![Post Post](./styles/prosilver-ns/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
I consented to drinking and driving but not to crashing into anybody. Not my fault.
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Ktismandrasi wrote:Godular wrote:
Precedent, primarily.
But look at it from the other direction: If rights don’t exist... well that purported right to life argument would be pretty silly too, don’t ya think?
Yes, I suppose this whole thing seems a bit silly. Precedent seems like a remarkably useful thing, but it also seems somewhat groundless and arbitrary, I imagine even contradictory as well? But I suppose we're lucky since we have precedent, and a lot of it, unlike those long before us. (I am taking precedent to simply mean things have been done before a certain way for a while, but this may be too simplistic, so correct me if I err)
Australian rePublic wrote:Myrensis wrote:
So murdering a baby because you don't want it is wrong, but murdering a baby because it's father did something bad is acceptable? Interesting philosophy.
No, it's acceptable. Nothing about rape is acceptable. A rape victim has enough problems without having to worry about unwanted pregnancies. The poor woman didn't choose to have sex, and doesn't need to have her life ruined because of it. Killing the baby is still wrong, but less wrong than forcing the woman to live with it. It's a necassery evil. It's still an evil, but a necassery. A more extreme example would be killing conscripts when fighting a war against an oppressor. Is it evil to kill the conscripts, of coarse, but a neccasery evil. I'm not comparing war to abortion, I am using it to illustrate that unfortunately we live in a world of neccasery evils
Crockerland wrote:The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Except it isn’t. Even if the fetus had the rights a born person would, it still would not have the right to use the woman’s body without her consent. Innocence is an emotional appeal that has no relevance to the matter.
Judge: "Ma'am, is it true you starved your newborn son to death?"
Woman: "Your honor, that's true, but it was just a clump of cells. And even if it was a person, it didn't have a right to use my body. I didn't consent to breast feeding so that makes it okay."
The New California Republic wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:No, it's acceptable. Nothing about rape is acceptable. A rape victim has enough problems without having to worry about unwanted pregnancies. The poor woman didn't choose to have sex, and doesn't need to have her life ruined because of it. Killing the baby is still wrong, but less wrong than forcing the woman to live with it. It's a necassery evil. It's still an evil, but a necassery. A more extreme example would be killing conscripts when fighting a war against an oppressor. Is it evil to kill the conscripts, of coarse, but a neccasery evil. I'm not comparing war to abortion, I am using it to illustrate that unfortunately we live in a world of neccasery evils
I also note that you don't give exceptions if the pregnancy poses a credible risk to the woman's life.
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:No, it's acceptable. Nothing about rape is acceptable. A rape victim has enough problems without having to worry about unwanted pregnancies. The poor woman didn't choose to have sex, and doesn't need to have her life ruined because of it. Killing the baby is still wrong, but less wrong than forcing the woman to live with it. It's a necassery evil. It's still an evil, but a necassery. A more extreme example would be killing conscripts when fighting a war against an oppressor. Is it evil to kill the conscripts, of coarse, but a neccasery evil. I'm not comparing war to abortion, I am using it to illustrate that unfortunately we live in a world of neccasery evils
And entirely unnecessary evils, like throwing women in jail for having abortions.
Sorry, but you can't just shrug off the consequences of your philosophy. If abortion is murder you can't just let murderers go free when other murderers serve time.
Godular wrote:Crockerland wrote:Judge: "Ma'am, is it true you starved your newborn son to death?"
Woman: "Your honor, that's true, but it was just a clump of cells. And even if it was a person, it didn't have a right to use my body. I didn't consent to breast feeding so that makes it okay."
Strawman summarily immolated.
Australian rePublic wrote:The New California Republic wrote:I also note that you don't give exceptions if the pregnancy poses a credible risk to the woman's life.
It goes without saying that there should be an exception for situations when a mother's life is at risk, or if a baby will grow up with a genetic disorder that will ruin their life. I didn't think I needed to state the obvious
The New California Republic wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Why? I'm a woman and I do not concent a baby sucking milk from my breast. This is a violation of bodily autonomy. How is that different to what you're arguing?
If you forced her to breastfeed then yes. But that is not what you are arguing here. And because formula exists. Hence it is a strawman.
Australian rePublic wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
And entirely unnecessary evils, like throwing women in jail for having abortions.
Sorry, but you can't just shrug off the consequences of your philosophy. If abortion is murder you can't just let murderers go free when other murderers serve time.
Once again, moral argument, not a legal argument. Perhaps I misused the word "murderer" fine, but it doesn't change my argument.
Godular wrote:Ktismandrasi wrote:Yes, I suppose this whole thing seems a bit silly. Precedent seems like a remarkably useful thing, but it also seems somewhat groundless and arbitrary, I imagine even contradictory as well? But I suppose we're lucky since we have precedent, and a lot of it, unlike those long before us. (I am taking precedent to simply mean things have been done before a certain way for a while, but this may be too simplistic, so correct me if I err)
That would be ‘tradition’.
Precedent is somewhat similar to tradition in that it relies on prior instances to guide it, but also applies a degree of logic to it. In this case, a person having the right to defend themselves from assault is treated as a rather universal point of agreement. There are some limitations, such as rules about necessary force and whatnot, but for the most part it is pretty cut and dry.
Denying a woman the capacity to rectify an unwanted pregnancy is logically inconsistent with this premise, and utilizes a foundation that has itself been previously contradicted.
The New California Republic wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:It goes without saying that there should be an exception for situations when a mother's life is at risk, or if a baby will grow up with a genetic disorder that will ruin their life. I didn't think I needed to state the obvious
Given the exceptions you are making to your legal argument that abortion is murder, you absolutely do need to say it actually.
Australian rePublic wrote:The New California Republic wrote:If you forced her to breastfeed then yes. But that is not what you are arguing here. And because formula exists. Hence it is a strawman.
Okay, there's no baby formula on the shelves. The baby was born in 1800, 61 years before the invention of baby formula. Baby formula is outlawed, Whatever the case maybe, my point still stands
Australian rePublic wrote:The New California Republic wrote:If you forced her to breastfeed then yes. But that is not what you are arguing here. And because formula exists. Hence it is a strawman.
Okay, there's no baby formula on the shelves. The baby was born in 1800, 61 years before the invention of baby formula. Baby formula is outlawed, Whatever the case maybe, my point still stands
Australian rePublic wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Given the exceptions you are making to your legal argument that abortion is murder, you absolutely do need to say it actually.
It's not a fucking legalargument, if you can't understand that despite me parroting myself multiple times, then you're too stupid to argue with, and I'm done with you
Australian rePublic wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Given the exceptions you are making to your legal argument that abortion is murder, you absolutely do need to say it actually.
It's not a fucking legalargument, if you can't understand that despite me parroting myself multiple times, then you're too stupid to argue with, and I'm done with you
The New California Republic wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Once again, moral argument, not a legal argument. Perhaps I misused the word "murderer" fine, but it doesn't change my argument.
You said abortion is murder. That is a legal argument. "Abortion is wrong" is a moral argument. But that's not what you said. You said abortion is murder. Hence it is a legal argument you are making.
Godular wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Okay, there's no baby formula on the shelves. The baby was born in 1800, 61 years before the invention of baby formula. Baby formula is outlawed, Whatever the case maybe, my point still stands
It’s still a strawman. I shall now roast some baked beans over it.
Also: wet nurses exist
Australian rePublic wrote:The New California Republic wrote:You said abortion is murder. That is a legal argument. "Abortion is wrong" is a moral argument. But that's not what you said. You said abortion is murder. Hence it is a legal argument you are making.
Okay, I used the wrong fucking word. I admitted I used the wrong fucking word. Grow up and move on. If you don't wanna grow up and move on like everyone else who disagrees with me has. then you're too immature to argue with, and not worth my time. Either case, you're not worth arguing at this
Godular wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Okay, there's no baby formula on the shelves. The baby was born in 1800, 61 years before the invention of baby formula. Baby formula is outlawed, Whatever the case maybe, my point still stands
It’s still a strawman. I shall now roast some baked beans over it.
Also: wet nurses exist
The New California Republic wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Okay, I used the wrong fucking word. I admitted I used the wrong fucking word. Grow up and move on. If you don't wanna grow up and move on like everyone else who disagrees with me has. then you're too immature to argue with, and not worth my time. Either case, you're not worth arguing at this
Yes you have only just admitted it in this post, you were content to drag your heels for several posts before this admission. You dragged this out, not me.
Australian rePublic wrote:The New California Republic wrote:You said abortion is murder. That is a legal argument. "Abortion is wrong" is a moral argument. But that's not what you said. You said abortion is murder. Hence it is a legal argument you are making.
Okay, I used the wrong fucking word. I admitted I used the wrong fucking word. Grow up and move on. If you don't wanna grow up and move on like everyone else who disagrees with me has. then you're too immature to argue with, and not worth my time. Either case, whether it's because you're stupid or because you're immature, then you're not worth arguing with