Would this Change your Position on Abortion?

[Thanda]

I have zero interest in whether you find my argument persuasive, and I'm sure the reverse is true, since this thread is not about changing anyone's minds but rather stating our views for those willing and interested enough to listen.

Yes there are laws, and abortion is legal in the US. Your point?

My point is a person who opposes women's right to kill is not necessarily anti-woman.

 

[FTNZ]

My point is a person who opposes women's right to kill is not necessarily anti-woman.

I've addressed this point in my post above. Using logic.

 

[Thanda]

Where abortion is legal, those learned minds have recognised that while a human fetal life is indeed a living human, it does not have the ultimate right to impose itself on the legal person hosting it.

Except it isn't imposing itself is it? It didn't say, "I'm going to fly into this woman's belly and start creating myself". The women in almost all cases decided to engaged in an act she knew very well carries the risk of forming a life within her. She was free to act and she chose to act in a manner that carried the risk of her becoming pregnant. Now that she is pregnant we cannot begin to view the fetus as the oppressor and the woman as the victim. The fetus is a result of the women's actions. She had a choice and she made it. Now the fetus is here. Now she asks that she be given more rights to now kill the fetus?

The hosting by another human is what necessarily differentiates between the stages of human life, under the law.

That it is so "under the law" tells us nothing of whether it is moral, ethical or logical.

Either a woman is a full legal person just like others, or she is not

All full legal persons (whether natural or judicial) have limits placed upon them. Therefore her full legal status in no way indicates that she cannot have limits placed on her.

If you advocate for the rights of the fetus to impose itself on her, absolutely it infringes her rights.

Indeed it does infringe on her right to kill. Just like advocating for the right of a child to be fed and clothed by their parents infringes on their right to be irresponsible and careless.

On the basis of her gender. Which is contrary to her human rights as a legal person

It has nothing to do with her gender. If advances were made in science so that even men could have children I would still be against abortion.

Not sure how you could argue otherwise. But keep trying if you wish.

I've given it a shot.

 

[Mister Emu]

Clearly, there is no need for me to support the statement. Got anything else?

Well then have fun discussing the anti-women majority of pro-life people with the young earth creationists, ufologists, and fairy enthusiasts in the wonderful world of make believe where you don't have to support your claims.

 

[Thanda]

Because to want to infringe a woman's right to bodily autonomy in this matter is equivalent to wanting to infringe her rights in general.

The issue here is that a women's right to her bodily autonomy is not the only right at play. There is also the unborn baby's right to life. Now when a woman exercises her bodily autonomy by killing the baby, her action is definitive. There will be no more life for this baby - it's the end. The baby will remain dead forever. Whereas when a baby exercises his right to life (or is allowed to exercise it) his impact on the woman is not eternal - he can only stay in her tummy for nine months. Thus when weighing the impact or each choice it is clear baby has a lot more to lose than the woman. Therefore there is a fundamental inequality between the two. On the one hand a life is at stake, while on the other hand there is just someones comfort.

 

[Mister Emu]

Also I see you have ignored post #306. Or maybe you just somehow missed it

What God has or has not done doesn't have any bearing on whether most pro-life people are anti-women.

You seem to like to deflect and possibly ignore.

The only issue I have risen against you is your claim that most pro-life people are anti-women.

All I ask is that when we are in discussion that we engage each other in a good faith discussion, which we can't if you come to the table saying that the other side doesn't actually hold their position, but they are actually just evil woman haters. I can genuinely assent that I believe pro-choice people when they give their motives, and I ask for the same respect in return.

 

[FTNZ]

Well then have fun discussing the anti-women majority of pro-life people with the young earth creationists, ufologists, and fairy enthusiasts in the wonderful world of make believe where you don't have to support your claims.

Logically, there is no need for me to support this statement with evidence: "Further, any objective assessment of the views of most people who vocally express anti-choice views will show they also hold anti-women views." It is not an empirical claim, it is hypothetical. Anyway, since when have theists been able to claim that other believers in things without evidence are inferior to themselves? Misuse of the process of logic saddens me, a little.

 

[FTNZ]

The issue here is that a women's right to her bodily autonomy is not the only right at play. There is also the unborn baby's right to life. Now when a woman exercises her bodily autonomy by killing the baby, her action is definitive. There will be no more life for this baby - it's the end. The baby will remain dead forever. Whereas when a baby exercises his right to life (or is allowed to exercise it) his impact on the woman is not eternal - he can only stay in her tummy for nine months. Thus when weighing the impact or each choice it is clear baby has a lot more to lose than the woman. Therefore there is a fundamental inequality between the two. On the one hand a life is at stake, while on the other hand there is just someones comfort.

You might want to read up on obstetrics and medicine in general, to help you understand what effect unwanted pregnancy has on a woman. Also, the fetus is in the uterus, not her tummy.

 

[Thanda]

You might want to read up on obstetrics and medicine in general, to help you understand what effect unwanted pregnancy has on a woman. Also, the fetus is in the uterus, not her tummy.

Whatever effect it has it will or can pass. However, no matter how much time passes, the aborted baby will never come back to life.

I'm well aware it's not in her stomach...I was just being colloquial.

 

[Kori]

What God has or has not done doesn't have any bearing on whether most pro-life people are anti-women.


The only issue I have risen against you is your claim that most pro-life people are anti-women.

All I ask is that when we are in discussion that we engage each other in a good faith discussion, which we can't if you come to the table saying that the other side doesn't actually hold their position, but they are actually just evil woman haters. I can genuinely assent that I believe pro-choice people when they give their motives, and I ask for the same respect in return.

Yes it does since they are following him.

Democrats fall in love Republicans fall in line.

 

[Mister Emu]

Logically, there is no need for me to support this statement with evidence

Thanks, Johnny Mathis.

What is that famous Hitchens' quote? I bet you know it, in fact I bet you've used it before. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Was that it? So your assertion is on the same logically solid ground as pixies and unicorns. Have fun with that.

Anyway, since when have theists been able to claim that other believers in things without evidence are inferior to themselves?

Ever since the theist isn't the one offering up his (empirically) unevidenced belief in debate.

 

[Mister Emu]

@Kori

Nothing on the bottom paragraphs?

 

[Kori]

@Kori

Nothing on the bottom paragraphs?

I answered it.

 

[Mister Emu]

I answered it.

You addressed the fundamental lack of respect in ascribing nefarious motives in lieu of engaging actual positions? Where?

 

[Smart_Guy]

Ah, the topic is specific to a point related to abortion, not abortion itself. For some reason you guys always change specific points of discussion to a general point and screw threads up, specially in topics related to abortion.

Gotta love ya guys

 

[Kori]

You addressed the fundamental lack of respect in ascribing nefarious motives in lieu of engaging actual positions? Where?

Democrats fall in love Republicans fall in line.

 

[Mister Emu]

@Kori
Care to elaborate on how that addresses it? I don't see how calling people bigots because they disagree with you is "love" but whatever.

 

[RRex]

I don't need to google anything. The point is, it is a logical fallacy to assume that believing women shouldn't be allowed to kill defenseless babies means you are not pro-woman. The argument simply doesn't even begin to make sense.

I disagree. If you oppose abortion you don't give a damn about women.

 

[RRex]

Her right to control her body ends where it begins to infringe on the unborn baby's right to life.

You are truly clueless.

 

[Thanda]

I disagree. If you oppose abortion you don't give a damn about women.

I don't give a damn about entitled women, to be sure.