Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question For Pro-Choice People
(05-16-2019, 06:59 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Why would there be punishment for damage done before the end of the second trimester?

Because there is no damaged individual before the end of the second trimester, but there is afterwards.

Think of it this way.  Say you are making pottery.  You have a source of free clay, but you have to pay to have it baked in a kiln.  It does not matter how much you screw up your clay before you pay to bake it.  You can even throw it away if you mess up, but once you pay to have it baked you are responsible for the flaws.  

Since it is not even pottery before it is baked it does not matter what happens before it is baked, but if you screw up and bake it then you are responsible for screwed up pottery.

It is a very simple concept, and everyone seems to get it but you.  I hope this example helps.






**Predicts Brad will still miss the point and instead make some stupid comment about how fetus are different from pottery**
(05-17-2019, 01:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: You apparently don't get sarcasm in the comparison.



You might want to walk away form this.

I got the false equivalency in the comparison.




[Image: bfine-guns2.png]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
(05-17-2019, 02:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I got the false equivalency in the comparison.

Finally. Although if that means you'll quit arguing its the same it was worth it.


(05-17-2019, 02:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote:


Not at all. Just a friendly suggestion from someone who has been on the wrong end of trying to maintain a position until finally seeing I was not making a good argument.

But you do you buddy. ThumbsUp
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
If a woman can't be forced to give blood to save a life without her consent, and she can't be forced to give organs after she dies to save a life without (prior) consent, then I don't think we should be able to compel her to "save" the life of a fetus.

How can we grant more bodily autonomy to a corpse than we do to a living woman? This is my issue with efforts to limit or outlaw abortion. While I think these issues are difficult and I have some personal objections, I feel that bodily autonomy must be protected.

The fetus does not have autonomy because it has no ability to consent, object, make decisions or self-govern.
(05-17-2019, 02:26 PM)Lucidus Wrote: If a woman can't be forced to give blood to save a life without her consent, and she can't be forced to give organs after she dies to save a life without (prior) consent, then I don't think we should be able to compel her to "save" the life of a fetus.

How can we grant more bodily autonomy to a corpse than we do to a living woman? This is my issue with efforts to limit or outlaw abortion. While I think these issues are difficult and I have some personal objections, I feel that bodily autonomy must be protected.

The fetus does not have autonomy because it has no ability to consent, object, make decisions or self-govern.

One of the clearest explanation on the subject I have seen.

Kudos.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(05-17-2019, 02:26 PM)Lucidus Wrote: If a woman can't be forced to give blood to save a life without her consent, and she can't be forced to give organs after she dies to save a life without (prior) consent, then I don't think we should be able to compel her to "save" the life of a fetus.

How can we grant more bodily autonomy to a corpse than we do to a living woman? This is my issue with efforts to limit or outlaw abortion. While I think these issues are difficult and I have some personal objections, I feel that bodily autonomy must be protected.

The fetus does not have autonomy because it has no ability to consent, object, make decisions or self-govern.

Good argument, but (you knew it was coming) does an infant have the ability to consent, object, make decisions or self-govern? If your answer is no, then by your logic the mother should be able to do as the pleases to include killing it. Both the unborn and newborn are dependent on the mother.
[Image: bfine-guns2.png]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
(05-17-2019, 02:26 PM)Lucidus Wrote: If a woman can't be forced to give blood to save a life without her consent, and she can't be forced to give organs after she dies to save a life without (prior) consent, then I don't think we should be able to compel her to "save" the life of a fetus. 

This is a new angle on the argument, but I see a big difference between doing something to save a life (give blood) which we can not force a person to do and refraining from taking an action to kill another person (like murder or abortion) which we can absolutely force a person to do. 
(05-17-2019, 03:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Good argument, but (you knew it was coming) does an infant have the ability to consent, object, make decisions or self-govern? If your answer is no, then by your logic the mother should be able to do as the pleases to include killing it. Both the unborn and newborn are dependent on the mother.

You are correct that both the unborn and newborn are dependent on the mother, and neither yet has autonomy because they meet none of the criteria listed. Some important questions would then seem to follow and need to be answered:

Can the newborn eventually achieve autonomy? 
Can the unborn achieve autonomy if allowed to become a newborn?
Can the unborn achieve eventual autonomy by becoming a newborn, without the already existent autonomy of the mother being violated, in the event she wants an abortion and is prohibited from doing so? 

Once the baby is born, it has certain protections under the law, which no longer violate the mother's bodily autonomy. 
I'n the case of prohibiting abortion, you would have to violate the mother's already existent bodily autonomy.
(05-17-2019, 04:24 PM)Lucidus Wrote: You are correct that both the unborn and newborn are dependent on the mother, and neither yet has autonomy because they meet none of the criteria listed. Some important questions would then seem to follow and need to be answered:

Can the newborn eventually achieve autonomy? 
Can the unborn achieve autonomy if allowed to become a newborn?
Can the unborn achieve eventual autonomy by becoming a newborn, without the already existent autonomy of the mother being violated, in the event she wants an abortion and is prohibited from doing so? 

Once the baby is born, it has certain protections under the law, which no longer violate the mother's bodily autonomy. 
In the case of prohibiting abortion, you would have to violate the mother's already existent bodily autonomy.

In both cases (newborn/unborn) each child can achieve what you ask if left unmolested.
[Image: bfine-guns2.png]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
(05-17-2019, 03:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a new angle on the argument, but I see a big difference between doing something to save a life (give blood) which we can not force a person to do and refraining from taking an action to kill another person (like murder or abortion) which we can absolutely force a person to do. 

By prohibiting a woman from having an abortion, is it not the case that the fetus' "life" has been saved? 

The problem with prohibiting abortion is that the mother would be "forced" to do so, much like if she were forced to give blood or donate organs (after death) to save a life. 

The only real difference I see is that being forced to give blood (for instance) would be saving life through an action. Not being able to have an abortion would be saving a life through forced inaction.
(05-17-2019, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In both cases (newborn/unborn) each child can achieve what you ask if left unmolested.

Absolutely true.

The question is: Do we have the right to violate the mother's already existent bodily autonomy to ensure the unborn/newborn have the opportunity to eventually gain their own autonomy?
(05-17-2019, 04:35 PM)Lucidus Wrote: By prohibiting a woman from having an abortion, is it not the case that the fetus' "life" has been saved? 

The problem with prohibiting abortion is that the mother would be "forced" to do so, much like if she were forced to give blood or donate organs (after death) to save a life. 

The only real difference I see is that being forced to give blood (for instance) would be saving life through an action. Not being able to have an abortion would be saving a life through forced inaction.

Are you suggesting if I don't kill anyone today I saved a life? Where the hell is my Citizens Medal?
[Image: bfine-guns2.png]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
(05-17-2019, 04:39 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Absolutely true.

The question is: Do we have the right to violate the mother's already existent bodily autonomy to ensure the unborn/newborn have the opportunity to eventually gain their own autonomy?

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you're not the first person to have posed this question and had it debated thousands of times.
[Image: bfine-guns2.png]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Great news! I just saved my boss and now I'm gone for the weekend.
[Image: bfine-guns2.png]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
(05-17-2019, 01:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because there is no damaged individual before the end of the second trimester, but there is afterwards.

Think of it this way.  Say you are making pottery.  You have a source of free clay, but you have to pay to have it baked in a kiln.  It does not matter how much you screw up your clay before you pay to bake it.  You can even throw it away if you mess up, but once you pay to have it baked you are responsible for the flaws.  

Since it is not even pottery before it is baked it does not matter what happens before it is baked, but if you screw up and bake it then you are responsible for screwed up pottery.

It is a very simple concept, and everyone seems to get it but you.  I hope this example helps.






**Predicts Brad will still miss the point and instead make some stupid comment about how fetus are different from pottery**

There's a dead baby at the end of the second trimester, which is worse than anything you mentioned.

Anyways, you're not making any sense because you said it's the woman's body and it's her choice, so it shouldn't matter what she does to it before the end of the second trimester.

And everyone seems to get it but me?

Hilarious Hilarious Hilarious

There's people arguing both sides in here!  Empty rhetoric that's trying to intimidate me into not realizing that you don't have a point!  Typical!

I also love how you make personal attacks on me when you realize that your arguments aren't making any sense, and, please, mods, take note of these personal attacks because he'd be trying to have me suspended for them if it were the other way around.  

Also, the pottery argument is a horrible attempt at an anything and you're actually saying you're ok with what my OP asked because you're messing with the "pottery" before it reaches three months and then saying you're responsible for the flaws, so the parents would need to live with the child, but they wouldn't be punished for it, just like you wouldn't punish the person making the "pottery."

Hope that helps.
(05-17-2019, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In both cases (newborn/unborn) each child can achieve what you ask if left unmolested.

Eh, not so much. For an "unborn" maybe half the time, at best.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-paulson-when-life-begins-20171026-story.html

Quote:Even a chromosomally normal embryo will successfully implant and result in a live birth only about half the time. This is true whether fertilization takes place in the body or in the laboratory.

https://reference.medscape.com/article/266317-overview#showall

Quote:The overall miscarriage rate is reported as 15-20%, which means 15-20% of recognized pregnancies result in miscarriage. The frequency of spontaneous miscarriage increases further with maternal age. With the development of highly sensitive assays for hCG levels, pregnancies can be detected prior to the expected next period. When these highly sensitive hCG assays are used early, the magnitude of pregnancy loss significantly increases to about 60-70%.

That's 15-20% of recognized pregnancies which means the actual prevalence is greater than 15-20%.

God has a plan for you . . . even if that plan is a miscarriage as an unrecognized preganacy?  Wonder if they inherited Adam and Eve's sin at conception, too?
Evangelical sharia law. This is what it is.

They only care about people when they're not born yet and after that it's over. You can die whenever you want.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

(05-18-2019, 02:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Eh, not so much. For an "unborn" maybe half the time, at best.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-paulson-when-life-begins-20171026-story.html


https://reference.medscape.com/article/266317-overview#showall


That's 15-20% of recognized pregnancies which means the actual prevalence is greater than 15-20%.

God has a plan for you . . . even if that plan is a miscarriage as an unrecognized preganacy?  Wonder if they inherited Adam and Eve's sin at conception, too?

I did say each "can". Unfortunately miscarriages and infant deaths occur. 
[Image: bfine-guns2.png]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
(05-18-2019, 09:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I did say each "can". Unfortunately miscarriages and infant deaths occur. 

If the chance of rain today is 50% at best, would you say it can rain or it might rain?

Because the qualifier "if left unmolested" implies it is a fait accompli which as the data indicates isn't the reality.
(05-17-2019, 01:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because there is no damaged individual before the end of the second trimester, but there is afterwards.

Think of it this way.  Say you are making pottery.  You have a source of free clay, but you have to pay to have it baked in a kiln.  It does not matter how much you screw up your clay before you pay to bake it.  You can even throw it away if you mess up, but once you pay to have it baked you are responsible for the flaws.  

Since it is not even pottery before it is baked it does not matter what happens before it is baked, but if you screw up and bake it then you are responsible for screwed up pottery.

It is a very simple concept, and everyone seems to get it but you.  I hope this example helps.






**Predicts Brad will still miss the point and instead make some stupid comment about how fetus are different from pottery**

I think the big point of contention between pro-choice people and pro-birth people is determining at what point the "baking" occurs.

Pro-choice people will usually say the end of the 2nd trimester (there may be extreme pro choicers who will say "at birth" but I am not so sure about that).
Pro-birth people will almost certainly say either at implantation or at 6 weeks, when the heart beat can be detected.





Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)