The joke that is American politics

#126
#126
emainvol said:
Well then charge the rapist with murder, too. Accusing a woman of the same is pure rubbish.
Click to expand...

I have already stated that laws and sentences for rapists should be much harsher. I read once that 93% of rapes are committed by someone who has been charged with rape previously. It is a travesty that our justice system allows these people to return to society.

The baby is innocent. I am not sure how that is difficult for you to understand. It is the justice equivalent of executing you to death for Jeff Dahmer's crimes.

Is there any other instance where the convenience or comfort or even mental/emotional well being of one person is prioritized over the life of another person? Is there any other situation where it is OK to terminate the life of someone else because they're a bother?
 
#127
#127
utvolpj said:
the dependency of a newborn and a fetus is different
Click to expand...

So? You are evading the very obvious point. Personhood is NOT subject to location, dependence level, or stage of development. You have still made no rational case for birth being the beginning of "life" or being "human".

You have simply staked out a position and then arbitrarily chose a standard out of thin air.

If something has human dna and normal human metabolism then what is that thing? It is not a difficult question... why do you keep avoiding it?
 
#128
#128
as I've said before, it's a human fetus (used generically) with the possibility to grow into a human being. Lots of things have to happen for that to actually occur. Your requirements (dna/metabolism) don't guarantee life any more than the "arbitrary" standard I chose.
 
#129
#129
sjt18 said:
I have already stated that laws and sentences for rapists should be much harsher. I read once that 93% of rapes are committed by someone who has been charged with rape previously. It is a travesty that our justice system allows these people to return to society.

The baby is innocent. I am not sure how that is difficult for you to understand. It is the justice equivalent of executing you to death for Jeff Dahmer's crimes.

Is there any other instance where the convenience or comfort or even mental/emotional well being of one person is prioritized over the life of another person? Is there any other situation where it is OK to terminate the life of someone else because they're a bother?
Click to expand...

I think it's obvious that we have very different opinions about when something becomes a person.
 
#130
#130
utvolpj said:
as I've said before, it's a human fetus (used generically) with the possibility to grow into a human being. Lots of things have to happen for that to actually occur. Your requirements (dna/metabolism) don't guarantee life any more than the "arbitrary" standard I chose.
Click to expand...

Using his standards, women who have had multiple miscarriages and still attempt to get pregnant are scum. I mean, they know full well that they are at a high risk to miscarry, and that DNA and metabolism never got its fair shake.
 
#131
#131
emainvol said:
Using his standards, women who have had multiple miscarriages and still attempt to get pregnant are scum. I mean, they know full well that they are at a high risk to miscarry, and that DNA and metabolism never got its fair shake.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't believe sjt is the type of person to go that way at all. But if someone did it would probably not be a discussion I would participate in
 
#132
#132
emainvol said:
I think it's obvious that we have very different opinions about when something becomes a person.
Click to expand...

And I have given very concrete, objective reasons for my contention. I really like utvolpj and agree with him often but neither of you have given anything more than convenient and arbitrary "just so" answers to the question.

If we are all civilized people and I presume we are then surely we would say that if we are to err on something as important is life or personhood it should be to the side of caution. If I am ever in an accident, I would not want my body kept on life support if I had no chance of being more than a vegetable. OTOH, I would want them to err to the side of caution. Wouldn't you?

The question isn't then "What proof do you have this is a person?" The correct question is "Considering this entity has human dna and normal human metabolism for their stage of development, what proof do you have they are NOT a person?"
 
#133
#133
emainvol said:
Using his standards, women who have had multiple miscarriages and still attempt to get pregnant are scum.
Click to expand...
You know lying and putting words into someone's mouth in an attempt to set up a straw man is a very dishonest debate tactic... and also very indicative of someone who cannot argue the issue honestly and objectively.
I mean, they know full well that they are at a high risk to miscarry, and that DNA and metabolism never got its fair shake.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That non-point is every bit as valid as "We should sterilize everyone at birth since all of their off spring will die at some point".

The very critical thing you are intentionally overlooking is that a miscarriage is not the direct result of choice. An abortion is the CHOICE to end the life of an unborn child. It is volitional and intentional. A miscarriage is not.

Your argument is like saying that someone who accidentally bumps into someone causing them to fall down some steps and die bears the same guilt as someone who pushed someone down steps. Yours is an extreme logical fallacy.
 
#134
#134
sjt18 said:
You know lying and putting words into someone's mouth in an attempt to set up a straw man is a very dishonest debate tactic... and also very indicative of someone who cannot argue the issue honestly and objectively.

Yeah. That non-point is every bit as valid as "We should sterilize everyone at birth since all of their off spring will die at some point".

The very critical thing you are intentionally overlooking is that a miscarriage is not the direct result of choice. An abortion is the CHOICE to end the life of an unborn child. It is volitional and intentional. A miscarriage is not.

Your argument is like saying that someone who accidentally bumps into someone causing them to fall down some steps and die bears the same guilt as someone who pushed someone down steps. Yours is an extreme logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Mine was obviously heavily sarcastic. I don't agree with you, but you represent your argument well, and I can respect that.

That said, I think the whole rape thing is short-sighted on your part. That's not a slight, but if you want to look at a misrepresentation of a position, your whole Sam raped X so X should kill Y thing is completely off track.
 
#135
#135
emain, I think this is exactly the debate that needs to be had in our country. All too often the anti-abortion people press the morality angle. The pro-abortion people press women's rights or emotional angles of their own.

The only real question to answer here is how do we define a person and why.

The current situation is utterly ridiculous. Consider a woman traveling to a clinic considering whether to keep or abort a child. Suddenly a doctor traveling to work unintentionally runs a stop sign and hits her car killing her and her unborn child. He could be charged with two counts of vehicular homocide or man slaughter. However, if they both make it to the clinic safely, he could botch the abortion, kill both of the woman and unborn, and walk away Scot free even though the abortion was an intentional act.

It is ludicrous. The unborn either is alive or it isn't... whether it is wanted has nothing to do with making it a person.
 
#136
#136
As for the rape part, if we get to the point that we only need to debate whether an abortion can be had in a rape situation then I won't push you too hard on it. Maybe we can just say that rape victims can come in, have a DNZ, and go home without harrassment?
 
#137
#137
I think there are multiple situations in which an abortion is acceptable. I don't agree with the idea of abortion as birth control in the least. However, the rape thing is certainly one, as are some kinds of crazy birth defect like harlequin (in many cases), the aforementioned anencephaly is another (and I do not recommend that any of you look at the pictures of either of those as descriptions should suit you just fine). No one should have to go through any of that.
 
#138
#138
If we get to the point of talking about only 2-4% of abortions... the number due to rape or some serious medical problem... then much progress will have been made- 1 to 2 million vs 40k-80k.
 
#140
#140
droski said:
how many rape pregnancies happen a year? hard to imagine it's even in the hundreds.
Click to expand...

I have seen it somewhere that less that one percent of rape victims conceive. Some claim its higher, but even their percentage is low compared to the total.
 
#141
#141
Very difficult to determine since rape is one of the most underreported crimes.

IMO, about 95% of the pro-life people would jump at a prohibition of abortion with allowance for rape, incest, or serious physical health risks for the mother or child.
 
#142
#142
sjt18 said:
Very difficult to determine since rape is one of the most underreported crimes.

IMO, about 95% of the pro-life people would jump at a prohibition of abortion with allowance for rape, incest, or serious physical health risks for the mother or child.
Click to expand...

I would accept that, but as it stands I support pro-choice. It's not my body, it's not my decision to make and I don't think anyone but the woman should make the decision.
 
#143
#143
VOLatile said:
I would accept that, but as it stands I support pro-choice. It's not my body, it's not my decision to make and I don't think anyone but the woman should make the decision.
Click to expand...

i can support that up to a point. late term abortions are disgusting. i'm not smart enough to determine at what point it becomes disgusting (1 month, 2 month whatever), but at that point it is clearly murder. i don't feel a lot of sympathy for people who can't decide what to do or figure out if their pregnant by the second trimester.
 
#144
#144
droski said:
i don't feel a lot of sympathy for people who can't decide what to do or figure out if their pregnant by the second trimester.
Click to expand...

after just 12 weeks? I can but a decision would need to be made soon after
 
#145
#145
Tough decisions need to be made and the extremes of both sides need to be ignored on this subject. Very sad that a very simple solution can be so difficult to reach consesus on but par for the course as American politics go.
 
#146
#146
One thing has become clear - the old point of conception vs point of birth debate is virtually dead. It's hard to deny that "person" occurs prior to point of birth. That doesn't mean point of conception is "person" though.
 
#148
#148
droski said:
i tell you what i'll give them to week 14. :)
Click to expand...

I'm just saying there's a point where you're "out of the woods" and iirc it's around 11-12wks. There are also all kinds of test you can't do very early in the development that could influence a decision. There's a reason women don't announce it to the world the minute the test reads positive (well most don't).
 
#149
#149
VOLatile said:
I would accept that, but as it stands I support pro-choice. It's not my body, it's not my decision to make and I don't think anyone but the woman should make the decision.
Click to expand...

It isn't the woman's body in question either. The unborn child is NOT a part of the woman's body. The unborn is certainly dependent however it has its own dna and metabolism.

The woman made her choice about what to do with her body previously. That does not render a "super right" to kill someone because the consequences turned out to be undesirable. Making an irresponsible choice does not provide a sound basis for ending someone's life even if the side effects of the choice might be unpleasant or even harmful.

Your rationale applies equally well to virtually anything we call a crime.

If someone cannot protect themselves and gets robbed... you don't support that being illegal right? I mean after all it isn't your body or property involved in the dispute so you should be "pro-choice".

If a junky shot their dealer would this be a legitimate defense? "I know I made the choice to "have fun" and act irresponsibly in the process but he was damaging my body and costing me alot of money."

The argument about it being the woman's body is uniquely accepted for abortion... and rightly considered ridiculous for anything else. I contend it is ridiculous for abortion as well.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top