Abortion

[leibowde84]

Untrue. It's natural order. A baby belongs in their mother's womb, it is not imposing on her; it's literally what happens. By having sex and becoming impregnated, she entered into a natural order event. Kind of like when you eat, then take a dump?

The baby is supposed to be there after having sex that leads to conception. A fetus is genetically distinct from its mother. Killing it goes to the examples above, where killing is legal, depending on the law of the land in which one resides.

The choice the mother had was to not have sex that leads to conception. If you want to talk about rape and forced pregnancy, then we'd back to my previous points, I guess.

EDIT: spelling

You are welcome to believe this all you want. But, this is unacceptable when it comes to the US legal system. This is exactly the reason why so many pro-life groups continually waste their energy trying to argue this. Sex is not consent for pregnancy under US law. If abortion law is every to be changed, this will have to be changed first. And, that is pretty much as close as anything can get to impossible.

 

[leibowde84]

Where? Rape is legal in certain areas. So is killing. Well, most would say murder, but if it no one cares and no one stops it, is it murder anymore? I think so, but it depends who you ask. And even if these actions are condemned, it's highly likely no one cares and does nothing about it anyway, giving zero credence to the argument people of your ilk posit.

I think the second hand smoking thing was a decent argument but no one has replied. See above.

Where is rape and murder legal in the US? Obviously, we have to confine our hypotheticals to the US, as we are discussing US law.

 

[leibowde84]

Where? Rape is legal in certain areas. So is killing. Well, most would say murder, but if it no one cares and no one stops it, is it murder anymore? I think so, but it depends who you ask. And even if these actions are condemned, it's highly likely no one cares and does nothing about it anyway, giving zero credence to the argument people of your ilk posit.

I think the second hand smoking thing was a decent argument but no one has replied. See above.

Buddy ... condemnation and ridicule are not relevant. WE ARE DISCUSSING LEGALITY.

 

[leibowde84]

Where? Rape is legal in certain areas. So is killing. Well, most would say murder, but if it no one cares and no one stops it, is it murder anymore? I think so, but it depends who you ask. And even if these actions are condemned, it's highly likely no one cares and does nothing about it anyway, giving zero credence to the argument people of your ilk posit.

I think the second hand smoking thing was a decent argument but no one has replied. See above.

Also, fyi, murder = "illegal or unjustified killing".

 

[catch22]

Where is rape and murder legal in the US? Obviously, we have to confine our hypotheticals to the US, as we are discussing US law.

The title of the thread is "Abortion" not "US Law" concerning abortion, or bodily autonomy. Also, because something is a law, it does not necessarily make it a morally superior position.

So, if that's all that interests you, stop replying to my other points and get on with the second hand smoke thing, I guess? Otherwise, you'd have to cope with the fact rape is perfectly legal in many portions of the world. Not that you care, because it doesn't apply to you.

So, smoke?

 

[catch22]

Also, fyi, murder = "illegal or unjustified killing".

Oh trust me, I know.

 

[catch22]

Buddy ... condemnation and ridicule are not relevant. WE ARE DISCUSSING LEGALITY.

Legality is irrelevant if there is no prosecution.

 

[leibowde84]

Oh trust me, I know.

"Well, most would say murder, but if it no one cares and no one stops it, is it murder anymore?"

- So, why did you say this?

 

[leibowde84]

Legality is irrelevant if there is no prosecution.

There is prosecution for murder and rape, so what's your point?

 

[catch22]

"Well, most would say murder, but if it no one cares and no one stops it, is it murder anymore?"

- So, why did you say this?

Rhetoric. Prior I said killings, obviously knowing the difference in terms. So if everyone in the world considers it murder, but the ruling party of said land, country, area, or otherwise, doesn't consider it so, is it murder?

To those condemning the act, yes; to those in control, no. Who's right? The guy with the bigger guns?

 

[leibowde84]

The title of the thread is "Abortion" not "US Law" concerning abortion, or bodily autonomy. Also, because something is a law, it does not necessarily make it a morally superior position.

So, if that's all that interests you, stop replying to my other points and get on with the second hand smoke thing, I guess? Otherwise, you'd have to cope with the fact rape is perfectly legal in many portions of the world. Not that you care, because it doesn't apply to you.

So, smoke?

Morality is another issue altogether. I actually do see abortion as somewhat immoral (at least most of the time ... apart from some obvious exceptions). But, my sense of it being immoral does not overrule a woman's right to bodily autonomy. And, although life is precious and important, I think that the legal consequences of outlawing abortion would be far too great.

 

[leibowde84]

Rhetoric. Prior I said killings, obviously knowing the difference in terms. So if everyone in the world considers it murder, but the ruling party of said land, country, area, or otherwise, doesn't consider it so, is it murder?

To those condemning the act, yes; to those in control, no. Who's right? The guy with the bigger guns?

"Murder" is a fairly subjective terms, and there is no absolute "line", imho. I don't believe that morality is objective or absolute, so I don't think it really matters what members of other cultures think, assuming they have different ideas of "justification". I can only legitimately speak to the culture and legal system I am familiar with.

 

[catch22]

There is prosecution for murder and rape, so what's your point?

Really? I bring up a perfectly good example with smoking, and you don't care and ignore it repeatedly, even though that's what you asked for. And you wish to continually go in circles about this particular point we've already established is meaningless to you on the premise that because written under law as illegal and sometimes/might be/could be enforced, it's good enough for you.... I don't see why you keep going back to it.

Onward, already.

 

[catch22]

"Murder" is a fairly subjective terms, and there is no absolute "line", imho. I don't believe that morality is objective or absolute, so I don't think it really matters what members of other cultures think, assuming they have different ideas of "justification". I can only legitimately speak to the culture and legal system I am familiar with.

Big fan of ISIS then? Who literally kills people by removing their heads due to their faith in Jesus Christ (or because it was Tuesday, who the heck knows anymore).

So tell me, under their rule, it's a perfectly acceptable thing to cut people's heads off for that reason. What do you say? Is it murder, or justified killing?

 

[leibowde84]

Big fan of ISIS then? Who literally kills people by removing their heads due to their faith in Jesus Christ (or because it was Tuesday, who the heck knows anymore).

So tell me, under their rule, it's a perfectly acceptable thing to cut people's heads off for that reason. What do you say? Is it murder, or justified killing?

I hate ISIS, I don't think that they are "justified" in what they do, and, thus, their "killings" are "murder" in my opinion. What's your point?

 

[catch22]

Morality is another issue altogether. I actually do see abortion as somewhat immoral (at least most of the time ... apart from some obvious exceptions). But, my sense of it being immoral does not overrule a woman's right to bodily autonomy. And, although life is precious and important, I think that the legal consequences of outlawing abortion would be far too great.

My only question to this is: if genetically it will form into a human being, it will have life, and there's no reason to prevent or terminate it, aside from the grounds that said mother was irresponsible and partook in an act (which could easily be construed as strict liability mind you), why condone the behavior?

I think pooping is gross, but who is really going to litigate that? It's nutty, right? So how does the natural order of having a child under the proper circumstances fall under a scenario where litigation is even necessary, and in fact, upheld in favor of the mother?

Who speaks for the child?

 

[catch22]

I hate ISIS, I don't think that they are "justified" in what they do, and, thus, their "killings" are "murder" in my opinion. What's your point?

My point is you know better. There's a reason why you do. So if what they do is murder, why be indifferent to the plight of the people over there, so much so you'd strongly imply that, since murder is illegal here and we (usually) enforce it, it's fine for bodily autonomy.

What about those guys who lost their heads? Not American, not your problem?

You tell me the point. You're the one arguing for the indefensible.

 

[columbus]

though he's right, and you're... wrong.

I am afraid of this indisputable pro-choice argument - The Matt Walsh Blog

You have no autonomy.

Mr. Walsh does an excellent job of showing why bodily autonomy isn't really relevant. Once you have made a Choice that involves others, without consent, you have some responsibility like it or not.

So none of the "forced organ donation" hypotheticals are useful. They all imply a situation being inflicted on a non consenting donor. That is not the case in elective abortions. If the pregnancy is by force we call it rape and that's a different ballgame.

If there were any other circumstances where someone could choose something that might result in someone else being put in the desperate position of an unborn child I doubt that such a level of personal autonomy would be an issue at all. But pregnancy is a unique situation in many ways.
Tom

 

[catch22]

You are welcome to believe this all you want. But, this is unacceptable when it comes to the US legal system. This is exactly the reason why so many pro-life groups continually waste their energy trying to argue this. Sex is not consent for pregnancy under US law. If abortion law is every to be changed, this will have to be changed first. And, that is pretty much as close as anything can get to impossible.

By the way this is incoherent, like a lot of laws we have I suppose. I can consent to eat, but I do not consent to poop.

Ludicrous. You'd think all these science-types would appreciate good ol fashion natural order, but you know, not when they are inconvenienced after pleasuring themselves. I dunno.

Edit: Maybe I should argue to McDonalds, I consented to eat their food, but never consented to getting fat? Could work.

 

[columbus]

I hate ISIS, I don't think that they are "justified" in what they do, and, thus, their "killings" are "murder" in my opinion. What's your point?

The point is that "legal" is a poor standard. Especially when it comes to killing.
Tom