A question for anti-choicers

Onceler said:
It's not really that asanine. I understand what you are trying to say, but the fetus needs the woman's body; it doesn't need the man's.

That's why consideration of the man is kind of on the sidelines.
Click to expand...

without the man, there would be no fetus. to take away the man's decisions or thoughts on the matter simply because the woman is the one who gestates is really ignorant imho....

assuming willingness, the woman knows the consequences of sex....so i fail to see how the man can be sidelined, yet make him fully responsible at the same time...
 
Yurt said:
without the man, there would be no fetus. to take away the man's decisions or thoughts on the matter simply because the woman is the one who gestates is really ignorant imho....

assuming willingness, the woman knows the consequences of sex....so i fail to see how the man can be sidelined, yet make him fully responsible at the same time...
Click to expand...

Have you ever known any woman who was pregnant? You don't talk like you do; and I don't mean someone who you casually knew who you saw a few times during the pregnancy.

It's the woman's body; it's her choice. The man doesn't decide what he or anyone else gets to do w/ HER body. He doesn't get to decree that she must carry something for 9 months, and go through what has been pretty unanimously described as the most pain a human body can experience.

At least, he doesn't in a state that I would consider "free."
 
Yurt said:
then what is your definition of murder, because you keep talking and asking about murder
Click to expand...

I don't have an all-encompassing definition. Obviously, the premeditated killing of a fully developed human being is "murder".

I think the fuzzier area is in that 1st trimester. Again - no brain or nervous development, no response to outside stimuli, no recognition of pain, consicouness, viability, etc. And no, this isn't the same as a person in a coma (one of the most oft-used strawmen in this discussion).
 
Onceler said:
I don't have an all-encompassing definition. Obviously, the premeditated killing of a fully developed human being is "murder".

I think the fuzzier area is in that 1st trimester. Again - no brain or nervous development, no response to outside stimuli, no recognition of pain, consicouness, viability, etc. And no, this isn't the same as a person in a coma (one of the most oft-used strawmen in this discussion).
Click to expand...

it wouldn't be a strawman, it would be a bad or false analogy

so you would add "fully devoloped" human...yeah, that does become muddy
 
Onceler said:
Have you ever known any woman who was pregnant? You don't talk like you do; and I don't mean someone who you casually knew who you saw a few times during the pregnancy.

It's the woman's body; it's her choice. The man doesn't decide what he or anyone else gets to do w/ HER body. He doesn't get to decree that she must carry something for 9 months, and go through what has been pretty unanimously described as the most pain a human body can experience.

At least, he doesn't in a state that I would consider "free."
Click to expand...

yes i have. and it wouldn't matter if i never had, you're using the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion....

what is inside her body is also from the man. it is not her choice alone, regardless of the experience of gestation.
 
Yurt said:
yes i have. and it wouldn't matter if i never had, you're using the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion....

what is inside her body is also from the man. it is not her choice alone, regardless of the experience of gestation.
Click to expand...

The argument has nothing at all to do with emotion. To me, it's very cut & dry - when it comes to your body, you make the call. No one else.

Anything else is what you might expect in a state defined more by oppression than freedom. The most basic freedom we have is the right to do what we decide with our own body.
 
Onceler said:
The argument has nothing at all to do with emotion. To me, it's very cut & dry - when it comes to your body, you make the call. No one else.

Anything else is what you might expect in a state defined more by oppression than freedom. The most basic freedom we have is the right to do what we decide with our own body.
Click to expand...

yet you ignore the body inside of the woman
 
The human life is not defined by consciousness or how advanced the brain and nervous system is developed...they are irrelevant issues...they are issues of maturity and growth and age...the human life is present no matter how far its development has progressed....

The definition of murder and abortion and what a women does with her body are separate issues, unrelated to the beginning of human life...

Issues that can be redefined on a whim....for political expediency and social engineering..as we see the left do as a matter of course....

We've seen pregnant women who take drugs held responsible for the damage to their unborn babies...

We've seen people held responsible for injuring the unborn in car accidents and fights, etc....

So things change as society dictates...
 
christiefan915 said:
Yes. I'm not talking about individual states passing random restrictions, or a once-a-year march on the nation's capital. When have there ever been serious, country-wide movements of anti-abortion individuals protesting, marching, and lobbying to get Roe v. Wade overturned?
Click to expand...

???....yes.....I think you called us neocons because of it....remember?.....
 
Onceler said:
I don't make the arguments I do to "ease my conscience." To me, the destruction of something microscopic, with no consciousness, no brain & nervous development, no sensitivity to pain, etc - it's not murder, not by a long shot.
Click to expand...

irrelevant.....the things that are being killed are not microscopic, without brains or nerves, insensitive to pain........and you obviously make your argument to ease your conscience, because you pretend they are.......abortions are still murder......
 
Onceler said:
Illustrates the point. The fetuses in question don't have the brain, cognizance, consciousness or viability to not only make the call, but to even care about the call.
Click to expand...

What call....Are you saying they are NOT HUMAN BEINGS because of their stage of development?
Does some magic occur at birth? Or at 6 months? Or at 3 or 1?
Whats your point....
and who are you to make the call or play god (god, small g)....
 
bravo said:
What call....Are you saying they are NOT HUMAN BEINGS because of their stage of development?
Does some magic occur at birth? Or at 6 months? Or at 3 or 1?
Whats your point....
and who are you to make the call or play god (god, small g)....
Click to expand...

I don't think any magic occurs at birth, or at any particular stage. But, I think the argument comes down to 2 competing interests: the mother's control over her own body, and the fetus's human rights. Ultimately, the decision is whether a fetus at every single stage should receive the same human rights as people already born into this world.

As I've stated on the thread a few times, I think considerations like viability, cognizance, brain & nervous development all contribute to what we ascribe to "personhood," and are integral to a discussion of actual human rights. Any point after conception will necessarily be arbitrary, but I think there is a point up through which most would allot that a woman could make a decision to abort the fetus without what we would call "murder" taking place. To me, that's an appeal to emotion, and nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top