Another slog through stupid arguments...
Great Nortend wrote:Says you. I would agree, but qualify it with that if you do happen to fall pregnant, they should have no choice but to reap what they have sown.
"Pregnancy is the punishment for sex!" Everybody drink.
No, they shouldn't. That's, again, like saying their car should stay totaled and their body broken after a wreck. If the means exist to remedy the situation, they should have the option to do so.
Great Nortend wrote:I really don't see how this is relevant at all. Abortifacients have existed for a long time. Probably so has contraception, of various kinds. So has murder in fact, and poisons and fraud and theft. If nature gives humans an urge to procreate, it is humanity which suppresses it. But there is no reason to suppress it. It's not an argument for allowing abortion just because people want to have sex but don't want the consequences of it. I'm saying have sex if you want, but you have to be prepared to take on the burden it carries, of a child being born.
The fact that abortifacients (thank you) exist means they do not *have* to stay pregnant. Pregnancy is not a punishment for having sex, nor should it be treated as one.
Great Nortend wrote:Says you again. Arguments on either side are always opinions. I believe creating life is always good. You may not. Each to his own.
So creating a life that will very likely live in a hell on Earth is good because "YAY! LIFE!". Something tells me you have no idea what it's like to grow up knowing the one person in the world who should have wanted you most hated you and the one who others claim loves you because she adopted you is an abusive c*** with the maturity of a two-year-old.
Great Nortend wrote:Do you think swearing is making you sound clever? I find it irresponsible to have sex if you are not prepared to look after the child at the end. Your analogy is also pretty far fetched. A more apt one would be someone driving alone (living life), and deciding to drink alcohol and getting into a car crash that way. Sure you can drink alcohol, but be prepared to suffer the consequences.
No, I think swearing is a fucking intensity modifier. I don't need to sound clever, as I know I'm highly intelligent and have no need to prove it to anyone.
Moving on from the cheap jabs, my analogy is quite fitting, actually. Getting in a wreck is just one potential consequence of driving, and is a largely, though not perfectly, preventable one that can usually be remedied after it happens with the marvels of modern medicine and repair techniques.
Great Nortend wrote:Are we seriously trying to fit procreation perfectly into a contractual analogy? You can't arbitrarily define starting dates either. The cells may be nonsapient before 24-weeks but it still has its own unique DNA. Why shouldn't we draw the line there? It's artificial to demand sapience as being the determining factor.
DNA is nothing. In the matter of whether or not something is a person, DNA is as useless an indicator as color of paint on or brand of a car is to its speed and handling capabilities. What do we often use to define humanity? A soul. What trait does every religion in the world attribute to that? Free will.
Now, in order to have free will, one must have a functioning brain. It is, in essence, the hardware in which the soul is stored. The brain is not developed enough to function until around the 24-week point. Before the brain reaches that point in development, the fetus feels nothing. Knows nothing. There is no difference between life and death at that point from the nonexistent perspective of the fetus. Therefore, it is not, in fact, artificial to demand sapience be the determining factor, as sapience, having a soul, or, in more scientific terms, achieving consciousness, is, if we had to pick just one, THE defining feature of being human. Before that point, the fetus is no different from literally any other fetus of any other species (see Katganistan's rabbit fetus earlier in the thread and compare to a human fetus at the same stage of development). Achieving free will is when the fetus becomes a person, if we want to step away from the legal definition of personhood.
Great Nortend wrote:Then why don't they jump off a bridge and die? The reason is that they have hopes, dreams and feelings. A person once born has a chance to make his life a good one. If you abort, you deny him any chance, essentially what we would consider the tort of a loss of a chance.
That's a cute little bumper sticker, but you clearly ain't spent any significant time with homeless people. *some* do, but most have pretty much given up and are just existing on a level just above autopilot.
Great Nortend wrote:I do think creating lives are inherently good. You can climb down from your ivory tower and stop arbitrating on whether some person's life may be bad or not. You may not wish it on vermin but you know what? The vast majority of people value their own lives. A bit rich coming from someone who is not dead to say that an aborted foetus would have had a life so bad that he would have wanted to die.
Then you are a fool who assumes that his lack of significant hardship is the same for everyone. Get some experience in the real world. You'll soon learn there are fates worse than death.
Though, to be fair, I'm glad you don't get it. There are things in this world you can only really understand by going through them.
Great Nortend wrote:You expect me to extract that from a statement that “Abortions are also not generally performed on people unless there's a medical need. Elective abortions beyond the 24-week point are incredibly rare.”? The plain-english interpretation of that is that out of all the abortions performed, the majority are for a medical purposes, which is plainly wrong. Contorting the word 'people' to mean 'foetuses which I consider to be human enough to worry about' really does not follow in the context. The plain fact of the matter is, elective abortions are by far the most common reason.
I expect you to look at the context and, yes, understand what I meant, given it was part of a paragraph in which I had mentioned the point of sapience. And elective abortions beyond that point are in the vast minority (something like 1-2%).
Great Nortend wrote:I would disagree with that; the law is empowered to force a person to use his or her body without consent.
Cute, but a fetus is not the law, and even the law has limits. Even if a fetus was a person, that would not entitle it to use its mother's body without her consent.
Great Nortend wrote:What is your point?? I serious can't tell your chain of argument here at all. Abortion is violent, and enforcing anti-abortion laws is violent. So is enforcing any law, like jaywalking or public nudity. You can be arrested for refusing to give your name and address when asked. None of that is at all relevant in my argument that the law should not allow the intentional infliction of serious injury on a person. In fact, it is established that consent is no defence for someone who inflicts serious injury on another (R v Brown). Maybe I have a strong desire to get my leg chopped off. It is still assault occasioning GBH even if I consent.
You claim bans are not violent. I demonstrated that they are (and no, you cannot be arrested for refusing to give your name and address when asked. If there is not reasonable cause, you have the right to refuse to answer any questions. Even if there is, you *still* have the right to refuse to answer without a lawyer present, and can *still* refuse to answer under the advice of your lawyer. At least in the US. There's not much cause not to answer, mind you, but it's not illegal to refuse to answer questions.). You somehow got, out of that, that consent was being argued as a justification for assault? WHAT?
Also, legally speaking, even sapient fetuses aren't people, as the legal definition of personhood requires said individual to have been born.
Great Nortend wrote:Sorry; it gets confusing.
Eh, it happens. I'd be lying if I said I'd never mixed posters up during an argument.