

[Antityranicals]

Nor has the fetus.

It has if the woman doesn't want it to be there and she is prevented from seeking any recourse.

a fetus is a person, because it is a human, and the definition of a person is a single human.

No, we have been over this with you repeatedly. Again and again and again. Come on man.

Yes, we have been over this, over and over again, and I'm tired of you not mounting any defense against it. Either admit it, or come up with some reason why I'm wrong.

[Makdon]

Then that is tragic, but it still doesn't give license to murder. Say that I am on life support in a hospital, in need of a heart transplant. The issue is, the hospital will not have a donor available for the next nine months. I will most likely survive these nine months, but since I did not consent to this heart issue, are the doctors, for the sake of my medical well-being, allowed to go out and kill a homeless person, and use his heart as a transplant? Of course not! Why is this any different?

This is bullshit comparison. For starters, there's a lot more to this than physical suffering. Rape is incredibly scarring, and to then have to go through the very hard process of giving birth to a child that was forced upon you? That's enough ruin a persons life, as if rape wasn't already enough. Also, unborn fetuses are not homeless people. To act like the life of an unborn fetus's life is more important than the life of the living mother is idiotic. Trying to compare this to a heart issue is pretty terrible, considering the traumatic weight that rape carries with it