Abortion

[Cephus]

Yes, and consenting to the chance/potential of an accident.

What kind of mind makes choices without weighing all potential outcomes... A rational or an irrational mind?

Then you advocate leaving people who get into traffic accidents to die on the side of hte road? After all, they consented to the potential to get into an accident.

 

[Cephus]

It's good for the fetus?

Is making a hamburger good for the cow? Do you care?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Is making a hamburger good for the cow? Do you care?

about a cow more than a human? no. do you?

 

[Unification]

Then you advocate leaving people who get into traffic accidents to die on the side of hte road? After all, they consented to the potential to get into an accident.

They did consent to the potential to get into an accident.

No.
I don't see how leaving people to die on the side of the road has any relevance.

 

[Cephus]

about a cow more than a human? no. do you?

So you only care about humans because you are human, is that it?

 

[Cephus]

They did consent to the potential to get into an accident.

No.
I don't see how leaving people to die on the side of the road has any relevance.

Because for the same reason that we don't leave people to die on the side of the road, we send ambulances and paramedics to help them, to take them to hospitals where they can be treated by doctors, that's the same reason we allow women to have abortions. You can't rationally argue for one and not the other.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Thank you for the response.

Taking responsibility and pro-life are separate.

Regardless of choice/desire/will made to have PiV intercourse, there are potential outcomes. If one consents to anything, they consent to all potential outcomes.

So if Woman A consents to having unprotected sex with Man B who says he is clean, does A consent to catching chlamydia?

 

[Unification]

So if Woman A consents to having unprotected sex with Man B who says he is clean, does A consent to catching chlamydia?

"A" consents to the potential/chance.
"A" shouldn't be so naive.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you only care about humans because you are human, is that it?

Being human is what gives me the capacity to care for other humans and animals, yes

 

[Cephus]

Being human is what gives me the capacity to care for other humans and animals, yes

Which doesn't make you special. It just makes you sentient. So the question remains.

 

[Cephus]

"A" consents to the potential/chance.
"A" shouldn't be so naive.

So we shouldn't permit "A" to take any medications when she catches the disease because she somehow consented to the chance of catching it?

 

[Unification]

Because for the same reason that we don't leave people to die on the side of the road, we send ambulances and paramedics to help them, to take them to hospitals where they can be treated by doctors, that's the same reason we allow women to have abortions. You can't rationally argue for one and not the other.

The intent and/or expectation to become pregnant or get in a traffic accident was not there, while the consent for the potential/chance was there. When pregnancy or a traffic accident occurs, only "then" the additional allowance that you speak of is there.

What you are saying is correct, just missing another part of the equation.

I'm not rationally reasoning against that, I'm reasoning that there is no way around the consent for potential/chance once the choice is made.

I was rationally reasoning "one," you added the "other."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which doesn't make you special. It just makes you sentient. So the question remains.

In my opinion you are more special than a cow, because of your capacity to love and be loved by others, I would save you from drowning first.

much as I might pity the cow, I think most of us all have feelings for animals too?
btw, do you know the term for a cow that has no legs?

 

[Unification]

So we shouldn't permit "A" to take any medications when she catches the disease because she somehow consented to the chance of catching it?

Fantasy is irrational, bud. I am unsure where lack of permission to take any medications arose.

Again, I am reasoning for one, you are adding the other.

One: "A" consented to the chance/potential to receive a disease. My reasoning.

Other: "So we shouldn't permit "A" to take any medications when she catches the disease because she somehow consented to the chance of catching it?"

To answer your added "other," we should permit and it is known why, not "somehow."

 

[Cephus]

The intent and/or expectation to become pregnant or get in a traffic accident was not there, while the consent for the potential/chance was there. When pregnancy or a traffic accident occurs, only "then" the additional allowance that you speak of is there.

What you are saying is correct, just missing another part of the equation.

I'm not rationally reasoning against that, I'm reasoning that there is no way around the consent for potential/chance once the choice is made.

I was rationally reasoning "one," you added the "other."

No, we are arguing exactly the same thing. If a person ought to know the potential for a negative consequence by engaging in an act, either they should be forced to carry through with the consequence without being able to mitigate it, or they ought to be able to end the unintended consequence by whatever means necessary. It doesn't matter what the act or consequence is, you have to apply it evenly and equally to stop from being hypocritical. So it doesn't matter if it's abortion or an automobile accident, if you can be reasonably expected to be able to go to a doctor and have your injuries addressed and your medical condition corrected to your preferred state, then it also applies to abortion. You don't get to pick and choose.

 

[Cephus]

Fantasy is irrational, bud. I am unsure where lack of permission to take any medications arose.

Again, I am reasoning for one, you are adding the other.

One: "A" consented to the chance/potential to receive a disease. My reasoning.

Other: "So we shouldn't permit "A" to take any medications when she catches the disease because she somehow consented to the chance of catching it?"

To answer your added "other," we should permit and it is known why, not "somehow."

This is all just an analogy for abortion so let's not pretend otherwise. What you're ultimately saying, and feel free to correct me if you think that I'm wrong, is that a woman should have known that it was possible to get pregnant, therefore if she actually does become pregnant, she must carry through with the pregnancy, wanted or not, because she knew it was a possibility. That is exactly what you are arguing, at least from where I'm sitting, I'm just applying the same logic to your analogies and you don't like it because it really seems ridiculous to look at it the same way you're looking at abortion. If a woman should have known that getting an STD(pregnancy) is a possibility and she gets an STD(pregnancy), she should be required to deal with it without medical treatment(abortion) because she should have known.

At least pretend you're being consistent.

 

[Cephus]

In my opinion you are more special than a cow, because of your capacity to love and be loved by others, I would save you from drowning first.

much as I might pity the cow, I think most of us all have feelings for animals too?
btw, do you know the term for a cow that has no legs?

You're welcome to your own opinions, that doesn't make them facts.

And yes, ground beef.

 

[Unification]

No, we are arguing exactly the same thing. If a person ought to know the potential for a negative consequence by engaging in an act, either they should be forced to carry through with the consequence without being able to mitigate it, or they ought to be able to end the unintended consequence by whatever means necessary. It doesn't matter what the act or consequence is, you have to apply it evenly and equally to stop from being hypocritical. So it doesn't matter if it's abortion or an automobile accident, if you can be reasonably expected to be able to go to a doctor and have your injuries addressed and your medical condition corrected to your preferred state, then it also applies to abortion. You don't get to pick and choose.

I understand.

My only reasoning this entire time was...

"One consented to the chance/potential to become pregnant." "One consented to the chance/potential to get into an accident." "One consented to the chance/potential to get a disease."

Everything else has been added.

 

[Cephus]

I understand.

My only reasoning this entire time was...

"One consented to the chance/potential to become pregnant." "One consented to the chance/potential to get into an accident." "One consented to the chance/potential to get a disease."

Everything else has been added.

Because if you add nothing else, you have no argument against abortion. If you have no argument against abortion, what the hell are you doing here?

 

[leibowde84]

In my opinion you are more special than a cow, because of your capacity to love and be loved by others, I would save you from drowning first.

much as I might pity the cow, I think most of us all have feelings for animals too?
btw, do you know the term for a cow that has no legs?

This is due to empathy, part of brain development. There are many people who don't have empathy due to issues during brain development. They are referred to as sociopaths.