Abortion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How is it grasping at straws? Abortion is the only case where right to life and bodily autonomy meet head on.

No, it isn't:

- you aren't forced to risk death or even harm to save another person, even if they will certainly die without your help.
- you aren't forced to give up or let someone else use your organs, tissue, or fluid even if someone will die without them.

The right to life and bodily autonomy come into conflict all the time. In every case, bodily autonomy wins.

 

[Acim]

No, it isn't:

- you aren't forced to risk death or even harm to save another person, even if they will certainly die without your help.

This happens rarely in my experience. Maybe once every 5 years. Even then, it is not dependent on my body's autonomy for them to survive.

- you aren't forced to give up or let someone else use your organs, tissue, or fluid even if someone will die without them.

This has never occurred with me. So far I feel like you are bringing up a) rare situations and b) things that don't help with the case for abortion as a right.

The right to life and bodily autonomy come into conflict all the time. In every case, bodily autonomy wins.

In my experience, it is between never and incredibly rare. Perhaps you can better explain what you are stating cause thus far it really does appear like grasping at straws to make a point that I feel I already spoke to.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And yet your replies consistently avoid the points of the posts you reply to....
It is as though you are scared of having an honest discussion on the topic.

*I choose to answer some people's posts on some things.

*I choose less often to answer when the "questions" are rhetorical, mean-spirited or mocking

*I chose to not answer a weird statement you made that I could not comprehend. This marks the third time I'm asking you to either explain your meaning or retract your statement.

You'd be surprised at what I'm unafraid to discuss or debate, with God's help.

 

[BilliardsBall]

WTF does there not being another situation have to do with the right?

You are grasping at straws.

I'm trying to make a point via Socratic questioning, one you've missed, so I'll be more direct.

Bodily autonomy is a right, however, it is not a right to the extreme of taking life. I have the right to freely associate (or disassociate) with you if you're "in my space", I do not have the de facto right to kill you!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I would be glad to have an answer

Ciao

- viole

I already wrote, "God". Stop being a nudge, please. Actually read my posts before responding. You are upset I needed to repeat a one-word answer, I'm upset because I gave you four critical areas to research, that you are yet to respond to. You completely ignored my posts.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And what makes you think that there is an author of absolutes, if any?

Ciao

- viole

Because YOU brought up the question without me asking it!

 

[viole]

I already wrote, "God". Stop being a nudge, please. Actually read my posts before responding. You are upset I needed to repeat a one-word answer, I'm upset because I gave you four critical areas to research, that you are yet to respond to. You completely ignored my posts.

But there is no God.

That is probably the source of me not understanding your answer. Sorry.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Bodily autonomy is a right, however, it is not a right to the extreme of taking life.

Abortion.

I have the right to freely associate (or disassociate) with you if you're "in my space", I do not have the de facto right to kill you!

your example is not bodily autonomy.

 

[Acim]

The right to life and bodily autonomy come into conflict all the time. In every case, bodily autonomy wins.

your example is not bodily autonomy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But there is no God.

That is probably the source of me not understanding your answer. Sorry.

Ciao

- viole

No, I merely asked a question. You put God in your own gap.

Since I have good evidence that there is a God--including recently, four subject areas for you to research more--would you mind presenting your evidence here that there is no God, so that I can make a trulky informed decision?

Fact 1:

Fact 2:

Fact 3:

 

[McBell]

No, I merely asked a question. You put God in your own gap.

Since I have good evidence that there is a God--including recently, four subject areas for you to research more--would you mind presenting your evidence here that there is no God, so that I can make a trulky informed decision?

Fact 1:

Fact 2:

Fact 3:

The "what i claim is true is true until it can be proven false" is not an argument.
It is desperation.

 

[viole]

No, I merely asked a question. You put God in your own gap.

Since I have good evidence that there is a God--including recently, four subject areas for you to research more--would you mind presenting your evidence here that there is no God, so that I can make a trulky informed decision?

I have no evidence about the not existence of a multitude of things. For instance, I have no evidence that I am not a brain on a vet, or that invisible fairies and Mother Goose do not exist. That does not justify agnosticism about all these things, obviously. I tried to claim agnosticism about Mother Goose once, with mixed reactions from my colleagues

And since I see no reason whatsoever to give more weight to God than to Mother Goose, since they share the same exact evidence, I see no reason to claim agnosticism about god's existence, either. Therefore, I know that neither god nor mother goose exist. I might be wrong, but nevertheless....pending additional evidence they share the same ontology in my mind.

So, do you have arguments that might convince me otherwise?

Give me the strongest one, so that we can submit it to rational analysis.

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

The "what i claim is true is true until it can be proven false" is not an argument.
It is desperation.

My claim is I have proved something true, and that you are about to leave three spaces blank, your evidence there is no God:

Fact #1 _______________________________________________

Fact #2 _______________________________________________

Fact #3 _______________________________________________

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have no evidence about the not existence of a multitude of things. For instance, I have no evidence that I am not a brain on a vet, or that invisible fairies and Mother Goose do not exist. That does not justify agnosticism about all these things, obviously. I tried to claim agnosticism about Mother Goose once, with mixed reactions from my colleagues

And since I see no reason whatsoever to give more weight to God than to Mother Goose, since they share the same exact evidence, I see no reason to claim agnosticism about god's existence, either. Therefore, I know that neither god nor mother goose exist. I might be wrong, but nevertheless....pending additional evidence they share the same ontology in my mind.

So, do you have arguments that might convince me otherwise?

Give me the strongest one, so that we can submit it to rational analysis.

Ciao

- viole

1. Step away from your computer. Go outside. Now, identify the number of persons who are theists and the number of persons who believe Mother Goose currently is a real person. Most of the people in the world feel/believe that you are delusional.

2. I have already offered you four such areas, inviting you to do further research after encapsulating each argument. What research have you completed to date?

 

[viole]

1. Step away from your computer. Go outside. Now, identify the number of persons who are theists and the number of persons who believe Mother Goose currently is a real person. Most of the people in the world feel/believe that you are delusional.

Most people believe you are delusional, too. Your God, or any other God, is not believed by the majority of people on earth.

And, of course, what the majority of people believe, does not add a iota to the veracity of said belief. The vast majority of people believed that the sun was orbiting the earth. Including the authors of your holy book. Did that increase the odds of them being right?

2. I have already offered you four such areas, inviting you to do further research after encapsulating each argument. What research have you completed to date?

Be a gentleman and send me the pointer to one. The strongest one, in your opinion.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This happens rarely in my experience. Maybe once every 5 years. Even then, it is not dependent on my body's autonomy for them to survive.



This has never occurred with me. So far I feel like you are bringing up a) rare situations and b) things that don't help with the case for abortion as a right.



In my experience, it is between never and incredibly rare. Perhaps you can better explain what you are stating cause thus far it really does appear like grasping at straws to make a point that I feel I already spoke to.

Every day when they announce a blood shortage but you aren't legally required to donate blood is a day when your right to bodily autonomy has won out over someone else's right to life. I'm not sure how often this happens where you are, but here it's a few times a year.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Every day when they announce a blood shortage but you aren't legally required to donate blood is a day when your right to bodily autonomy has won out over someone else's right to life. I'm not sure how often this happens where you are, but here it's a few times a year.

There is always a shortage of bone marrow donations, and one can offer their marrow to help anytime.

So it isn't even a few times a year. It's much more often than that.

 

[Acim]

Every day when they announce a blood shortage but you aren't legally required to donate blood is a day when your right to bodily autonomy has won out over someone else's right to life. I'm not sure how often this happens where you are, but here it's a few times a year.

My point being that it is not dependent on my personal/individual autonomy for the person to survive. You making the point that announcements for EVERYONE to CONSIDER donating blood to save a life equals bodily autonomy for individuals. Thus, non sequitur. Your point would be equally applicable to any request by an organization for any sort of donation. Thus, not dependent on a specific individual. I could donate blood today and there would still be a lack, thus bodily autonomy in this case would not win out should I choose to follow through. If instead, I were presented with individual decision to save the life of another via blood donation and then I refused (for reasons that may not fit with bodily autonomy, but let's presume it does), that would be example that is relevant to the discussion. I have either never been presented with this decision or so very rarely that I can't recall when it may have last occurred.

 

[McBell]

My claim is I have proved something true, and that you are about to leave three spaces blank, your evidence there is no God:

Fact #1 _______________________________________________

Fact #2 _______________________________________________

Fact #3 _______________________________________________

merely repeating your desperation does not help you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

merely repeating your desperation does not help you.

I did not repeat myself, but stated a prophecy that you've proven as fact.

You left my three blanks, blank!

Try again. Your three favorite pieces of evidence that the overwhelming majority of people, who assert God exists, are wrong... here are your best evidences that God does not exist:

Fact #1 _______________________________________________

Fact #2 _______________________________________________

Fact #3 _______________________________________________