Question For Pro-Choice People

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 05:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Are you purposefully choosing to ignore the context? If so, please let me know so that I don't waste my time responding. If not, I'm going to suggest that you go back to the start before responding, because this isn't a matter of "which is worse" it's a matter of "are the two examples comparable in the context of a woman's right to ownership of her body?" (a woman's ownership of her body is the issue that was being debated). 

Not purposely. I've already told Brad his example of cutting off limbs was silly but IMO his article of parents purposely trying to make their child deaf is equivalent to a parent wanting a child to be born without all limbs. Brad did say take it out to break limbs; I'm assuming he meant they reinserted it. 

I think his point is more toward the women's ownership of the unborn and her "right" to do with it as she sees fit.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 05:35 PM)Benton Wrote: In this instance, it was semen put in a test tube. 

So, no, it's not the same as surgical maiming.

Semen that she hoped would cause a disability. I get you're planting your flag on the means and not the end. IMO neither end justifies either mean. Both want their child to be born disabled and I find both the be perverse regardless how they attempt to go about it. 

[fredtoast]

I think this is a good time to insert a plug for the book "Geek Love".

It is about a family of circus freaks intentionally created by the parents using all types of chemicals and radioactivity. They feel sorry for "norms". The "fishboy" son becomes like a travelling evangelist and convinces people to dismember themselves in order to become "special". It goes WAY over the top.

It is a very dark book, but very well written.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-16-2019, 06:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That's hypocritical because you said it's her body.  Killing the child before term damages it more than dismembering it would.

Unlikely, but possible.  

You think a woman who wants to be pregnant is "unlikely" to avoid activities which could harm the fetus?

[BFritz21]

(05-16-2019, 06:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about what I am saying.  Apparently you just lack the ability to understand a very simple concept.  I honestly don't know how to make it any more simple.

Child not carried past end of second trimester....no punishment for killing or damage done.

Child carried past end of second trimester....punishment for killing (except to protect the life of the mother) or any damage done.



If you still don't get it I give up.

That's exactly what I've been asking and apparently you're completely ok with dismembering it and then carrying it to term because it was before the end of the second trimester.  Why would there be punishment for damage done before the end of the second trimester?  Killing the baby is much worse than any other damage done.

I also love how you're calling it a baby now and not a fetus because you're finally recognizing that it's a person.......  welcome to the club!

[BmorePat87]

(05-16-2019, 06:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not purposely. I've already told Brad his example of cutting off limbs was silly but IMO his article of parents purposely trying to make their child deaf is equivalent to a parent wanting a child to be born without all limbs. Brad did say take it out to break limbs; I'm assuming he meant they reinserted it. 

We're not comparing their desire, we're comparing the action of acting on the desire. One involves an invasive surgery that mutilates a fetus. The other involved picking who to have sex with. One directly interacts with the fetus while one involves deciding which sperm you want to fertilize your ovum. One straight up involves a fetus inside of a woman's body. One does not. 

Quote:I think his point is more toward the women's ownership of the unborn and her "right" to do with it as she sees fit.

He specifically says "just because it's the woman's body and she can do what she wants?". He may see the pro-choice position of "women own their bodies" as implying that women "own the fetus". I've never made that argument and I do not think I have ever seen that from the pro choice crowd here, so I am going off of what was stated. Regardless of this distinction, we're in agreement that it's a philosophical discussion over women doing what they want to that fetus. 

In the example of using a deaf man's sperm, there's no fetus. There's no manipulation of that fetus. There's no arguing you can do it because it is inside you. It's "I want to have a child with these traits so I am reproducing with someone with those traits". 

[BmorePat87]

(05-16-2019, 06:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Semen that she hoped would cause a disability. I get you're planting your flag on the means and not the end. IMO neither end justifies either mean. Both want their child to be born disabled and I find both the be perverse regardless how they attempt to go about it. 

The debate is over the means, though, not the end. 

"Should a woman being able to mutilate but not destroy a fetus because it is inside of her?"

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 07:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The debate is over the means, though, not the end. 

Only because 1 mean is possible. Brad presented a scenario where both were. And I thought his example of women actually trying to make their child disabled was corollary. We can award points in a debate and still not agree with the premise. In his way he made sense. We're Ok with killing it. but we'd most likely be opposed if there were a procedure where a DR could go in there and remove limbs at the mother's request. 

As I said I find both to be repugnant regardless of the means

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 07:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The debate is over the means, though, not the end. 

"Should a woman being able to mutilate but not destroy a fetus because it is inside of her?"

To the edit question:

If you believe the child has no rights then Just as much of a right as killing it. 

[BFritz21]

(05-16-2019, 07:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We're not comparing their desire, we're comparing the action of acting on the desire. One involves an invasive surgery that mutilates a fetus. The other involved picking who to have sex with. One directly interacts with the fetus while one involves deciding which sperm you want to fertilize your ovum. One straight up involves a fetus inside of a woman's body. One does not. 





He specifically says "just because it's the woman's body and she can do what she wants?". He may see the pro-choice position of "women own their bodies" as implying that women "own the fetus". I've never made that argument and I do not think I have ever seen that from the pro choice crowd here, so I am going off of what was stated. Regardless of this distinction, we're in agreement that it's a philosophical discussion over women doing what they want to that fetus. 

In the example of using a deaf man's sperm, there's no fetus. There's no manipulation of that fetus. There's no arguing you can do it because it is inside you. It's "I want to have a child with these traits so I am reproducing with someone with those traits". 

So the woman can destroy something she doesn't own?!  Explain that one to me!

I agree she doesn't own it and it's a person, but then what makes it ok to kill?

You pro-choice people are confusing!  

[BmorePat87]

(05-16-2019, 07:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Only because 1 mean is possible. Brad presented a scenario where both were. And I thought his example of women actually trying to make their child disabled was corollary. We can award points in a debate and still not agree with the premise. In his way he made sense. We're Ok with killing it. but we'd most likely be opposed if there were a procedure where a DR could go in there and remove limbs at the mother's request. 

As I said I find both to be repugnant regardless of the means

Arguing over "can someone do something that harms or destroys a fetus in them" is not the same as arguing over "Can someone have sex with someone if they know their offspring could inherit a genetic disorder".

And bringing up the latter in no means validates or defends using an absurd example for the former. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 07:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Arguing over "can someone do something that harms or destroys a fetus in them" is not the same as arguing over "Can someone have sex with someone if they know their offspring could inherit a genetic disorder".

And bringing up the latter in no means validates or defends using an absurd example for the former. 

I see how you're trying to spin it, but the example provided is not "Someone having sex with someone knowing their offspring could inherit a genetic disorder". They want to engineer it to ensure the child is born disabled. 

Phrasing it the way you did makes it less absurd, but also less accurate. Phrase it correctly: it is both absurd and accurate. 

[BmorePat87]

(05-16-2019, 08:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I see how you're trying to spin it, but the example provided is not "Someone having sex with someone knowing their offspring could inherit a genetic disorder". They want to engineer it to ensure the child is born disabled. 

Phrasing it the way you did makes it less absurd, but also less accurate. Phrase it correctly: it is both absurd and accurate. 

None of that change the fact that selective reproduction is not an example of causing harm to a fetus inside your body.

It certainly doesn't support any arguments that a fetus has human rights much less rights that supersede the woman's.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 10:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: None of that change the fact that selective reproduction is not an example of causing harm to a fetus inside your body.

It certainly doesn't support any arguments that a fetus has human rights much less rights that supersede the woman's.

But abortion is an example of causing harm to a child inside your body. Selective breeding in this case just tries to cause harm before conception. 

Seems like you're kinda twisting it. I'm opposed to both methods (selective breeding to promote disability and invasive measures to promote disability) because I give the unborn child some consideration. Both are perverse and nothing changes that. 

Your last line has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed, but it reads nice.  

[Benton]

(05-16-2019, 06:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Semen that she hoped would cause a disability. 

Using the analogy so far:

There's no difference in hoping your kid is tall and having them undergo painful surgeries to alter their genetic makeup to make them taller.

Stop for the love of all that's made of cheese. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 11:19 PM)Benton Wrote: Using the analogy so far:

There's no difference in hoping your kid is tall and having them undergo painful surgeries to alter their genetic makeup to make them taller.

Stop for the love of all that's made of cheese. 

You accuse me of an "absurd slippery slope stance" and then try to equate hoping your kid is tall to hoping your kid is disabled.

My stance was Brad's assertion that parents would want their child to be born disabled was silly and then he posted an article confirming his assertion. He proved me wrong.

But in yours and Pat's motivation to not yield the point, you have defended (not the same) parents that strive to have their offspring born disabled.

But I will stop. Not for things made of cheese, but because the defense is absurd. 

[BmorePat87]

(05-16-2019, 10:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But abortion is an example of causing harm to a child inside your body. Selective breeding in this case just tries to cause harm before conception. 

Seems like you're kinda twisting it. I'm opposed to both methods (selective breeding to promote disability and invasive measures to promote disability) because I give the unborn child some consideration. Both are perverse and nothing changes that. 

I don't think I am the one twisting things as I am not the one saying that cutting open someone and mutilating a fetus is the same as choosing to only reproduce with deaf people. I know you're only focused on the outcome because there is no other similarity, but we're discussing what supposed rights a woman has and how that supersedes any supposed right a fetus has in her body. If one scenario only involves sperm and ova, there's no link unless we're arguing sperm and ova have human rights.

Quote:Your last line has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed, but it reads nice.  

I completely disagree. That's the counter claim to "a woman's ownership of her body". In the case of selective breeding, only sperm and ova are involved, not a fetus, so it fails to serve as a good argument in support of the counter claim. 

[GMDino]

(05-17-2019, 08:33 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think I am the one twisting things as I am not the one saying that cutting open someone and mutilating a fetus is the same as choosing to only reproduce with deaf people. I know you're only focused on the outcome because there is no other similarity, but we're discussing what supposed rights a woman has and how that supersedes any supposed right a fetus has in her body. If one scenario only involves sperm and ova, there's no link unless we're arguing sperm and ova have human rights.



I completely disagree. That's the counter claim to "a woman's ownership of her body". In the case of selective breeding, only sperm and ova are involved, not a fetus, so it fails to serve as a good argument in support of the counter claim. 

I always wanted to marry a taller woman.  Seemed like every generation in my family was getting shorter!   

(I didn't though...and our son is taller than both of us!)

I didn't know then that I was actually on the same level as someone who wants to deliberately cut their child's arms and legs off just so they can be disabled. 

I feel so dirty now!  

[*bfine32*]

(05-17-2019, 09:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: I always wanted to marry a taller woman.  Seemed like every generation in my family was getting shorter!   

(I didn't though...and our son is taller than both of us!)

I didn't know then that I was actually on the same level as someone who wants to deliberately cut their child's arms and legs off just so they can be disabled. 

I feel so dirty now!  

You just equated yourself to someone who wants their child to be disabled. Perhaps your dirty feelings are justified.

[GMDino]

(05-17-2019, 12:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You just equated yourself to someone who wants their child to be disabled. Perhaps your dirty feelings are justified.

You apparently don't get sarcasm in the comparison.



You might want to walk away form this.