I wasn't aware that the right to live was predicated on unassisted breathing.Quote by: minorwork
I wasn't aware that the right to live was predicated on unassisted breathing.
Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage
So, Nature is not supporting your points any more? Nature, or a divine whatever, provides mothers of other than human species the right to abort. Did I say "right?" Gonna pass laws to stop other species' abortions?
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Unless you're a fish, breathing air keeps you alive. Not breathing air? Death is immanent. I didn't invent the concept, just observing, describing the situation. Rights be a term I can't say I've seen used much in biology.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Then it is not balanced as the woman's responsibilities are bigger no matter the choice.
Abortion is before it is a child and adoption is a way to provide for the child.
It is a poor analogy. No matter what her choice she has more responsibility.
He can say I have no interest and walk away. He will be contacted if he needs to pay his part of the abortion etc. She can't simply tell him she has no interest and do nothing.
I didn't suggest otherwise. I have spoken about the influence at length. I was the one who raised the issue to begin with.
I have said what I meant. I have explained it without that word and you now know what I mean and yet you still want that definition for no reason at this point. I see not a thing cowardly in it at all.
You make your share of grammatical errors, but I do my best to understand rather that take every opportunity to insult.
No I don't. Maybe you do. I post the dictionary definition and almost always from the same source and then I work from there. I don't play games with definitions.
I don;t find it pointless to clarification. I have done it over and over, I have just not played your game.
Significant in terms of deciding.
So because your opinion of reality does not match what happened she is unintelligent or never meant her choice to begin with? She is in the 99 percentile for IQ and she really did mean to kill herself.
I never denied that. I have referred to it many times.
You didn't explain it. We agree that there are many factors and you claim that the 'choice' is a direct result of these factors and that 'choice' is dictated by those factors. Explain conscious choice.
Rather that a general statement with no sources please deal with them one at a time. Which use would that be?
So there is no choice.
I never said we could not make any choices. You are putting words in my mouth again.
So we are not capable of making choices then?
And rather I explained it in other words which you have just admited you understand so what is the poin
Hoe does "Sure, but that is only death. Death isn't the greatest possible countering influence. I bet enough physical torture would change anyone's tune." Demonstrate they are capable?
According to you if the right influences are strong enough the 'choice' would not be possible.
As I said it demonstrates that it is possible in those circumstances.
Again define choice.
I never said a woman's emotions or morals are a handicap. You did. I have explained it is part of being human many times. I have clearly stated that the man has the same potential and explain how I do in fact. Calling me sexist is another example of putting words in my mouth.
Then there is no choice, unless I misunderstand. Could you define what you mean by choice?
You claim an influence exists and yet you have no knowledge of it. An interesting dichotomy.
I am a man.
So what is a choice?
I never suggested that a person could not be tortured into these things.
But the what is choice?
[QUOT=LetThereBe;871244E]Why give the woman the "choice" though for whether or not it results in a child? You take away the man's "choice" of support but still grant the woman "choice" for abortion.
You also still grant the choice of adoption, so even if it does result in a child you are inconsistent and sexist.[/QUOTE]
Until you define choice your whole argument is without meaning.
Because you are saying it is inequitable and I have been largely argued based on the idea of choice which would vanish. Making abortion illegal would bring more children into the world that are not wanted and more women will be criminally charged for having them and since 'choice' is an illusion then so is any inequity based on that illusion. If there is no choice then it should be based on what is good for society.
How does it do so?
If by "your point" you mean I was offering an alternative to a point of yours I contested.
But it didn't.
With no free will there is no choice. With no choice individuality is a sheer accident. The best we can do is what is best for society.
I don't understand how brains work that well as I said earlier. Either do you.
You claimed to be making fun of my silly statement. That was your claim.
Support your claim : "you are comparing a debilitating mental illness with a woman's emotions"
Under those circumstances.
Of course it matters. Our individuality is not even our choice.
As for free will, laws in general are based on the idea of free will. What am I evading?
I said one time she was and I clearly told you that in two others she was not.
No free will and so yes there is no choice.
Explain how it is relevant then. Explain your point again.
That was an example of being found not guilty due to abuse that was not called self defense.
What are the other factors?
Then how were they related?
Spontaneous or coerced confessions.
It was an example of how emotions prevent actions.
If there is fundamentally no differences between internal and external factors that control our actions then how can we claim the woman is controlling the man's wealth in any real way. Whether she has an abortion or not is not a choice. If the child is born then both parents have an obligation.
You argument claims that the woman can simply avoid her responsibility by getting an abortion, but you have stated that she does not have this choice. She goes were the influences lead her.
Abortion is not dealing with a child. You are still playing games.
It is not an evasion at all and according to you not one has a way out unless that is where influences lead them.
The storys been told a million times,
but it's different when it's your life
The right to be so threatened by the male that they kill their young to prevent the death of their young or themselves?
That's the right you want human females to have?
Okie doke. I will stand with you today to ensure that a woman so threatened, and only so threatened, will not be denied the ability to abort her child at any stage of en uterine development.
The tree of liberty is hungry. Let's feed it well in the next election.
It is as "balanced" as when you get to choose how to spend your million dollars and I get to choose to spend my 100.
Saying you get to choose how to spend your million AND my hundred because you have the bigger responsibility (more money) is obviously absurd.
The woman doesn't get to control the man's choice just because her own responsibility is larger. She controls her larger responsibility, he controls his smaller responsibility. That is fair and equitable.
Debatable. A very large segment of the population would say the fetus is a child.Abortion is before it is a child...
Getting rid of something is the opposite of providing for. Adoption is making someone else provide for it... which is exactly the same as opting out of child support....and adoption is a way to provide for the child.
No, as if she chooses an abortion she has very little responsibility and he is still accountable for half of that.It is a poor analogy. No matter what her choice she has more responsibility.
He will need to pay his part of the abortion. She will need to get the abortion.He can say I have no interest and walk away. He will be contacted if he needs to pay his part of the abortion etc. She can't simply tell him she has no interest and do nothing.
There isn't some big discrepancy here.
Yes, but you only account for it in women with "strong emotions and morals". You pretend that it makes their decisions different or significant, but completely discount that this is the case for ALL decisions.I didn't suggest otherwise. I have spoken about the influence at length. I was the one who raised the issue to begin with.
What word?I have said what I meant. I have explained it without that word and you now know what I mean and yet you still want that definition for no reason at this point. I see not a thing cowardly in it at all.
You obviously can't even remember what was being discussed. This was regarding you claim that I made some caveat somewhere or something. I still have no idea what you are talking about.
You take every opportunity instead to dodge and misdirect. Please actually answer my challenge:You make your share of grammatical errors, but I do my best to understand rather that take every opportunity to insult.
Name one case where an entity has a right in one context, but is denied that very same right.
Yes, that is what I do... because that is what makes sense. If someone asks what you mean and you post a dictionary definition, that should be a dictionary definition of what you mean. It is like if someone asks for a source for your argument and you just use the random article link on wikipedia.No I don't. Maybe you do. I post the dictionary definition and almost always from the same source and then I work from there. I don't play games with definitions.
The source should actually be relevant to what you are talking about.
Well "my game" is providing a definition of what you are talking about... not just substituting a synonym and pretending that is "explaining" or "clarifying".I don;t find it pointless to clarification. I have done it over and over, I have just not played your game.
So are you saying NOT legally significant?Significant in terms of deciding.
In that case, who cares? This whole "argument" of yours has been a complete waste of time.
I am talking strictly about inequality before the law, and changes that should be made to make our laws equitable.
I am saying she either knows very little about killing herself or didn't actually decide to kill herself.So because your opinion of reality does not match what happened she is unintelligent or never meant her choice to begin with? She is in the 99 percentile for IQ and she really did mean to kill herself.
...yet your sexist position only thinks these are "significant" for the woman.I never denied that. I have referred to it many times.
Conscious choice is being aware of the choice you are making, whether or not you are aware of the myriad of subconscious influences that actually dictate the option that is taken.You didn't explain it. We agree that there are many factors and you claim that the 'choice' is a direct result of these factors and that 'choice' is dictated by those factors. Explain conscious choice.
You said the "ability" was a choice. Define "ability" in this case. (This may have just been an example of bad grammar).Rather that a general statement with no sources please deal with them one at a time. Which use would that be?
If that is how you want to interpret that, fine. I have no interest in making this an argument of free will.So there is no choice.
You are the one insisting this be an argument over free will, but as you insist. I don't care much either way. All that matters for this discussion is that a woman's choice of an abortion isn't fundamentally different from any of our other choices.I never said we could not make any choices. You are putting words in my mouth again.
I would say we do not have control over the choices we make, but we do make choices. The distinction is irrelevant for legal policy.So we are not capable of making choices then?
There is no point... this whole argument has been irrelevant from the start as you are just insisting on something you don't even claim has legal significance. Your whole position is completely pointless as it is fundamentally no different than any other "decision".And rather I explained it in other words which you have just admited you understand so what is the poin
If you are capable of doing something (whether after torture, asking nicely, buying you a cookie, or whatever) then we have proven you are capable of doing something. This is so obvious it is a tautology. If you do something you are capable of doing it.Hoe does "Sure, but that is only death. Death isn't the greatest possible countering influence. I bet enough physical torture would change anyone's tune." Demonstrate they are capable?
As "possible" as any choice that we don't make ever is.According to you if the right influences are strong enough the 'choice' would not be possible.
Pointless, and impossible to do. Demonstrate that it is possible for me to order that pizza when I'm feeling lazy, and have no other motivating influences.As I said it demonstrates that it is possible in those circumstances.
the right, power, or opportunity to choose; optionAgain define choice.
...yet you only say that the woman's handicapping morals and emotions are worth legal consideration. You say even if the man "can't" pay child support due to his emotions and morals we ignore it and make him. But for the woman we must coddle her emotions.I never said a woman's emotions or morals are a handicap. You did. I have explained it is part of being human many times. I have clearly stated that the man has the same potential and explain how I do in fact. Calling me sexist is another example of putting words in my mouth.
That is why your position is sexist.
the right, power, or opportunity to choose; optionThen there is no choice, unless I misunderstand. Could you define what you mean by choice?
I presume you are a human with a human brain... which means you are a meat machine controlled by electrical and chemical signals. What is "you" is something that you have no control over.You claim an influence exists and yet you have no knowledge of it. An interesting dichotomy.
Even ignoring that, your decisions are either based on influences or they are truly random. Either doesn't fare well for your argument.
I clearly meant "you" as in the hypothetical woman in the example.I am a man.
the right, power, or opportunity to choose; optionSo what is a choice?
Then they are capable of doing these things. If torture can make them do it, then they can do it. If torture can make me run a five minute mile, then I can run a five minute mile. No matter how much torture I could never run a two minute mile. That is not something I can possibly do.I never suggested that a person could not be tortured into these things.
the right, power, or opportunity to choose; optionBut the what is choice?
[QUOT=LetThereBe;871244E]Why give the woman the "choice" though for whether or not it results in a child? You take away the man's "choice" of support but still grant the woman "choice" for abortion.
You also still grant the choice of adoption, so even if it does result in a child you are inconsistent and sexist.[/QUOTE]
I really think we both know what choice means. Still, here it is again, in case you manage to forget.Until you define choice your whole argument is without meaning.
the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option
Whether or not we have free will, there can still be inequality. A system can be inequitable whether or not we have ultimate control over our decisions. If you say "gays can't marry" but "straight people can marry" you have inequality before the law. Free will never even enters the picture.Because you are saying it is inequitable and I have been largely argued based on the idea of choice which would vanish. Making abortion illegal would bring more children into the world that are not wanted and more women will be criminally charged for having them and since 'choice' is an illusion then so is any inequity based on that illusion.
Human rights matter whether or not we have free will. I personally believe that equality before the law is good for society. You seem to believe sexism and discriminatory laws are good for society.If there is no choice then it should be based on what is good for society.
By not making special cases.How does it do so?
You ignored the subconscious component. You insist that "the will" and "the self" is only the conscious component. If that is the case then it is irrelevant to discuss, as human decision making isn't based on just "the will" or "the self".But it didn't.
I guess you can define choice that way. I don't see what it matters whether individuality is an "accident" or not.With no free will there is no choice. With no choice individuality is a sheer accident. The best we can do is what is best for society.
I wouldn't call it an accident. I would call it a fundamental and necessary aspect of our biological being. It is the cornerstone of evolution.
They are meat machines. They are deterministic computers that function off of electrical and chemical signals.I don't understand how brains work that well as I said earlier. Either do you.
We have absolutely no reason to give credence to the idea that there is a magical soul inside that defies determinism.
It was a sarcastic claim for the purpose of mocking your argument. No one with stage fright is stupid enough to spend the rest of their lives standing up on a stage.You claimed to be making fun of my silly statement. That was your claim.
It is sad that you didn't even realize I was making fun of your argument.
You are comparing paralyzing stage fright with a woman's emotions. Stage fright of that extreme level is a severe mental phobia, and if it debilitates you on stage it is by definition debilitating.Support your claim : "you are comparing a debilitating mental illness with a woman's emotions"
You brought up this comparison, not me. You brought up this gross example of sexism, not me.
If you can do it under ANY set of circumstances, that proves it is possible.Under those circumstances.
Haha... of course it isn't! I didn't choose who my parents were going to be, and thus what genes I would possess. My individuality is not my choice. It is beyond my control!Of course it matters. Our individuality is not even our choice.
Our individuality is beyond all of our control.
No... no they aren't. The law doesn't care about such silly philosophical bickering. The law doesn't care if solipsism is right. The law doesn't care. None of these philosophical questions impacts how the law functions.As for free will, laws in general are based on the idea of free will. What am I evading?
Then she was barred one of those times.I said one time she was and I clearly told you that in two others she was not.
If that is how you want to define choice, fine. It doesn't really matter.No free will and so yes there is no choice.
A woman's choice over abortion is fundamentally the same as all of our choices... so it shouldn't be granted special legal consideration or significance.Explain how it is relevant then. Explain your point again.
...and you admitted I was right, that it was self defense. I'm still waiting for an example.That was an example of being found not guilty due to abuse that was not called self defense.
It can be anything. How much sleep you got, the color of the room, the smell in the air, what shampoo you used in the morning, and on and on and on. Our brain is a state machine. Every input is a potential factor.What are the other factors?
THEY WEREN'T.Then how were they related?
That isn't what I asked for. Give me specifically how this law should apply if we actually have true free will, and tell me how this law should be different if the philosophical concept of free will does not actually exist in reality.Spontaneous or coerced confessions.
They truly "prevent" actions when they are debilitating handicaps. I wouldn't call a person's emotions such.It was an example of how emotions prevent actions.
She is controlling the man's wealth whether or not she has "free will". Free will is irrelevant to the equation. If they have that obligation then legally they should not have the option to evade the obligation through abortion or adoption.If there is fundamentally no differences between internal and external factors that control our actions then how can we claim the woman is controlling the man's wealth in any real way. Whether she has an abortion or not is not a choice. If the child is born then both parents have an obligation.
She can avoid that responsibility, but some individuals will not take this option. That is what it means to be an individual and have an individual choice: you will choose differently from other people.You argument claims that the woman can simply avoid her responsibility by getting an abortion, but you have stated that she does not have this choice. She goes were the influences lead her.
It depends how you define child. Some would say it is.Abortion is not dealing with a child. You are still playing games.
It is an evasion because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is a massive red herring.It is not an evasion at all and according to you not one has a way out unless that is where influences lead them.
Everyone should have the option. The law doesn't care if we have "free will" determining our choices or if we make our choices because they are dictated by who we are.
Serious as a heart attack...
...and twice as deadly.
Not ready to swap saddles yet. OK. Thought a bit of play left postulating animals don't have the ability to choose such a thing as abortion, slaves to their instincts thing, limits that humans have exceeded...
I want human females to be masters of their fate, figuring both genders gain by both mastering their fates.That's the right you want human females to have?
A good start. With a loaded gun she has an alternative to aborting. Kill the threat.Okie doke. I will stand with you today to ensure that a woman so threatened, and only so threatened, will not be denied the ability to abort her child at any stage of en uterine development.
No other reasons? You would be the master of her fate as well as your own?
For any other reason would the determination have to be made on a case by case basis? And then wouldn't the mother know best the circumstances and her ability to live with a made choice, whichever way she chooses?
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Hi everyone,
I’ve just joined the forum and found this topic, and thought I’ed put in my 2-cents worth :)
I’d would like to address some of the earlier points that where raised; if I may.
First, the topic of war and its comparison to other species that was raised in this thread. For starters this has no bearing on the abortion
issue what so ever, but I wasn't happy with the responses that where given so here is my 2-cents worth.
War is solely a human trait, while yes it may appear that other species (on this mud-ball we call earth) exhibit war-like traits, but are in fact not war at all. Here are the parallels at what makes them human traits. The animal specie (including humans) have their own territory, which they patrol and protect from invaders of either their own or other species. However, that is where the similarities end, because unlike other species, humans do all theses things on a greed bases whilst other species do it on a ‘need bases’ which is where the definition of war comes in.
War is a human trait which is motivated by greed. If you disagree then consider a species closer to our own, e.g. apes (primates). Apes are very
protective of their territories. At any time a group of 3-5 young male apes cross the border (which is only for the need to procreat and in turn become the doment males) they are driven away, or killed depending on strength of the invading group. To support the ‘need bases’ argument,
the apes defending their territories, do not hunt down the offending apes like wanted crimals. Both ‘greed’ and ‘revenge’ are unique to the human specie.
Secondly, the topic of the outragous claim, that a foetus [‘fetus’ is an Americanization of ‘foetus’] at any stage of its growth from conception to birth (and thereafter) is a “parasite”. I dont know what to say, other then it would appear that from what you have said, your ideology is in the same realm of Hitler’s “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” (“Endlösung der Judenfrage”). Furthermore, I take exception to that comparison. I am, nor have I ever been (or will be) by definition a “parasite”. A ‘parasite’ is by definition a living organism that uses another living organism other than its own specie to survive, and will not leave the host unless the host is dead in which case the ‘parasite’ will also die (some exceptions to this rule maybe posable).
Thirdly, the question that was asked "can a vegetarian eat a tuna sandwich?" In a generalized response: Yes, your question makes sense. However, it does not have anything to do with the abortion subject, and furthermore, your proceding arguments leads me to believe, that you don’t know the meaning of that all importent 3-letter word: "can" which means having the ability to do, rather than in secular usage of asking
permission to do. I suggest you pick your words more carefully to avoid further confusion.
In conclusion, my 2-cents worth on the abortion issue. Most of everything that has been said here in this thread is irrelevant to the topic. Why? you may ask. Well its quite simple really. lets look at the nuts and bolts of the issue. We are trying to decide what is it to be "human," but that question has already been answered by science through DNA, which we can undoubtedly determine what species something is, be it plant or animal, regardless of its shape or size, alive or dead. Whether or not it is viable to live on its own or can socially conform to the law of the land is irrelevant. The argument I put forward is, that the smallest animal on this planet is, what is commonly known as an amoeba, which is just a single cell that reproduces through a process called mitosis. Why is it that those in the pro-choice camp label the beginning single cell of a homosapien (Uniquely its own being to any other member of the same specie) not a "human life"? Quite clearly, from a biological stand point, it is, from the moment of conception appearing to engineer the possible future potential of life despite the societal playground; and of the parents wants. Those in the pro-life camp are on side of the scientifically correct assertion that the new life begins at conception, and has the same potential, opportunity and equality as a new born or a 50+ year old, the only difference being the number of cells it has. So, all in all, I argue that the real question is, do you condone the murdering of your fellow human beings regardless of what stage of life they are in; notwithstanding ending any positive or negative potential future of any human being? Or alternatively, do you condemn the murdering of your fellow human beings, regardless of what stage of life they are in allowing either positive or negative potential growth to achieve its maximum?
Welcome to Volconvo.
I condone killing of the breathing. Not by any other than me and I'd have to judge the circumstances. The unborn? That's the woman's domain, for her to decide for herself.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Welcome to the forum!
There is more than one debate happening on this thread. The issue of vegetarians and tuna fish relates to the debate about a woman's power over her impregnator's finances, not to the debate about the ethics of abortion.
An amoeba can function independently of any other organism when it is comprised of 1 cell. A zygote cannot function independently of any other organism (with our current mastery of science).The argument I put forward is, that the smallest animal on this planet is, what is commonly known as an amoeba, which is just a single cell that reproduces through a process called mitosis. Why is it that those in the pro-choice camp label the beginning single cell of a homosapien (Uniquely its own being to any other member of the same specie) not a "human life"? Quite clearly, from a biological stand point, it is, from the moment of conception appearing to engineer the possible future potential of life despite the societal playground; and of the parents wants.
A fetus is an organism that feeds off and drastically changes a mother's body, ultimately subjecting her to a variety of health risks. I support a mother's choice to stop this from happening to herself.Those in the pro-life camp are on side of the scientifically correct assertion that the new life begins at conception, and has the same potential, opportunity and equality as a new born or a 50+ year old, the only difference being the number of cells it has. So, all in all, I argue that the real question is, do you condone the murdering of your fellow human beings regardless of what stage of life they are in; notwithstanding ending any positive or negative potential future of any human being? Or alternatively, do you condemn the murdering of your fellow human beings, regardless of what stage of life they are in allowing either positive or negative potential growth to achieve its maximum?
I'm having trouble understanding your response. It appears to be a little bit jumbled up; as I understand it. Could you please explain further and in more detail.
By your answer, is it safe for me to assume that: If one has a child (or children) at any stage of physical development, it is ok to murder them because of financial hardship?
I disagree, because at the moment of conception, the new life starts to multiply itself before it becomes implanted, through its own unique DNA coding; similar to an amoeba. The only difference being is the new multicellular organism requires more cellular growth to reach its full potential; whereas the amoeba doesn't.An amoeba can function independently of any other organism when it is comprised of 1 cell. A zygote cannot function independently of any other organism (with our current mastery of science).
Your argument dumbs down the child's potential to a fulfilled life. And turning the argument to you yourself: Firstly, would you end your life right now to compensate your mother for her being hypothetically forced to have you? Secondly, alternatively if you don't like that scenario, would you have been happy if your mother had terminated your life before your birth denying you all that you have experienced up to this very point in time? Whatever your answer is matters not to me, providing you are truthful to yourself, and only you will know, if you truly are.A fetus is an organism that feeds off and drastically changes a mother's body, ultimately subjecting her to a variety of health risks. I support a mother's choice to stop this from happening to herself.
Last edited by Bhaal-Zebub; 23rd April 2012 at 05:54 AM. Reason: Messed up on the quotes
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks