Abortion Debate

[xshady121]

I said "substantial".

You're arguing that there's a life at stake.
That life requires that something be removed from a person's body.
You're arguing that that person does not have the right to withhold that life by claiming a right to their own body, because the "right to life" supercedes that person's right to do with his (her) body as they please.

Hence, it's the EXACT same scenario.

Not at all. They can evict the fetus from their body. However, if it is at the 35 week term when it is no longer a fetus, they can evict it by a birth.

[theguy77]

I said "substantial".

You're arguing that there's a life at stake.
That life requires that something be removed from a person's body.
You're arguing that that person does not have the right to withhold that life by claiming a right to their own body, because the "right to life" supercedes that person's right to do with his (her) body as they please.

Hence, it's the EXACT same scenario.

that person who needs a kidney isn't in that position because of you (and your partner, HEY LOOK MY POST ISN'T SEXIST NOW) and could be absolutely considered as irrelevant to you as a starving child in sudan who wishes he could have what you had for dinner last night. an unwanted fetus, on the other hand, is all your own doing.

not defending government intervention, i just think your analogy is stupid. it's one thing to support abortion as the best solution in some cases, but its another thing to victimize that person when in reality they made their own mistakes.

[GeeBee]

that person who needs a kidney isn't in that position because of you (and your partner, HEY LOOK MY POST ISN'T SEXIST NOW) and could be absolutely considered as irrelevant to you as a starving child in sudan who wishes he could have what you had for dinner last night. an unwanted fetus, on the other hand, is all your own doing.

not defending government intervention, i just think your analogy is stupid.

The decision as to "who's at fault" is irrelevant, and completely indeterminable.

Again...there's a life at stake, and your body must be violated in order to save it. You either cede your rights to the state to make that determination FOR you, or someone inevitably dies. No one gives a fuck whose "fault" it is.

[GeeBee]

Not at all. They can evict the fetus from their body. However, if it is at the 35 week term when it is no longer a fetus, they can evict it by a birth.

Again...

A body's integrity must be breached by the state to save a life. It's that simple. But for some reason you have a double standard as to when they should have that power, and when they shouldn't.

[GeeBee]

not defending government intervention, i just think your analogy is stupid. it's one thing to support abortion as the best solution in some cases, but its another thing to make an unwanted child a punishment for their parents' mistakes

Fixed to reflect your idiocy.

[theguy77]

The decision as to "who's at fault" is irrelevant, and completely indeterminable.

Again...there's a life at stake, and your body must be violated in order to save it. You either cede your rights to the state to make that determination FOR you, or someone inevitably dies. No one gives a fuck whose "fault" it is.

you're not obligated to an irrelevant person with a disease, so it is not a questionable decision to refuse to give up your kidney. you do, however, have an obligation to your own child. a conceived fetus that the couple is aware of has a 4 in 5 chance of becoming that child, so it remains questionable to crudely avert that obligation.

[GeeBee]

you're not obligated to an irrelevant person with a disease, so it is not a questionable decision to refuse to give up your kidney. you do, however, have an obligation to your own child. a conceived fetus that the couple is aware of has a 4 in 5 chance of becoming that child, so it remains questionable to crudely avert that obligation.

You're sitting here arguing the sanctity of life of babies COMPLETELY unrelated to you...

But somehow the life of a person dying of kidney failure is an "irrelevant person with a disease"?

God you're incoherent.

[theguy77]

Fixed to reflect your idiocy.

lol misrepresentation is awesome. not all mistakes deserve punishment and that is one where the punishment and outcome is disproportionate, ineffective, and often has the collateral damage of the child itself having a miserable life. however, that doesn't mean the couple gets to be victimized. they wouldn't have conceived a child if they'd had protected sex. they are free to make the decision of abortion but it's ludicrous to feel that the pity is on their end. it's much more a shame to me that that fetus is unwanted and will never see an opportunity of a proper life, regardless whether it's aborted or not.

[GeeBee]

Bear in mind, by the way, that a fully developed person who needs a kidney arguably has more to live for than an unborn child.

[Praetor]

Again...

A body's integrity must be breached by the state to save a life. It's that simple. But for some reason you have a double standard as to when they should have that power, and when they shouldn't.
It's not really that hypocritical from a libertarian standpoint. If one believes a fetus becomes a person at 35 weeks then it would naturally follow its rights must be protected as well.

[xshady121]

You're sitting here arguing the sanctity of life of babies COMPLETELY unrelated to you...

But somehow the life of a person dying of kidney failure is an "irrelevant person with a disease"?

God you're incoherent.

Read the block quote I posted. You didn't violate said persons rights, thus you have no responsibility to donate a kidney. Thus, it is irrelevant to you.

[GeeBee]

lol misrepresentation is awesome. not all mistakes deserve punishment and that is one where the punishment and outcome is disproportionate, ineffective, and often has the collateral damage of the child itself having a miserable life. however, that doesn't mean the couple gets to be victimized. they wouldn't have conceived a child if they'd had protected sex. they are free to make the decision of abortion but it's ludicrous to feel that the pity is on their end. it's much more a shame to me that that fetus is unwanted and will never see an opportunity of a proper life, regardless whether it's aborted or not.
....

This post makes no sense whatsoever. Gather your thoughts and try again. I seriously don't know what the fuck you're saying here.

But then again...it's not the first time you've had difficulty making a point in this thread, is it?

[xshady121]

It's not really that hypocritical from a libertarian standpoint. If one believes a fetus becomes a person at 35 weeks then it would naturally follow its rights must be protected as well.

I'm curious as to your opinion on evictionism

[theguy77]

You're sitting here arguing the sanctity of life of babies COMPLETELY unrelated to you...

But somehow the life of a person dying of kidney failure is an "irrelevant person with a disease"?

God you're incoherent.

what's incoherent is how you think there's the same direct connection when comparing a mother/her pregnancy and a person with working kidneys/some random other person without working kidneys.

[GeeBee]

It's not really that hypocritical from a libertarian standpoint. If one believes a fetus becomes a person at 35 weeks then it would naturally follow its rights must be protected as well.
But you've made no mention of the fact that the mother's body would have to be violated, as sanctioned by the state, to protect that "person's" rights.
Read the block quote I posted. You didn't violate said persons rights, thus you have no responsibility to donate a kidney. Thus, it is irrelevant to you.

He needs your kidney to live.
A baby needs a mother's consent to live.
You're arguing the right to life.

[xshady121]

But you've made no mention of the fact that the mother's body would have to be violated, as sanctioned by the state, to protect that "person's" rights.


He needs your kidney to live.
A baby needs a mother's consent to live.
You're arguing the right to life.

Unless you are the reason his kidney is no longer functional, you didn't violate his rights and have no obligation to give a kidney.

[Praetor]

I'm curious as to your opinion on evictionism
I saw the video and my interest was piqued. Admittedly it was the first time I had heard of that stance. I know you may scoff at this but I do consider myself a libertarian (left-wing, of course, as I'm sure you have noticed from my posts, haha) and what he said made a lot of sense to me. Previously I had considered myself pro-choice until birth but I'll give evictionism some thought for sure.

[GeeBee]

what's incoherent is how you think there's the same direct connection when comparing a mother/her pregnancy and a person with working kidneys/some random other person without working kidneys.

It's the same connection you apparently have when you say you're "biased toward LIFE".

You're sitting here arguing for the "rights of the unborn" to live, claiming the mother should be forced to allow the state's desires to overrule her own, meanwhile denying that the state has the right to supercede your rights to your own kidney to protect the "rights to life" of a hypothetical grown man with family, friends, a career, etc.

[theguy77]

....

This post makes no sense whatsoever. Gather your thoughts and try again. I seriously don't know what the fuck you're saying here.

But then again...it's not the first time you've had difficulty making a point in this thread, is it?

it's not even worth clarifying. just read the post afterward.

[GeeBee]

Unless you are the reason his kidney is no longer functional, you didn't violate his rights and have no obligation to give a kidney.

Again, missing the point. You're arguing the child's rights to life. I'm arguing the man's rights to life. In one case, you're opposed to the state overriding a person's right to their body, in another, you're for it.

[theguy77]

It's the same connection you apparently have when you say you're "biased toward LIFE".

You're sitting here arguing for the "rights of the unborn" to live, claiming the mother should be forced to allow the state's desires to overrule her own, meanwhile denying that the state has the right to supercede your rights to your own kidney to protect the "rights to life" of a hypothetical grown man with family, friends, a career, etc.

hahaha you still dont understand that this is wrong. you've got a really thick skull.

[Praetor]

But you've made no mention of the fact that the mother's body would have to be violated, as sanctioned by the state, to protect that "person's" rights.
Admittedly from a libertarian standpoint there is a conflict of rights, and you can't protect the rights of both the mother and a late-term fetus. However from what I can gather, according to evictionism, it would come down to whose rights are greater/whose rights would be violated the least.

[GeeBee]

it's not even worth clarifying. just read the post afterward.

No, it's simply that you're bereft of any clarity in your thought process to begin with.

[xshady121]

Again, missing the point. You're arguing the child's rights to life. I'm arguing the man's rights to life. In one case, you're opposed to the state overriding a person's right to their body, in another, you're for it.

I'm against it because the first person didn't do anything to violate the ill persons rights.

[GeeBee]

Admittedly from a libertarian standpoint there is a conflict of rights, and you can't protect the rights of both the mother and a late-term fetus. However from what I can gather, according to evictionism, it would come down to whose rights are greater/whose rights would be violated the least.

Precisely! And I'm arguing that as the ALREADY existing "person", within whose body GROWS the "potential person" as an appendage, however unfortunate the outcome, the decision MUST be ceded to the mother!

[xshady121]

Admittedly from a libertarian standpoint there is a conflict of rights, and you can't protect the rights of both the mother and a late-term fetus. However from what I can gather, according to evictionism, it would come down to whose rights are greater/whose rights would be violated the least.

The mother has the right to evict the fetus from her womb. If the fetus isn't viable, then it can be aborted. If it is viable, she has no right to kill it.

I don't see a conflict of rights there.

[GeeBee]

I'm against it because the first person didn't do anything to violate the ill persons rights.

Until denying him the "right to life" by refusing to offer an appendage of his body to be forcibly removed!

[theguy77]

No, it's simply that you're bereft of any clarity in your thought process to begin with.

im pro-choice, abortion is questionable morals-wise but still often the best solution if used as a last-resort, and a couple should have that option, but at the same time its their fault and its not like i pity them and its not like it wasn't irresponsible to have unprotected sex in the first place.

seems pretty clear to me.

[xshady121]

Until denying him the "right to life" by refusing to offer an appendage of his body to be forcibly removed!

No, it doesn't work like that.

[GeeBee]

The mother has the right to evict the fetus from her womb. If the fetus isn't viable, then it can be aborted. If it is viable, she has no right to kill it.

I don't see a conflict of rights there.

I'm not arguing that she has the right to kill it.

ALL I'M ARGUING: is that given the dilemma between her being forced to give birth by the state, and a late-term abortion, however abhorrent I may find it, I'd STILL have to lend preference to the latter, as I don't see ANY instance where the state can enforce its will upon a person's body, overriding them to give preference to the erstwhile APPENDAGE within her.

AGAIN- I'm not advocating for late term abortions. I'm saying they'd be the poison I'd choose over any state's ability to force birth upon an unwilling mother, however foolish her decisions were.

[Praetor]

The mother has the right to evict the fetus from her womb. If the fetus isn't viable, then it can be aborted. If it is viable, she has no right to kill it.

I don't see a conflict of rights there.
Yep, you're right. I'm pretty sure you've changed my opinion on the subject.

[GeeBee]

im pro-choice, abortion is questionable morals-wise but still often the best solution if used as a last-resort, and a couple should have that option, but at the same time its their fault and its not like i pity them and its not like it wasn't irresponsible to have unprotected sex in the first place.

seems pretty clear to me.

Still riding that moral-condemnation, sexist white horse.

[GeeBee]

No, it doesn't work like that.

You're quite convinced that your mere assertions stand on their own without any backing to them.

[xshady121]

You're quite convinced that your mere assertions stand on their own without any backing to them.

I'm watching the Jets game, cut me some slack.

[theguy77]

Still riding that moral-condemnation, sexist white horse.

hahahahaha sexist. lol okay now im convinced you're just trying to look like the better guy in this discussion.

yeah, i think its shitty to make the poor decision to fuck unprotected and then wipe out the fetus. it's not like i wouldn't want my partner to get an abortion if we made that mistake at this stage in my life, but i'd still feel really shitty about it and i'd morally condemn myself. im not on some holier-than-thou high horse because i dont exempt myself from the possibility, and if you still want to take the petty ad hominem route and accuse me of that, then your hypocrisy is asphyxiating.

[Praetor]

Yep, you're right. I'm pretty sure you've changed my opinion on the subject.
And for the record this wasn't sarcastic.

[GeeBee]

I'm watching the Jets game, cut me some slack.

Fair enough. I, too, am predisposed. I'll return so as to "look like the better guy" :rolleyes: later on.

theguy77-
Again, I don't give a rat's ass. You continue to be unable to debate without taking personally the fact that you suck at it.

[theguy77]

theguy77-
Again, I don't give a rat's ass. You continue to be unable to debate without taking it personal that you suck at it.

says the guy who took like 20 posts to comprehend something i reiterated verbatim repeatedly. seriously how many times have i outright said "i'm pro-choice"?

[paper halo]

im pro-choice, abortion is questionable morals-wise but still often the best solution if used as a last-resort, and a couple should have that option, but at the same time its their fault and its not like i pity them and its not like it wasn't irresponsible to have unprotected sex in the first place.

seems pretty clear to me.

Clear as long as you ignore the potential for failure where cotraceptives are concerned.

[theguy77]

Clear as long as you ignore the potential for failure where cotraceptives are concerned.

well, yeah. in that case i do pity the couple. the chance of that happening however is so small (given that it's most responsible to combine a condom WITH birth control) that it wasn't worth a footnote in this discussion.

[GeeBee]

says the guy who took like 20 posts to comprehend something i reiterated verbatim repeatedly. seriously how many times have i outright said "i'm pro-choice"?

This statement alone illustrates just how poorly you grasp the issue we're discussing.

[GeeBee]

well, yeah. in that case i do pity the couple. the chance of that happening however is so small (given that it's most responsible to combine a condom WITH birth control) that it wasn't worth a footnote in this discussion.

And we're all glad you're here to condescend to us mere mortals to reiterate the importance of personal "responsibility".

[paper halo]

well, yeah. in that case i do pity the couple. the chance of that happening however is so small (given that it's most responsible to combine a condom WITH birth control) that it wasn't worth a footnote in this discussion.

Well hold on, you didn't make that distinction before. You just said unprotected. So a sexually active couple who just use condoms are also irresponsible? So the onus is on the girl to take the birth control pill every day and put up with any side effects, particularly the way it messes with her body if she accidentally takes the wrong day, or misses one. You also succesfully ignore that use of contraceptives among young people often comes down to education, or a lack thereof. But whatever, stupid irresponible kids shouldn't be giving in to their natural urges anyway.

I take it single people who sleep around, relying on condoms, are also massively irresponsible?

Yeah, you're not sexist or condescending at all.

[theguy77]

This statement alone illustrates just how poorly you grasp the issue we're discussing.

And we're all glad you're here to condescend to us mere mortals to reiterate the importance of personal "responsibility".

no, im just condescending you for not understanding a word i say. im just saying sexual responsibility has less moral implications than abortion which is why they shouldn't be considered on the same plane.

Well hold on, you didn't make that distinction before. You just said unprotected. So a sexually active couple who just use condoms are also irresponsible? So the onus is on the girl to take the birth control pill every day and put up with any side effects, particularly the way it messes with her body if she accidentally takes the wrong day, or misses one. You also succesfully ignore that use of contraceptives among young people often comes down to education, or a lack thereof. But whatever, stupid irresponible kids shouldn't be giving in to their natural urges anyway.

I take it single people who sleep around, relying on condoms, are also massively irresponsible?

Yeah, you're not sexist or condescending at all.

haha what? no, i didn't say any of this. i said that because with just the condom alone, the chance of a pregnancy being conceived isn't THAT small, but with the combination of both it's next to impossible. including birth control as a very effective way of ensuring a pregnancy does not occur, also does not make me a sexist. jesus you guys throw that word around so much in here.

[x togepi x]

i think the sexism comes in when you're using responsibility as a reason why someone shouldn't have an abortion. abortion is quite responsible.

[zion the lion]

I dont think it's sexist at all, consensual unprotected sex is irresponsible for all parties involved.

[x togepi x]

I dont think it's sexist at all, consensual unprotected sex is irresponsible for all parties involved.

guys are hardly blamed for their part in the situation. that's where the sexism comes in. why don't pro-lifers get all pissy at dudes for putting women in the situation where they have to abort?

[zion the lion]

guys are hardly blamed for their part in the situation. that's where the sexism comes in. why don't pro-lifers get all pissy at dudes for putting women in the situation where they have to abort?

I'm surprised more people were talking about women taking the blame with abortion. When ever I usually talk about abortion, everyone blames the guy for not using a condom in the first place.

Keep in mind, if I talk about issues like that, it's with the people who I consider my family. My family is the epitome of the religious right, they prayed for Sarah Palin's victory (only hers) in the white house in 08, we own too many guns to count, the main reason they were glad that one of the girls was moving to Maine the second semester her senior year was because of what they did with gay marriage. All of the women in our "family" have been single parents (except for the grandparents who are sweet, older, and further to the right), and have had mostly daughters, if there's one thing they do well, it's put all the gender with that extra appendage.

[vodyanoj]

but since when is killing any form of life murder. Plants are alive! from a biological standpoint. All the animals we eat, is not murder yea. We do not necessarily have a moral obligation to not kill animals. But i think we can all agree that we do have that obligation to not kill people. So when can you draw a line when it becomes a person if its not at conception.

Yes, birth. It is an easy line to draw.

[vodyanoj]

How do you compare a baby to an appendage, like a finger or something. Its not at all the same thing. Its not some sort of parasite either.
(nobody would agree with you that abortions should be allowed in the 9th month based on a mothers choosing although it is still in the same way attatched as it is in the 1st month)

And i'm not arguing when life begins which it is clear that there is always life there. (egg and sperm are alive and they form a zygote that is alive) You guys use the word 'life' way wrong. The argument is when the process changes from an alive bunch of cells to a person thats alive and has a right not to be killed.

And yes of course these are moral grounds i'm not really sure if there is any other reason to be opposed to abortion?

So the argument is that we all need to decide some point at which we can define a baby as a person, rather than the precursors to a person. And once that point is achieved there should not be abortions because they violate the babys right to life.

Again, birth (I know, I am being redundant here, but somebody's got to do it).

[vodyanoj]

And why should it need to live on its own for you to consider it a person. People on life support can't live on their own, or people in comas, but we dont just go killing them because we need bedspace in hospitals.

Personhood is a thorny philosophical question, but it is generally agreed that autonomy and intentionality are necessary for it to be granted. A foetus has neither.

[vodyanoj]

exactly, you can't just ignore the fact that a person is inside the woman. Its not just her right to her body by that point.


by definition, if it is still inside the womb, it is not a person. It may have certain rights, like all living forms, but oince more: the mother's rights ultimately outweigh the rights of a foetus.

[caveBEAR]

guys are hardly blamed for their part in the situation. that's where the sexism comes in. why don't pro-lifers get all pissy at dudes for putting women in the situation where they have to abort?

Hey! If that bitch couldn't tell I was lying about the condom that is not my fault!

[rawesome]

exactly, you can't just ignore the fact that a person is inside the woman. Its not just her right to her body by that point.
So you're taking it upon yourself to define who gets certain rights and who doesn't? More importantly, you're essentially giving a parasite more rights than an autonomous, living creature in the name of your own moral agenda.

That, my friend, is the slipperiest of slopes.

[vodyanoj]

regarding http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=31350 and evictionism:

it is not the worst of arguments, even though it depends on specific preconceptions I do not agree with (for example, that viability = personhood). But, in all honesty, I would take it more seriously if it was written by a literate person. I know, grammar and literacy are petty points, but they are indicative ("Forced Stalling? LOL)

[Lueda Alia]

regarding http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=31350 and evictionism:

it is not the worst of arguments, even though it depends on specific preconceptions I do not agree with (for example, that viability = personhood). But, in all honesty, I would take it more seriously if it was written by a literate person. I know, grammar and literacy are petty points, but they are indicative ("Forced Stalling? LOL)
I stopped reading after this:

A women dose not have to keep a fetus in her

I won't take it seriously, so there's no point in reading it.

[Scrandon]

So you're taking it upon yourself to define who gets certain rights and who doesn't? More importantly, you're essentially giving a parasite more rights than an autonomous, living creature in the name of your own moral agenda.

That, my friend, is the slipperiest of slopes.

Not more rights, but one certain right(a right to life) that outweighs the mother's right to choose.

[Scrandon]

by definition, if it is still inside the womb, it is not a person. It may have certain rights, like all living forms, but oince more: the mother's rights ultimately outweigh the rights of a foetus.

Thats not a definition at all man, dont go saying stuff like that, if it was a definition there would be no argument here. Its not that easy.

[Jason Tate]

Thats not a definition at all man, dont go saying stuff like that, if it was a definition there would be no argument here. Its not that easy.
... there shouldn't be an argument here. Personhood cannot be applied in the womb. Simple as that.

[Scrandon]

... there shouldn't be an argument here. Personhood cannot be applied in the womb. Simple as that.

Well i've read plenty of arguments where it is so thats not enough to convince me.

[Jason Tate]

Well i've read plenty of arguments where it is so thats not enough to convince me.
Your incorrect application of the word doesn't change the definition.

[Scrandon]

Your incorrect application of the word doesn't change the definition.

Personhood meaning the baby is a person, no longer a clump of cells, and has the right to life.... Is what i mean, and have acquired through several different articles.

[caveBEAR]

Well i've read plenty of arguments where it is so thats not enough to convince me.

Yetis live in my toe fungus.




People can make arguments for anything they want.

[Scrandon]

Yetis live in my toe fungus.




People can make arguments for anything they want.

Ok thanks for the stupidity. They were reasoned arguments by different people with different opinions about abortion, but some, even people for abortion, started with the premise that the baby has a right to life.

[Jason Tate]

Personhood meaning the baby is a person, no longer a clump of cells, and has the right to life.... Is what i mean, and have acquired through several different articles.
And that is not what is inside of a mother.

A baby is a person ... once born. Once it can maintain homeostasis, etc. Just because you call it a "baby" doesn't make it so.

[caveBEAR]

Ok thanks for the stupidity. They were reasoned arguments by different people with different opinions about abortion, but some, even people for abortion, started with the premise that the baby has a right to life.

My point is that anyone can make an argument, but few people have the background, forethought and knowledge to make an argument that should be listened to.

[Scrandon]

And that is not what is inside of a mother.

A baby is a person ... once born. Once it can maintain homeostasis, etc. Just because you call it a "baby" doesn't make it so.

My point is that anyone can make an argument, but few people have the background, forethought and knowledge to make an argument that should be listened to.

You guys seriously act like there are millions of scholars and doctors on the pro-choice side and the pro-life side is just a bunch of random guys on the internet who can't form a coherent sentence.

Psst... its not like that at all

[Jason Tate]

You guys seriously act like there are millions of scholars and doctors on the pro-choice side and the pro-life side is just a bunch of random guys on the internet who can't form a coherent sentence.

Psst... its not like that at all
You're not proving your case very well.

[bard]

You guys seriously act like there are millions of scholars and doctors on the pro-choice side and the pro-life side is just a bunch of random guys on the internet who can't form a coherent sentence.

Psst... its not like that at all
and you're not helping.

[Lueda Alia]

I don't know how people can be okay with the idea of forcing someone to use their body against their will. It makes no sense to me. I would never feel comfortable enough to tell, let alone decide for, someone what to do with their body.

[bard]

I don't know how people can be okay with the idea of forcing someone to use their body against their will. It makes no sense to me. I would never feel comfortable enough to tell, let alone decide for, someone what to do with their body.
i think that a lot of people are compassionate towards the baby/fetus/whatever you want to call it. and obviously religious beliefs.

[Scrandon]

You're not proving your case very well.

Well you try to make it seem like the argument that a fetus in the womb is a person is flawed. But im telling you that many other people have come to that conclusion. And even some people who still form the opinion of being pro-choice.

And the fact that its not self-sufficient doesn't make it not a person. Then would you say that people on lifesupport should be killed to make room for other patients. Are they not people?

[Scrandon]

and you're not helping.

Im sorry, are you to high and mighty for me? douche

[bard]

Im sorry, are you to high and mighty for me? douche
no, i'm just saying that you aren't articulating your argument very well, and that is making pro-life people look stupid. you keep saying that "you've read articles" that support your views. where are they? links? provide something more than an opinion.

i'm not saying that you're wrong or that they're wrong, just stop trying to argue with nothing to back it up. it just makes anyone who happens to agree with you look like a moron because you're doing a very poor job of representing pro-life.

[caveBEAR]

Im sorry, are you to high and mighty for me? douche

I'm sorry, are you too high and mighty for me? You're a douche.

[Lueda Alia]

i think that a lot of people are compassionate towards the baby/fetus/whatever you want to call it. and obviously religious beliefs.
That's fine. I can understand that, but it still doesn't change what I said at all. I mean, if you think about it logically, you would literally be forcing a grown adult to use their body against their will.

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a form of torture, no matter how you look at it.

[Jason Tate]

Well you try to make it seem like the argument that a fetus in the womb is a person is flawed. But im telling you that many other people have come to that conclusion. And even some people who still form the opinion of being pro-choice.

And the fact that its not self-sufficient doesn't make it not a person. Then would you say that people on lifesupport should be killed to make room for other patients. Are they not people?
It is flawed. You telling me that people have come to that (false) conclusion doesn't make it any less flawed.

People on life support were born, therefore being granted personhood.

And people on lifesupport, taken off of it, would die. Hence the definition of "lifesupport." After conception can we put the zygote on life-support?

[bard]

That's fine. I can understand that, but it still doesn't change what I said at all. I mean, if you think about it logically, you would literally be forcing a grown adult to use their body against their will.

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a form of torture, no matter how you look at it.
i totally understand that view point as well. luckily, i have never had to face this situation myself, and i don't think i could ever have an abortion because of my own beliefs/opinions on the matter, but i don't think that it should be illegal or whatever, as long as it's done early.

[Scrandon]

That's fine. I can understand that, but it still doesn't change what I said at all. I mean, if you think about it logically, you would literally be forcing a grown adult to use their body against their will.

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a form of torture, no matter how you look at it.

It is flawed. You telling me that people have come to that (false) conclusion doesn't make it any less flawed.

People on life support were born, therefore being granted personhood.

And people on lifesupport, taken off of it, would die. Hence the definition of "lifesupport." After conception can we put the zygote on life-support?

I never said conception, i agree that a zygote isn't a person, a said that at some point the baby in the womb is a person. And it is a point much sooner than birth. Various developmental stages occur when different people would consider it a person. So abortions should only be allowed before this time.

[Jason Tate]

i totally understand that view point as well. luckily, i have never had to face this situation myself, and i don't think i could ever have an abortion because of my own beliefs/opinions on the matter, but i don't think that it should be illegal or whatever, as long as it's done early.
I don't think you could ever have an abortion because you don't have a uterus. But that's just me.

[Scrandon]

I'm sorry, are you too high and mighty for me? You're a douche.

never said or implied that. Your mad annoying though i will say that kid

[Lueda Alia]

i totally understand that view point as well. luckily, i have never had to face this situation myself, and i don't think i could ever have an abortion because of my own beliefs/opinions on the matter, but i don't think that it should be illegal or whatever, as long as it's done early.
Even if it's not, though. No one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body.

[bard]

I don't think you could ever have an abortion because you don't have a uterus. But that's just me.
good point.

[Jason Tate]

I never said conception, i agree that a zygote isn't a person, a said that at some point the baby in the womb is a person. And it is a point much sooner than birth. Various developmental stages occur when different people would consider it a person. So abortions should only be allowed before this time.
So, you're ok with drawing lines for when a fetus becomes a person - you just want it to be on your terms. Interesting.

At what point do the rights of the fetus become more than the rights of the mother? The mother adheres to all requirements for life. The fetus does not.

[Lueda Alia]

I never said conception, i agree that a zygote isn't a person, a said that at some point the baby in the womb is a person. And it is a point much sooner than birth. Various developmental stages occur when different people would consider it a person. So abortions should only be allowed before this time.
And if it's not "done before that time"? You're seriously going to tell a woman that she has no choice but to carry the pregnancy to term? Are you serious?

If you ever told me that, I would punch you in the face.

[bastard_of_ness]

It is flawed. You telling me that people have come to that (false) conclusion doesn't make it any less flawed.

People on life support were born, therefore being granted personhood.

And people on lifesupport, taken off of it, would die. Hence the definition of "lifesupport." After conception can we put the zygote on life-support?

That's simply a ridiculous sentiment. This particular argument is one of your worst, Jason.

That said, I'm definitely Pro-Choice, as stated before. However, not only is the argument that a fetus is a person a valid argument (whether or not you agree), but your rebuttal is illogical. There is literally nothing accomplished by your argument, especially when the person you are arguing with has a very essentially different paradigm that they look at life through.

[caveBEAR]

never said or implied that. Your mad annoying though i will say that kid

I was correcting the grammatical mistakes in your post. I didn't want to help you perpetrate the stereotype that people who are pro-life can't string together a coherent, well written sentence.

[vodyanoj]

Thats not a definition at all man, dont go saying stuff like that, if it was a definition there would be no argument here. Its not that easy.

Oh, go read a philosophy textbook and come back later. II am tired of repeating myself, and of having to defend a rather uncontroversial philosophical definition.

It is that easy. The fact that many people refuse to accept it is no more an argument against the validity of the philosophical definition of personhood than the cat that 40% of Americans are creationists is an argument against evolutionary biology.

[Scrandon]

And if it's not "done before that time"? You're seriously going to tell a woman that she has no choice but to carry the pregnancy to term? Are you serious?

If you ever told me that, I would punch you in the face.

I'm talking about like six months into the pregnancy, and then you change you mind for what possible reason. The only time after that should be allowed for medical complications.

[Scrandon]

I was correcting the grammatical mistakes in your post. I didn't want to help you perpetrate the stereotype that people who are pro-life can't string together a coherent, well written sentence.

sorry didn't know this was the one thread that we had to use proper capitaliZatioN

[Jason Tate]

That's simply a ridiculous sentiment. This particular argument is one of your worst, Jason.
Perhaps your response would be better received if you were providing reasoning. As it stands - this means nothing to me.

That said, I'm definitely Pro-Choice, as stated before. However, not only is the argument that a fetus is a person a valid argument (whether or not you agree), but your rebuttal is illogical.
Your ignorance of science and philosophy doesn't make it illogical. It's been clearly outlined plenty of times in this thread. I suggest going back and reading the discussion on personhood.

There is literally nothing accomplished by your argument, especially when the person you are arguing with has a very essentially different paradigm that they look at life through.
Nothing is usually accomplished by arguments ... is this new information to you?

[bastard_of_ness]

And if it's not "done before that time"? You're seriously going to tell a woman that she has no choice but to carry the pregnancy to term? Are you serious?

If you ever told me that, I would punch you in the face.

Your argument makes sense.

Essentially, the issue here is whther or not it's okay to legislate morality. I would assert that it is not, despite the fact that I share much of the same religious and faith-based views of the Pro-Life folks. What it boils down to is the age old church vs. state debate. Morality and social function are not and cannot be one in the same (aside from the discussion of universal morality, which does not include abortion, but that's a whole seperate bag of worms).

[Lueda Alia]

I'm talking about like six months into the pregnancy, and then you change you mind for what possible reason. The only time after that should be allowed for medical complications.
I don't care how far into the pregnancy. If the woman decides that she does not wish to be pregnant any longer, she has the right to get rid of the fetus. Once it's out of her body, you and other pro-lifers can do whatever you want with it. However, as long as it's inside of her and is affecting her, and her only, then she's the only one who gets to make that decision. Not you.

[Scrandon]

So, you're ok with drawing lines for when a fetus becomes a person - you just want it to be on your terms. Interesting.

At what point do the rights of the fetus become more than the rights of the mother? The mother adheres to all requirements for life. The fetus does not.

Well to me, a right to life outweighs a right to your body. Especially when its six months into the pregnancy and the mother changes her mind.

[Jason Tate]

Your argument makes sense.

Essentially, the issue here is whther or not it's okay to legislate morality. I would assert that it is not, despite the fact that I share much of the same religious and faith-based views of the Pro-Life folks. What it boils down to is the age old church vs. state debate. Morality and social function are not and cannot be one in the same (aside from the discussion of universal morality, which does not include abortion, but that's a whole seperate bag of worms).
We legislate morality all the time. What are you talking about?

[caveBEAR]

sorry didn't know this was the one thread that we had to use proper capitaliZatioN

You should be using proper capitalization, spelling and grammar in every thread. The English language is not some cheap whore for you to mistreat and disregard at your will.

Coming across as educated helps when you're trying to convince people of something. Insight isn't reserved for the educated, but it generally comes from there.

[Scrandon]

Your argument makes sense.

Essentially, the issue here is whther or not it's okay to legislate morality. I would assert that it is not, despite the fact that I share much of the same religious and faith-based views of the Pro-Life folks. What it boils down to is the age old church vs. state debate. Morality and social function are not and cannot be one in the same (aside from the discussion of universal morality, which does not include abortion, but that's a whole seperate bag of worms).

Why not, its an argument about killing. Killing and stealing are morality based laws that we have.

[Jason Tate]

Well to me, a right to life outweighs a right to your body. Especially when its six months into the pregnancy and the mother changes her mind.
Pretty easy assertion to make when you never have to go through it.

Perhaps we should attach a non-sentient being to you and force you to carry it to term. The right to life outweighs the right to your body.

Hell, guess that means we can take your organs if someone needs them. The right to life outweighs the right to your body.

[Scrandon]

You should be using proper capitalization, spelling and grammar in every thread. The English language is not some cheap whore for you to mistreat and disregard at your will.

kid seriously, you... you......... just wow!

[Jason Tate]

I don't care how far into the pregnancy. If the woman decides that she does not wish to be pregnant any longer, she has the right to get rid of the fetus. Once it's out of her body, you and other pro-lifers can do whatever you want with it. However, as long as it's inside of her and is affecting her, and her only, then she's the only one who gets to make that decision. Not you.
Why does no one want to adopt these fetuses?

[bastard_of_ness]

Perhaps your response would be better received if you were providing reasoning. As it stands - this means nothing to me.


Your ignorance of science doesn't make it illogical. It's been clearly outlined plenty of times in this thread. I suggest going back and reading the discussion on personhood.


Nothing is usually accomplished by arguments ... is this new information to you?


Jason, I have read and been involved in much of this thread. But your elitism is what makes this argument so invalid. Because you disagree with a stance, doesn't make it invalid. It is strictly with your definition of personhood. This argument is not a a right or wrong type of argument, it's an opinion based question. While you want to make this black or white, it's simply not.

I understand, and even agree with, many of your arguments, but arguing that the belief that personhood begins in the womb makes no sense. It's simply a matter or definition.

[caveBEAR]

kid seriously, you... you......... just wow!

'Kid'? :lol:

[bard]

I don't care how far into the pregnancy. If the woman decides that she does not wish to be pregnant any longer, she has the right to get rid of the fetus. Once it's out of her body, you and other pro-lifers can do whatever you want with it. However, as long as it's inside of her and is affecting her, and her only, then she's the only one who gets to make that decision. Not you.
this is a serious question, by the way:

i've always wondered something and i'm going to try and word it the right way. i understand that once the fetus is birthed, everyone considers it a baby, separate from the mother, living, etc... but, how do people, and i'm talking about pro-choice even after the second/third trimester, differentiate a fetus that is 10 days before birth and a newly born baby? i mean, obviously it hasn't been born yet, but it is within days of being born, probably not that substantially different/underdeveloped than it would be at birth, etc... i just can't understand supporting that. and i know that late term abortions are illegal and the obvious worst choice when it comes to abortion, but a lot of people here would rather go through with it than raising the kid, etc...

i'm not insulting, instigating, etc... i honestly am curious.

[Scrandon]

Pretty easy assertion to make when you never have to go through it.

Perhaps we should attach a non-sentient being to you and force you to carry it to term. The right to life outweighs the right to your body.

So first make it a consequence of my actions. And then give me six months to decide to have it removed with no consequences. And after six months if i haven't decided yet, then i have to continue for three more months. Sounds brutal

Then you got yourself a good analogy.

[Scrandon]

this is a serious question, by the way:

i've always wondered something and i'm going to try and word it the right way. i understand that once the fetus is birthed, everyone considers it a baby, separate from the mother, living, etc... but, how do people, and i'm talking about pro-choice even after the second/third trimester, differentiate a fetus that is 10 days before birth and a newly born baby? i mean, obviously it hasn't been born yet, but it is within days of being born, probably not that substantially different/underdeveloped than it would be at birth, etc... i just can't understand supporting that. and i know that late term abortions are illegal and the obvious worst choice when it comes to abortion, but a lot of people here would rather go through with it than raising the kid, etc...

i'm not insulting, instigating, etc... i honestly am curious.

Thank You! My point exactly

[bastard_of_ness]

Why not, its an argument about killing. Killing and stealing are morality based laws that we have.

Killing and stealing are laws based on social function, not morality. Are they wrong? Yes, I'd say they are, but some cultures would not, thus it's not universal morality.

On the other hand, do removing someone from society or violating someone by taking their things disrupt society? They sure do. That's why they are illegal. Abortion, while wrong by basis of my moral convictions, is simply NOT equivocal to murder due to the lack of societal disruption. Murder is removal or one from society. Abortion is disallowing a new being into society. The social implications are vastly different.

[Scrandon]

'Kid'? :lol:

Thats like the third time i called you kid and you just picked up on it.

And now that i think about it its completely justified because you come into a serious thread to mess with people and get in the way

ouch

[Jason Tate]

Jason, I have read and been involved in much of this thread. But your elitism is what makes this argument so invalid.
My supposed 'elitism' does not make an argument invalid. It may make you not like me - but it doesn't make an argument invalid.

Because you disagree with a stance, doesn't make it invalid.
Never said it did.

It is strictly with your definition of personhood.
It's not my definition.

This argument is not a a right or wrong type of argument, it's an opinion based question. While you want to make this black or white, it's simply not.
Currently it's not an opinion based question, nor do I want it black or white. Besides, my personal take has always been gray.

I understand, and even agree with, many of your arguments, but arguing that the belief that personhood begins in the womb makes no sense. It's simply a matter or definition.
And that definition matters. You don't get to change it simply because you don't agree with it or like what it means.

[bard]

Thank You! My point exactly
don't lump me in with you. i'm not talking for you here. if you wanted to ask this question, or one similar to it, you should've done it.

great, now i'm going to be in the scrandon camp in this thread.

[Lueda Alia]

Why does no one want to adopt these fetuses?
Because they only care about fetuses. They don't care about actual people.

[vodyanoj]

Jason, I have read and been involved in much of this thread. But your elitism is what makes this argument so invalid. Because you disagree with a stance, doesn't make it invalid. It is strictly with your definition of personhood. This argument is not a a right or wrong type of argument, it's an opinion based question. While you want to make this black or white, it's simply not.

I understand, and even agree with, many of your arguments, but arguing that the belief that personhood begins in the womb makes no sense. It's simply a matter or definition.

Personhood is impossible without language. That is one reason that animals may have rights but those rights do not outweigh the rights of a human person. A foetus is prelingual, and hence not a person. An argument can be made that even a newborn baby is not a person yet, but it is difficult if not impossible to decide at which point after birth it is endowed with personhood. All we know is that it isn't one before birth making the moment of birth a convenient dividing line.

Of course, the essentially parasitic nature of the foetus is another argument against granting it personhood.

[Scrandon]

Killing and stealing are laws based on social function, not morality. Are they wrong? Yes, I'd say they are, but some cultures would not, thus it's not universal morality.

On the other hand, do removing someone from society or violating someone by taking their things disrupt society? They sure do. That's why they are illegal. Abortion, while wrong by basis of my moral convictions, is simply NOT equivocal to murder due to the lack of societal disruption. Murder is removal or one from society. Abortion is disallowing a new being into society. The social implications are vastly different.

ya im gonna need an example of that. ...And not a tribe of 200 people somewhere in the Amazon forest please

[Jason Tate]

So first make it a consequence of my actions. And then give me six months to decide to have it removed with no consequences. And after six months if i haven't decided yet, then i have to continue for three more months. Sounds brutal

Then you got yourself a good analogy.
And you're ok with this? Ok.

The guy down the street needs a heart. Seriously. The right to life outweighs the right to your body. I expect you to donate yours.

[Lueda Alia]

this is a serious question, by the way:

i've always wondered something and i'm going to try and word it the right way. i understand that once the fetus is birthed, everyone considers it a baby, separate from the mother, living, etc... but, how do people, and i'm talking about pro-choice even after the second/third trimester, differentiate a fetus that is 10 days before birth and a newly born baby? i mean, obviously it hasn't been born yet, but it is within days of being born, probably not that substantially different/underdeveloped than it would be at birth, etc... i just can't understand supporting that. and i know that late term abortions are illegal and the obvious worst choice when it comes to abortion, but a lot of people here would rather go through with it than raising the kid, etc...

i'm not insulting, instigating, etc... i honestly am curious.
That makes the biggest difference for the simple fact that once it's born, it's outside the mother's body and she has no control over it anymore. When it's inside of her, however, it's a part of her and her body and she should be allowed to do what she thinks is best.

I have no right to tell you or anyone else what to do with or how to treat your body. I don't understand how some people think otherwise. It really boggles my mind.

[Scrandon]

And you're ok with this? Ok.

The guy down the street needs a heart. Seriously. The right to life outweighs the right to your body. I expect you to donate yours.

Did you really even read my post. Or are you that blocked off. And i would die without a heart, wheres my right to life. Fail

[bard]

ya im gonna need an example of that. ...And not a tribe of 200 people somewhere in the Amazon forest please
you're really digging yourself a hole here. you should just stop and observe instead of trying to "contribute"

[bastard_of_ness]

And that definition matters. You don't get to change it simply because you don't agree with it or like what it means.

Aside from the fact that I actually agree with your definition of personhood for the most part. But to discount others' definitions because you don't agree doesn't make you right. Which, whether or not you see yourself doing, is what you are doing. You are telling someone that their definition is wrong and yours is right.

Anyway, I guess I'll just stop with this argument, there'sno point. But, I think that your approach here is what makes your words much less effective, but since my assumption is that you simply enjoy debate and argument, it's probably the best appraoch afterall :)

[Jason Tate]

this is a serious question, by the way:

i've always wondered something and i'm going to try and word it the right way. i understand that once the fetus is birthed, everyone considers it a baby, separate from the mother, living, etc... but, how do people, and i'm talking about pro-choice even after the second/third trimester, differentiate a fetus that is 10 days before birth and a newly born baby? i mean, obviously it hasn't been born yet, but it is within days of being born, probably not that substantially different/underdeveloped than it would be at birth, etc... i just can't understand supporting that. and i know that late term abortions are illegal and the obvious worst choice when it comes to abortion, but a lot of people here would rather go through with it than raising the kid, etc...

i'm not insulting, instigating, etc... i honestly am curious.
The simple answer is that the act of birth is where the line is being used. At some point a line is drawn (10 days before, 2 weeks before, 6 months before, birth) ... that said, I don't see a whole lot of support for late-term abortions.

[Scrandon]

That makes the biggest difference for the simple fact that once it's born, it's outside the mother's body and she has no control over it anymore. When it's in her body, however, it's a part of her and her body and she should be allowed to do what she thinks is best. I have no right to tell you or anyone else what to do with or how to treat your body. I don't understand how some people think otherwise. It really boggles my mind.

stop making it seem like her right to her body affects no one else. if you keep doing that its really easy to have your side.

you have a right to tell me what to do with my body if its something illegal.

[bastard_of_ness]

ya im gonna need an example of that. ...And not a tribe of 200 people somewhere in the Amazon forest please

Then go find one, they exist.

PS. A tribe of 200 people is still a society, even if your arrogance discards them as barbaric and uncivilized.

[bard]

That makes the biggest difference for the simple fact that once it's born, it's outside the mother's body and she has no control over it anymore. When it's inside of her, however, it's a part of her and her body and she should be allowed to do what she thinks is best.

I have no right to tell you or anyone else what to do with or how to treat your body. I don't understand how some people think otherwise. It really boggles my mind.
i see what you're saying, but in my mind i don't see a difference between a baby 10 seconds after birth, or 10 seconds before birth. same for 10 days after, 10 days before, etc... i can't separate the two. yes it's my personal opinions/beliefs so i don't expect the majority of people to agree with me.


edit: tate, i didn't mean for that to come across like people here are supporting late-term abortions, not sure if that came across that way.

[Jason Tate]

Aside from the fact that I actually agree with your definition of personhood for the most part. But to discount others' definitions because you don't agree doesn't make you right. Which, whether or not you see yourself doing, is what you are doing. You are telling someone that their definition is wrong and yours is right.
Again, it's not my definition. You have this weird habit of trying to make this far more personal than it is.

The definition of water is X. If someone says it's Y - they're wrong.

[vodyanoj]

ya im gonna need an example of that. ...And not a tribe of 200 people somewhere in the Amazon forest please

Why not? Is some tribe's morality invalid, just because they are less numerous than your tribe?

In any case, in medieval Scandinavia, rules about killing other people were quite different than they are now. In general, the definition of murder has expanded with times. As well as the definition of stealing: in the past it was considered to be just and legal to rob those not of your particular tribe, or even village. Laws and regulations appy to the in-group only.

[Jason Tate]

Did you really even read my post. Or are you that blocked off. And i would die without a heart, wheres my right to life. Fail
We have new fake ones we'll be implanting in you. You won't die.

[caveBEAR]

Thats like the third time i called you kid and you just picked up on it.

And now that i think about it its completely justified because you come into a serious thread to mess with people and get in the way

ouch

This thread used to be serious. You think it's serious, but you are just re-treading old arguments that have been hashed out a long time ago in this very thread. It's like you went into the Entertainment Forum, dug up the FRIENDS thread, and posted about how Joey's intelligence dimmed over the seasons; everyone already knows.

I believe bard and Lueda are having a discussion about something that may lead to new thoughts on the subject.

[Scrandon]

Then go find one, they exist.

PS. A tribe of 200 people is still a society, even if your arrogance discards them as barbaric and uncivilized.

the point is that its extremely insignificant what 200 people do to determine what 300 million people do here.

and 200/6 billion is not enough people to have any relevance against the fact that morals always enter law.

[Jason Tate]

stop making it seem like her right to her body affects no one else. if you keep doing that its really easy to have your side.

you have a right to tell me what to do with my body if its something illegal.
Give me your heart. The guy down the street needs it. I'll pay for the artificial one (http://www.google.com/search?q=artificial+heart&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) for you. By not doing this you're essentially murdering someone.

/Yes, I realize how stupid this is. But your own words brought you here. The right to life outweighs the right to your body.

[Lueda Alia]

stop making it seem like her right to her body affects no one else. if you keep doing that its really easy to have your side.

you have a right to tell me what to do with my body if its something illegal.
No, I don't. And that's the biggest difference between the two of us. Unlike you, I don't think my morals and judgment are better than yours or anyone else's.

But if you want to play this game: you clearly don't care that you're also doing something illegal by forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term. Last time I checked, it's illegal to force someone to use their body against their will.

i see what you're saying, but in my mind i don't see a difference between a baby 10 seconds after birth, or 10 seconds before birth. same for 10 days after, 10 days before, etc... i can't separate the two. yes it's my personal opinions/beliefs so i don't expect the majority of people to agree with me.
I can separate the two because I know that I have no right to tell any woman out there that they should use their bodies in ways that they don't want to.

[bastard_of_ness]

the point is that its extremely insignificant what 200 people do to determine what 300 million people do here.

and 200/6 billion is not enough people to have any relevance against the fact that morals always enter law.

Right there is the arrogance I wrote of. Got to a few classes, expand your mind a bit, then we'll talk in a few years.

[caveBEAR]

the point is that its extremely insignificant what 200 people do to determine what 300 million people do here.

and 200/6 billion is not enough people to have any relevance against the fact that morals always enter law.

Most laws (especially in America) have more to do with 'freedom' than 'morals'.

[Scrandon]

This thread used to be serious. You think it's serious, but you are just re-treading old arguments that have been hashed out a long time ago in this very thread. It's like you went into the Entertainment Forum, dug up the FRIENDS thread, and posted about how Joey's intelligence dimmed over the seasons; everyone already knows.

I believe bard and Lueda are having a discussion about something that may lead to new thoughts on the subject.

oh dang sorry i haven't been on this site for the first post back in '07. does that mean my opinion doesn't matter. wow if you bored of it then go away.

[Scrandon]

Most laws (especially in America) have more to do with 'freedom' than 'morals'.

ok say freedom to not be killed rather than right to life. its just semantics kid

"... the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

[vodyanoj]

ok say freedom to not be killed rather than right to life. its just semantics kid

"... the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."


...apply to human persons (or, for the sake of the argument, intelligent aliens) only.

[caveBEAR]

ok say freedom to not be killed rather than right to life. its just semantics kid

"... the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Taking the child to term impedes the rights to liberty in a woman who doesn't want to. As well, a fetus isn't 'alive', and therefore can't be 'killed'.

[Scrandon]

Give me your heart. The guy down the street needs it. I'll pay for the artificial one (http://www.google.com/search?q=artificial+heart&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) for you. By not doing this you're essentially murdering someone.

/Yes, I realize how stupid this is. But your own words brought you here. The right to life outweighs the right to your body.

So first make it a consequence of my actions. And then give me six months to decide to have it removed with no consequences. And after six months if i haven't decided yet, then i have to continue for three more months. Sounds brutal

Then you got yourself a good analogy.


Keep ignoring this and you'll be just fine

[Scrandon]

...apply to human persons (or, for the sake of the argument, intelligent aliens) only.

I know thats why im arguing a baby is a person before birth, not for the whole pregnancy, but after about 6 months.

[bard]

I can separate the two because I know that I have no right to tell any woman out there that they should use their bodies in ways that they don't want to.
okay, i was thinking this is pretty much as far as this conversation could go. in my opinion, if it gets to a certain point in the pregnancy, then she shouldn't have the choice because she has had the time to have the abortion before it becomes what i consider a person. i know people here disagree with me here, but it's just how i feel on the subject.

[Jason Tate]

So first make it a consequence of my actions. And then give me six months to decide to have it removed with no consequences. And after six months if i haven't decided yet, then i have to continue for three more months. Sounds brutal

Then you got yourself a good analogy.


Keep ignoring this and you'll be just fine
You never attached any consequence (this is a punishment now?) to your statement that the right to life outweighed the right to your body.

Feel free to change your stupid statement at any time. We're waiting.

[Lueda Alia]

Everyone here seems to be so concerned with the rights of the fetus as a human being, and how it's illegal to end its life. That's all fine and dandy, but I wonder if any of you actually realize that to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is also illegal. Unless laws have changed recently, then it's illegal for anyone to force someone to use their body against their will, which is what you would be doing by forcing her to give birth.

In this case, the woman's rights are more important than those of the "baby." As I said, once it's outside of her body, do whatever you want with it, but as long as it's inside of her, then it's her business and hers only.

[Scrandon]

You never attached any consequence to your statement that the right to life outweighed the right to your body.

Feel free to change your stupid statement at any time. We're waiting.

So if you say in your analogy that its a person the whole time then it doesn't work because that is not the case in a pregnancy.

[vodyanoj]

I know thats why im arguing a baby is a person before birth, not for the whole pregnancy, but after about 6 months.

Again, I have provided a general philosophical definition of personhood several times on this thread. A foetus is not one since it lacks several criteria necessary for the attribution of full personhood. The only logical line to draw is at birth, even if it is not 100% satisfactory.

[Jason Tate]

Everyone here seems to be so concerned with the rights of the fetus as a human being, and how it's illegal to end its life. That's all fine and dandy, but I wonder if any of you actually realize that to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is also illegal. Unless laws have changed recently, then it's illegal for anyone to force someone to use their body against their will, which is what you would be doing by forcing her to give birth.

In this case, the woman's rights are more important than those of the "baby." As I said, once it's outside of her body, do whatever you want with it, but as long as it's inside of her, then it's her business and hers only.
Nah, they see it as a punishment. She deserves it for getting preggo.

[Lueda Alia]

okay, i was thinking this is pretty much as far as this conversation could go. in my opinion, if it gets to a certain point in the pregnancy, then she shouldn't have the choice because she has had the time to have the abortion before it becomes what i consider a person. i know people here disagree with me here, but it's just how i feel on the subject.
So you would actually have the guts to look at a real, grown, woman in the eyes and tell her, "Sorry, but you're going to keep that baby in there until it's born!"? Really?

It's easy to say that you have no problem forcing such a decision on women out there, and it's a different thing entirely to think of it as a real life situation where you're actually put in a position to tell that to someone in their face.

I don't think many of you would have the nerve to actually say that to anyone real. And again, I, and I'm sure many women out there, would punch you in the face for ever saying something like that.

[Jason Tate]

So if you say in your analogy that its a person the whole time then it doesn't work because that is not the case in a pregnancy.
Please form a coherent sentence. This is not English.

[Jason Tate]

So you would actually have the guts to look at a real, grown, woman in the eyes and tell her, "Sorry, but you're going to keep that baby in there until it's born!"? Really?

It's easy to say that you have no problem forcing such a decision on women out there, and it's a different thing entirely to think of it as a real life situation where you're actually put in a position to tell that to someone in their face.

I don't think many of you would have the nerve to actually say that to anyone real. And again, I, and I'm sure many women out there, would punch you in the face for ever saying something like that.
I want to know the proposed solution. We sticking the women in jail under "preggo-watch" until they have a kid? Who is paying for all of this?

[Lueda Alia]

I want to know the proposed solution. We sticking the women in jail under "preggo-watch" until they have a kid? Who is paying for all of this?
I've been wondering that as well.

Yeah, you could outlaw late-term abortions, but they'll still happen anyway. So I'd like to hear a better solution.

[Jason Tate]

I've been wondering that as well.

Yeah, you could outlaw late-term abortions, but they'll still happen anyway. So I'd like to hear a better solution.
I want to know the name of the cop-squad in charge of this.

I nominate: "Vag-Patrol"

I think most pro-lifers haven't thought out the implications if they get their way.

[Lueda Alia]

I want to know the name of the cop-squad in charge of this.

I nominate: "Vag-Patrol"

I think most pro-lifers haven't thought out the implications if they get their way.
It's probably because their arguments aren't logical. They're based on emotion.

[caveBEAR]

I've been wondering that as well.

Yeah, you could outlaw late-term abortions, but they'll still happen anyway. So I'd like to hear a better solution.

The better solution is improved adoption agencies, improved sexual education, and just more education all around.


We all knew this, of course, but for some reason some people think outlawing abortions/abstinence is the answer. Awesome.

[Scrandon]

So you would actually have the guts to look at a real, grown, woman in the eyes and tell her, "Sorry, but you're going to keep that baby in there until it's born!"? Really?

It's easy to say that you have no problem forcing such a decision on women out there, and it's a different thing entirely to think of it as a real life situation where you're actually put in a position to tell that to someone in their face.

I don't think many of you would have the nerve to actually say that to anyone real. And again, I, and I'm sure many women out there, would punch you in the face for ever saying something like that.

Really i mean you just ignore what i said before.

The womans right to her body does not affect only her.
Would it be different if you had to look a baby in the eyes before you kill it.

Love how you guys just ignore posts.

[Lueda Alia]

The better solution is improved adoption agencies, improved sexual education, and just more education all around.


We all knew this, of course, but for some reason some people think outlawing abortions/abstinence is the answer. Awesome.
Oh no, clearly you don't think that teaching children about sex is a good idea?!?

I think pro-lifers should be forced to adopt babies.

[caveBEAR]

I nominate: "Vag-Patrol"

We'll call them 'cups' as a slang term.

[Lueda Alia]

Really i mean you just ignore what i said before.

The womans right to her body does not affect only her.
Would it be different if you had to look a baby in the eyes before you kill it.

Love how you guys just ignore posts.
No one is ignoring anything. Well, except for you. Because you're ignoring the fact that it's also ILLEGAL to force a woman to use her body against her will.

I couldn't look at the baby since it would be, you know, inside a woman's body. Nice try, though. Totally got me there.

[caveBEAR]

Oh no, clearly you don't think that teaching children about sex is a good idea?!?

I think pro-lifers should be forced to adopt babies.

I've always thought that (seriously) if you are going to be pro-life, you should have to raise the unwanted children/run a foster care.

[Scrandon]

I want to know the name of the cop-squad in charge of this.

I nominate: "Vag-Patrol"

I think most pro-lifers haven't thought out the implications if they get their way.

The law actually is very similar to what im saying. Or do you not know this? Late term abortions are illegal. And partial birth abortions have just been made illegal.

Or is that not the world you live in?

[bard]

So you would actually have the guts to look at a real, grown, woman in the eyes and tell her, "Sorry, but you're going to keep that baby in there until it's born!"? Really?

It's easy to say that you have no problem forcing such a decision on women out there, and it's a different thing entirely to think of it as a real life situation where you're actually put in a position to tell that to someone in their face.

I don't think many of you would have the nerve to actually say that to anyone real. And again, I, and I'm sure many women out there, would punch you in the face for ever saying something like that.
i'm not saying that i would be the one to tell them that, and i know it sounds crazy, but she had her chance to do the "humane" thing to do and have the abortion before the baby was at a certain point in development. and i'm aware that my definition of humane is wildly different than the majority of people here, i'm just explaining why i feel that way. i know it's not popular, but hey it's a discussion.

[bard]

and to be clear, i'm not talking about all abortion, i'm talking about late term/partial abortions.

and i agree that the only way to help change the situation is better sex education, and not abstinence.

[Lueda Alia]

i'm not saying that i would be the one to tell them that, and i know it sounds crazy, but she had her chance to do the "humane" thing to do and have the abortion before the baby was at a certain point in development. and i'm aware that my definition of humane is wildly different than the majority of people here, i'm just explaining why i feel that way. i know it's not popular, but hey it's a discussion.
That's exactly my point. It's easy for you to reach these decisions because that's where it ends for you. You won't ever have to look at another adult and tell them that they should use their body according toyourbeliefs.

It's also inhumane to force her to keep something inside of her body that affects her tremendously. Why should I care about someone that's not even a part of this world yet, when instead I can care about someone that is?

[caveBEAR]

i'm not saying that i would be the one to tell them that, and i know it sounds crazy, but she had her chance to do the "humane" thing to do and have the abortion before the baby was at a certain point in development. and i'm aware that my definition of humane is wildly different than the majority of people here, i'm just explaining why i feel that way. i know it's not popular, but hey it's a discussion.

I think I get what you're saying, and I'm pretty sure it's the same thing I think. I think, at a certain point in the pregnancy, that a fetus kind of crosses the line to 'baby', in which case I would like to see a woman (in magic fantasy world) give birth, give the child to adoption agencies, and everyone moves on like the end of a Disney movie. We all know that's not how the world works, and I'd rather see a late term abortion than abortion outright outlawed...but I'd much rather see abortions done sooner than later.

Kind of on par with you?

[xshady121]

Everyone here seems to be so concerned with the rights of the fetus as a human being, and how it's illegal to end its life. That's all fine and dandy, but I wonder if any of you actually realize that to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is also illegal. Unless laws have changed recently, then it's illegal for anyone to force someone to use their body against their will, which is what you would be doing by forcing her to give birth.

In this case, the woman's rights are more important than those of the "baby." As I said, once it's outside of her body, do whatever you want with it, but as long as it's inside of her, then it's her business and hers only.

You should look into evictionism. It addresses the bolded part.

The woman has a right to remove the fetus from her body. Not to kill it. If it is viable (35-40 weeks, so in the 9th month), then it can be removed but not aborted. Before that it abortion is cool.

[caveBEAR]

You should look into evictionism. It addresses the bolded part.

The woman has a right to remove the fetus from her body. Not to kill it. If it is viable (35-40 weeks, so in the 9th month), then it can be removed but not aborted. Before that it abortion is cool.

As in, if the baby couldn't survive on it's own, then the woman can abort it, but if it can survive outside the womb, the woman has to find some way for it to come to term outside of her womb? Or she has to do that for the whole pregnancy?

[Lueda Alia]

You should look into evictionism. It addresses the bolded part.

The woman has a right to remove the fetus from her body. Not to kill it. If it is viable (35-40 weeks, so in the 9th month), then it can be removed but not aborted. Before that it abortion is cool.
If she would rather have an abortion than actually give birth then that's still her decision. If it can be saved after that, then by all means, feel free to take it and give it a good home.

[Jason Tate]

The law actually is very similar to what im saying. Or do you not know this? Late term abortions are illegal. And partial birth abortions have just been made illegal.

Or is that not the world you live in?
I don't think you even know what you're saying at this point.

[Jason Tate]

You should look into evictionism. It addresses the bolded part.

The woman has a right to remove the fetus from her body. Not to kill it. If it is viable (35-40 weeks, so in the 9th month), then it can be removed but not aborted. Before that it abortion is cool.
Interesting. Just read this (http://zealfortruth.org/2007/12/abortion-as-eviction-property-rights-the-child-and-the-womb-part-i/) on the topic.

[xshady121]

As in, if the baby couldn't survive on it's own, then the woman can abort it, but if it can survive outside the womb, the woman has to find some way for it to come to term outside of her womb? Or she has to do that for the whole pregnancy?

Survive on it's own outside of the womb, so essentially the last 4 weeks of a pregnancy.

So in the first 35 weeks, it is fine to abort the pregnancy as the fetus isn't viable. In the last 4 weeks, the woman has a right to remove the fetus (now a viable person) but not to kill it.

[bastard_of_ness]

Interesting. Just read this (http://zealfortruth.org/2007/12/abortion-as-eviction-property-rights-the-child-and-the-womb-part-i/) on the topic.

This seems interesting, but my firewall is not allowing me to read this at work, any chance someone could cut and paste this in a PM to me?

[xshady121]

Interesting. Just read this (http://zealfortruth.org/2007/12/abortion-as-eviction-property-rights-the-child-and-the-womb-part-i/) on the topic.

I don't agree with Block on his belief that eventually medical science will advance to the point that the fetus will be viable almost instantly after conception..

I think evictionism at it's current state is fine. 0-35 weeks it is fine to abort, as you're not killing a living thing. 35+ it is fine to remove, but not to kill. The mother has a right to remove the viable fetus but not a right to kill it.

[Jason Tate]

This seems interesting, but my firewall is not allowing me to read this at work, any chance someone could cut and paste this in a PM to me?
Dr. Walter Block (http://business.loyno.edu/faculty/wblock/), one of the foremost modern economists in this humble author’s opinion, has come up with a “solution” to the now age-old abortion debate.
For reference, Dr. Block is an anarcho-capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) - he believes that there is no need for a government and that people can solve all problems through voluntary cooperation. In his view, private property rights (as found in nature, not in government) are the fundamental building blocks of civilized society. By respecting these rights, and cooperating and trading with each other, mankind can attain a relatively peaceful and cohesive existence.
Dr. Block’s views on abortion follow this basic framework - holding private property rights as the ultimate judge between two individuals. In a series of articles, I would like to 1) look at Dr. Block’s solution 2) critique it 3) offer a pro-life argument based on the same set of anarcho-capitalist values.
The Child is a Unique and Independent Life
Yes, according to Dr. Block, we are dealing with two individuals in the case of a pregnant woman - he believes life begins at conception. The mother and child coexist on the same property - the mother’s body, and as long as both are satisfied with that arrangement the pregnancy runs it’s course, the child is born and life moves on. But the conflict invariably occurs when the mother, who owns her body, no longer wants to permit the child in her body.
Evictionism
At this point, according to Dr Block, the mother has the right to “evict” the child. In other words, just like a trespasser on property, the mother has the right to evict the child out of her womb. He calls this third option “evictionism (http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf)” and summarizes the basic differences between the three options as follows:
Evictionism is a compromise position. It lies part way between the status quo, where babies are slaughtered with as much compunction as we would swat a fly, and the present official goal of the pro-life movement, which is to force all pregnant women to carry their unborn child for nine months and then deliver them.
In other words, not only does pro-choice philosophy advocate eviction, but it also advocates killing innocent children (such as in partial-birth abortions and other circumstances). But the pro-life position violates the mother’s property rights, even though it does preserve the life of the child.
With evictionism, the fact the the child dies is a tragedy, Dr. Block says, but that is not the mother’s fault. But Dr. Block sees this as a long-term positive:
How will embracing the evictionism analysis help with saving precious human lives? Simple. With advanced medical technology, based on breakthroughs which are even now almost an everyday occurrence, it is extremely likely that a greater and greater number of fetuses will be able to be safely transported from the (original) mother’s womb to another safe and supportive place: to a surrogate mother, to the uterus of an animal, to a mechanical or laboratory contrivance (”test tube”), to some other alternative which cannot even be imagined today. Is there any doubt that this will come to pass if it has not yet already occurred - in twenty-five, fifty, or one hundred years from now?
In other words, as medical technology advances, more and more children would be saved from the dire effects of eviction until all of them are saved. But as it stands right now, despite the tragedy of lost life - the mother has every right to evict according to Dr. Block.
But is it possible that eviction is an unjustified position in natural law? Is it possible that the child and mother have a contract? What about the father’s role in the equation? We’ll look at these concerns in the next part of this analysis.

[Lueda Alia]

I don't agree with Block on his belief that eventually medical science will advance to the point that the fetus will be viable almost instantly after conception..

I think evictionism at it's current state is fine. 0-35 weeks it is fine to abort, as you're not killing a living thing. 35+ it is fine to remove, but not to kill. The mother has a right to remove the viable fetus but not a right to kill it.
What would happen to all these fetuses? I mean, adoption centers are already full and can hardly support the existing orphans.

I'd like to know more about pro-lifers' plans to take care of these babies once they're actually a part of this world.

[Jason Tate]

I don't agree with Block on his belief that eventually medical science will advance to the point that the fetus will be viable almost instantly after conception..
Would be interesting if it did though. And a real bitch for population control.

I think evictionism at it's current state is fine. 0-35 weeks it is fine to abort, as you're not killing a living thing. 35+ it is fine to remove, but not to kill. The mother has a right to remove the viable fetus but not a right to kill it.
I have yet to see any pro-life places raising the funds to care for the removed fetuses. Do you think this is something we may see in the future?

[xshady121]

This seems interesting, but my firewall is not allowing me to read this at work, any chance someone could cut and paste this in a PM to me?

Dr. Walter Block (http://business.loyno.edu/faculty/wblock/), one of the foremost modern economists in this humble author’s opinion, has come up with a “solution” to the now age-old abortion debate.
For reference, Dr. Block is an anarcho-capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) - he believes that there is no need for a government and that people can solve all problems through voluntary cooperation. In his view, private property rights (as found in nature, not in government) are the fundamental building blocks of civilized society. By respecting these rights, and cooperating and trading with each other, mankind can attain a relatively peaceful and cohesive existence.
Dr. Block’s views on abortion follow this basic framework - holding private property rights as the ultimate judge between two individuals. In a series of articles, I would like to 1) look at Dr. Block’s solution 2) critique it 3) offer a pro-life argument based on the same set of anarcho-capitalist values.
The Child is a Unique and Independent Life
Yes, according to Dr. Block, we are dealing with two individuals in the case of a pregnant woman - he believes life begins at conception. The mother and child coexist on the same property - the mother’s body, and as long as both are satisfied with that arrangement the pregnancy runs it’s course, the child is born and life moves on. But the conflict invariably occurs when the mother, who owns her body, no longer wants to permit the child in her body.
Evictionism
At this point, according to Dr Block, the mother has the right to “evict” the child. In other words, just like a trespasser on property, the mother has the right to evict the child out of her womb. He calls this third option “evictionism (http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf)” and summarizes the basic differences between the three options as follows:
Evictionism is a compromise position. It lies part way between the status quo, where babies are slaughtered with as much compunction as we would swat a fly, and the present official goal of the pro-life movement, which is to force all pregnant women to carry their unborn child for nine months and then deliver them.
In other words, not only does pro-choice philosophy advocate eviction, but it also advocates killing innocent children (such as in partial-birth abortions and other circumstances). But the pro-life position violates the mother’s property rights, even though it does preserve the life of the child.
With evictionism, the fact the the child dies is a tragedy, Dr. Block says, but that is not the mother’s fault. But Dr. Block sees this as a long-term positive:
How will embracing the evictionism analysis help with saving precious human lives? Simple. With advanced medical technology, based on breakthroughs which are even now almost an everyday occurrence, it is extremely likely that a greater and greater number of fetuses will be able to be safely transported from the (original) mother’s womb to another safe and supportive place: to a surrogate mother, to the uterus of an animal, to a mechanical or laboratory contrivance (”test tube”), to some other alternative which cannot even be imagined today. Is there any doubt that this will come to pass if it has not yet already occurred - in twenty-five, fifty, or one hundred years from now?
In other words, as medical technology advances, more and more children would be saved from the dire effects of eviction until all of them are saved. But as it stands right now, despite the tragedy of lost life - the mother has every right to evict according to Dr. Block.
But is it possible that eviction is an unjustified position in natural law? Is it possible that the child and mother have a contract? What about the father’s role in the equation? We’ll look at these concerns in the next part of this analysis.

Here is a good video of block explaining it.

QNTAmwUHcLM

[theguy77]

Again, it's not my definition. You have this weird habit of trying to make this far more personal than it is.

The definition of water is X. If someone says it's Y - they're wrong.

"personhood" is metaphysical and philosophically defined, so technically while its context is assigned with rigidity (i.e. simply whether or not you are a person), its specific definition and parameters are subjective. you cant compare the nature of a philosophical concept and a tangible substance and say that their definitions have the same ubiquitous indisputability. obviously, even intangibly defined concepts are populistic by nature, as their meaning pragmantically ends up becoming whatever society as a whole decides, but there's not enough of a consensus on what defines "personhood" to act like the definition is not up for interpretation.

[Jason Tate]

"personhood" is metaphysical and philosophically defined, so technically while its context is assigned with rigidity (i.e. simply whether or not you are a person), its specific definition and parameters are subjective. you cant compare the nature of a philosophical concept and a tangible substance and say that their definitions have the same ubiquitous indisputability. obviously, even intangibly defined concepts are populistic by nature, as their meaning pragmantically ends up becoming whatever society as a whole decides, but there's not enough of a consensus on what defines "personhood" to act like the definition is not up for interpretation.
I believe that the definition of water is metaphysical and philosophically defined. Sorry.

[xshady121]

What would happen to all these fetuses? I mean, adoption centers are already full and can hardly support the existing orphans.

I'd like to know more about pro-lifers' plans to take care of these babies once they're actually a part of this world.

I believe an important part of Blocks philosophy behind it hinges on the idea that someone else wants to care for the child. I'm not so sure I buy in to that though.

Would be interesting if it did though. And a real bitch for population control.


I have yet to see any pro-life places raising the funds to care for the removed fetuses. Do you think this is something we may see in the future?

I would be interested in seeing pro-lifers spending more time donating to supporting the fetuses they want kept alive rather than spending the money on preventing abortions. Eventually, the right has to cede defeat on this position-- it's almost ironic they want the govt to interfere when they champion limited government as one of their ideals. So, on that hand, it almost seems inevitable that they would eventually support something like providing for the children born under this condition.

[Lueda Alia]

I believe an important part of Blocks philosophy behind it hinges on the idea that someone else wants to care for the child. I'm not so sure I buy in to that though.
I find that hard to believe, considering that there are so many orphans out there. I'd like to know how he came to the conclusion (or idea) that these fetuses would actually be taken care of.

[Jason Tate]

I believe an important part of Blocks philosophy behind it hinges on the idea that someone else wants to care for the child. I'm not so sure I buy in to that though.



I would be interested in seeing pro-lifers spending more time donating to supporting the fetuses they want kept alive rather than spending the money on preventing abortions. Eventually, the right has to cede defeat on this position-- it's almost ironic they want the govt to interfere when they champion limited government as one of their ideals. So, on that hand, it almost seems inevitable that they would eventually support something like providing for the children born under this condition.
I've always found it ironic that they want to effectively punish the woman for getting pregnant - and are all about the fetus. But want to offer very little support in 18 years when the child can't afford health care, college education, or, in some cases - food. Then it's just welfare and people using the system.

:shrug:

[theguy77]

I believe that the definition of water is metaphysical and philosophically defined. Sorry.

which is true -- all definitions are socially constructed. however, i was saying the socially constructed definition for a tangible substance is a lot more rigid than the socially constructed definition for a philosophical concept, especially one that is still debated such as "personhood".

[Jason Tate]

which is true -- all definitions are socially constructed. however, i was saying the socially constructed definition for a tangible substance is a lot more rigid than the socially constructed definition for a philosophical concept, especially one that is still debated such as "personhood".
I disagree. I also don't believe personhood is any more or less tangible than water.

[Lueda Alia]

Haha I don't know why but the last posts just reminded me of "I think, therefore I am."

.. can a fetus think? :zoom:

[vodyanoj]

Haha I don't know why but the last posts just reminded me of "I think, therefore I am."

.. can a fetus think? :zoom:


Precisely. Language is a necessary component of personhood, as well as autonomy and intentionality.

[caveBEAR]

Survive on it's own outside of the womb, so essentially the last 4 weeks of a pregnancy.

So in the first 35 weeks, it is fine to abort the pregnancy as the fetus isn't viable. In the last 4 weeks, the woman has a right to remove the fetus (now a viable person) but not to kill it.

OK. Yeah, I could be on board with this. I'd rather see an abortion earlier than sooner, but that's just me.

[vodyanoj]

I disagree. I also don't believe personhood is any more or less tangible than water.

Thank you. What's more, any attempt to define personhood in such a way as to include an unborn foetus end up casting a net too wide and would seem to require the inclusion of pretty much every multicellular life form while quite possibly excluding entities that did not evolve on this planet.

[vodyanoj]

OK. Yeah, I could be on board with this. I'd rather see an abortion earlier than sooner, but that's just me.

The problem with viability as a criterion is that it is being pushed further and further back. there are many cases now of babies born well before 35 weeks and surviving (with massive medical intervention, of course).

[x togepi x]

I'm surprised more people were talking about women taking the blame with abortion. When ever I usually talk about abortion, everyone blames the guy for not using a condom in the first place.

Keep in mind, if I talk about issues like that, it's with the people who I consider my family. My family is the epitome of the religious right, they prayed for Sarah Palin's victory (only hers) in the white house in 08, we own too many guns to count, the main reason they were glad that one of the girls was moving to Maine the second semester her senior year was because of what they did with gay marriage. All of the women in our "family" have been single parents (except for the grandparents who are sweet, older, and further to the right), and have had mostly daughters, if there's one thing they do well, it's put all the gender with that extra appendage.

I think if you take unplanned unwanted pregnancy in general, yeah guys get blamed more than they do on abortion but as the debate shifts to what individual women do with their bodies and they take the blame. I think that's why you see attempts at laws like spouse notification laws.

I do think it's interesting that you say what you just said because my parents got divorced and my mom said the same thing to us, that essentially if we got a woman pregnant and she didn't want to be, that we're bastards.

[caveBEAR]

The problem with viability as a criterion is that it is being pushed further and further back. there are many cases now of babies born well before 35 weeks and surviving (with massive medical intervention, of course).

Yeah, but I don't believe in keeping people alive with massive medical intervention (i.e., life support, Schaivo-shit) so the same would kind of play out for me in the fetus' case.

[xshady121]

Yeah, but I don't believe in keeping people alive with massive medical intervention (i.e., life support, Schaivo-shit) so the same would kind of play out for me in the fetus' case.

Agreed.

Block argues that every decade or so viability is essentially pushed back a week, and that eventually medical science will get to the point that a fetus will be viable at conception. I don't buy into that at all.

I agree with him with how he proposes the (seemingly) contradiction of rights. The mothers right to her body vs the right of life. I agree with him when he says the woman has the right to remove the "parasite" from her body. Before 35 weeks, that removal method is abortion. After 35 weeks, when the fetus is now viable (and a living being at that time), than abortion is no longer an option as that would be violating it's right to life, but the mother does have the right to "evict" it.

[bastard_of_ness]

Dr. Walter Block (http://business.loyno.edu/faculty/wblock/), one of the foremost modern economists in this humble author’s opinion, has come up with a “solution” to the now age-old abortion debate.
For reference, Dr. Block is an anarcho-capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) - he believes that there is no need for a government and that people can solve all problems through voluntary cooperation. In his view, private property rights (as found in nature, not in government) are the fundamental building blocks of civilized society. By respecting these rights, and cooperating and trading with each other, mankind can attain a relatively peaceful and cohesive existence.
Dr. Block’s views on abortion follow this basic framework - holding private property rights as the ultimate judge between two individuals. In a series of articles, I would like to 1) look at Dr. Block’s solution 2) critique it 3) offer a pro-life argument based on the same set of anarcho-capitalist values.
The Child is a Unique and Independent Life
Yes, according to Dr. Block, we are dealing with two individuals in the case of a pregnant woman - he believes life begins at conception. The mother and child coexist on the same property - the mother’s body, and as long as both are satisfied with that arrangement the pregnancy runs it’s course, the child is born and life moves on. But the conflict invariably occurs when the mother, who owns her body, no longer wants to permit the child in her body.
Evictionism

At this point, according to Dr Block, the mother has the right to “evict” the child. In other words, just like a trespasser on property, the mother has the right to evict the child out of her womb. He calls this third option “evictionism (http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf)” and summarizes the basic differences between the three options as follows:Evictionism is a compromise position. It lies part way between the status quo, where babies are slaughtered with as much compunction as we would swat a fly, and the present official goal of the pro-life movement, which is to force all pregnant women to carry their unborn child for nine months and then deliver them.
In other words, not only does pro-choice philosophy advocate eviction, but it also advocates killing innocent children (such as in partial-birth abortions and other circumstances). But the pro-life position violates the mother’s property rights, even though it does preserve the life of the child.

With evictionism, the fact the the child dies is a tragedy, Dr. Block says, but that is not the mother’s fault. But Dr. Block sees this as a long-term positive:How will embracing the evictionism analysis help with saving precious human lives? Simple. With advanced medical technology, based on breakthroughs which are even now almost an everyday occurrence, it is extremely likely that a greater and greater number of fetuses will be able to be safely transported from the (original) mother’s womb to another safe and supportive place: to a surrogate mother, to the uterus of an animal, to a mechanical or laboratory contrivance (”test tube”), to some other alternative which cannot even be imagined today. Is there any doubt that this will come to pass if it has not yet already occurred - in twenty-five, fifty, or one hundred years from now?
In other words, as medical technology advances, more and more children would be saved from the dire effects of eviction until all of them are saved. But as it stands right now, despite the tragedy of lost life - the mother has every right to evict according to Dr. Block.
But is it possible that eviction is an unjustified position in natural law? Is it possible that the child and mother have a contract? What about the father’s role in the equation? We’ll look at these concerns in the next part of this analysis.

Quite interesting. Thanks for sharing this.

[theguy77]

I disagree. I also don't believe personhood is any more or less tangible than water.

even if post-modernism were involved, i wouldn't agree with this sentiment.

[GeeBee]

I'm back you bastards (no pun intended)

does not make me a sexist. jesus you guys throw that word around so much in here.
I'm pretty sure everyone else but you in this thread has reached consensus that you're a sexist. Time for you to take a hard look at why people could possibly think so.

That's fine. I can understand that, but it still doesn't change what I said at all. I mean, if you think about it logically, you would literally be forcing a grown adult to use their body against their will.

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a form of torture, no matter how you look at it.
Precisely. This has been my argument the entire time. I'd think it was stupid of a person to have an abortion late-term, but ultimately, it's preferable to having a government FORCE her to deliver.
I don't care how far into the pregnancy. If the woman decides that she does not wish to be pregnant any longer, she has the right to get rid of the fetus. Once it's out of her body, you and other pro-lifers can do whatever you want with it. However, as long as it's inside of her and is affecting her, and her only, then she's the only one who gets to make that decision. Not you.
Perfect.
Why not, its an argument about killing. Killing and stealing are morality based laws that we have.
It's quite apparent that you've never been educated in the slightest about philosophy, ethics, or law. Say not shit else.
this is a serious question, by the way:

i've always wondered something and i'm going to try and word it the right way. i understand that once the fetus is birthed, everyone considers it a baby, separate from the mother, living, etc... but, how do people, and i'm talking about pro-choice even after the second/third trimester, differentiate a fetus that is 10 days before birth and a newly born baby? i mean, obviously it hasn't been born yet, but it is within days of being born, probably not that substantially different/underdeveloped than it would be at birth, etc... i just can't understand supporting that. and i know that late term abortions are illegal and the obvious worst choice when it comes to abortion, but a lot of people here would rather go through with it than raising the kid, etc...

i'm not insulting, instigating, etc... i honestly am curious.
The sole difference in my mind is that one day the fetus is an appendage to the woman's body, the next day it isn't.
The simple answer is that the act of birth is where the line is being used. At some point a line is drawn (10 days before, 2 weeks before, 6 months before, birth) ... that said, I don't see a whole lot of support for late-term abortions.
Perhaps not support, but I'd take it over the alternative of forced delivery.
i see what you're saying, but in my mind i don't see a difference between a baby 10 seconds after birth, or 10 seconds before birth. same for 10 days after, 10 days before, etc... i can't separate the two. yes it's my personal opinions/beliefs so i don't expect the majority of people to agree with me.
The difference is location. I don't see the difference between your kidney right now and your kidney in a cooler on its way to someone who needs it...so why can't I take it from you?
Really i mean you just ignore what i said before.

The womans right to her body does not affect only her.
Would it be different if you had to look a baby in the eyes before you kill it.

Love how you guys just ignore posts.
Who else does it affect? It's her body, and that entails whatever is INSIDE that body. How the fuck does it affect you?
i'm not saying that i would be the one to tell them that, and i know it sounds crazy, but she had her chance to do the "humane" thing to do and have the abortion before the baby was at a certain point in development. and i'm aware that my definition of humane is wildly different than the majority of people here, i'm just explaining why i feel that way. i know it's not popular, but hey it's a discussion.
Agreed, I'd think it was a shitty thing to do to wait so long, but again...I prefer it to her being forced against her will to deliver.
I have yet to see any pro-life places raising the funds to care for the removed fetuses. Do you think this is something we may see in the future?
This is the large problem in conservative (and much libertarian) thinking, and where I take issue with xshady's assertions. They stand so hard on principle that they completely forget to consider the implications inherent if they got their way.

[theguy77]

I'm pretty sure everyone else but you in this thread has reached consensus that you're a sexist. Time for you to take a hard look at why people could possibly think so.

groupthink and thus a biased failure to grasp what im actually saying

[GeeBee]

groupthink and thus a biased failure to grasp what im actually saying

Ahh, yes. The world is blind and you've got the sole pair of glasses to be had.

Try again.

[Lueda Alia]

groupthink and thus a biased failure to grasp what im actually saying
We all came to the same conclusion by ourselves, not together.

[GeeBee]

We all came to the same conclusion by ourselves, not together.

Don't tell him about the mass e-mail I sent out and the meeting we had over Skype to establish "group-think" about him being a sexist.

:rolleyes:

[zion the lion]

I think if you take unplanned unwanted pregnancy in general, yeah guys get blamed more than they do on abortion but as the debate shifts to what individual women do with their bodies and they take the blame. I think that's why you see attempts at laws like spouse notification laws.

I do think it's interesting that you say what you just said because my parents got divorced and my mom said the same thing to us, that essentially if we got a woman pregnant and she didn't want to be, that we're bastards.

I hardly ever hear that part of the argument, but again, I grew up with hardcore manhaters who blame most abortions on men who kind of push the woman into it, but a lot of them were in really abusive relationships where they were beaten and forced into abortions themselves. But I can see where sexism comes in with blaming women because of the uterus and because of the promiscuity associated with women right after having an abortion.

They arent even feminists, but yeah, even though it's kind of an ongoing joke that I was conceived on my mom's birthday, she's still blame my dad for the whole having me unplanned situation.

[perceptrons]

English rant.
Just wanted to let you know that I loved your rant on abusing English. I applauded you as I read it.

[GeeBee]

I hardly ever hear that part of the argument, but again, I grew up with hardcore manhaters who blame most abortions on men who kind of push the woman into it, but a lot of them were in really abusive relationships where they were beaten and forced into abortions themselves. But I can see where sexism comes in with blaming women because of the uterus and because of the promiscuity associated with women right after having an abortion.

They arent even feminists, but yeah, even though it's kind of an ongoing joke that I was conceived on my mom's birthday, she's still blame my dad for the whole having me unplanned situation.

This post said a whole lot of nothing. You continue to live up to your standard of providing low-quality commentary in incoherent spurts that come at the most inopportune time when the grown ups are actually enjoying debating.

[zion the lion]

This post said a whole lot of nothing. You continue to live up to your standard of providing low-quality commentary in incoherent spurts that come at the most inopportune time when the grown ups are actually enjoying debating.

You like that thesaurus mommy gave you for christmas dont you honey?

You complain way too much about how I ruin threads or make incoherent posts, how about you move on and put me on your ignore list if I make your life that hard. God knows you've been on mine for a very long time, in fact, I only took you off a little while ago.

So, peace, love, and chicken grease my friend. Be ware of stress in your life, and hopefully you'll reach nirvana sooner rather than later.

[GeeBee]

You like that thesaurus mommy gave you for christmas dont you honey?

You complain way too much about how I ruin threads or make incoherent posts, how about you move on and put me on your ignore list if I make your life that hard. God knows you've been on mine for a very long time, in fact, I only took you off a little while ago.

So, peace, love, and chicken grease my friend. Be ware of stress in your life, and hopefully you'll reach nirvana sooner rather than later.

Yes, I tend to protest when people say stupid shit, in EVERY thread, EVERY day, in the HEIGHT of otherwise stimulating conversation.

You're the absolute LOWEST common denominator in EVERY thread you appear in.

EDIT: Also...refrain from calling me "honey". I'm nearly ten years your senior. Now go do that remedial math homework you've been putting off.

[caveBEAR]

Just wanted to let you know that I loved your rant on abusing English. I applauded you as I read it.

Ha ha ha ha, I hate that the internet and texting have become havens for butchered sentences. What separates and keyboard and a pen so much that one deserves grammar and the other doesn't?

[GeeBee]

Ha ha ha ha, I hate that the internet and texting have become havens for butchered sentences. What separates and keyboard and a pen so much that one deserves grammar and the other doesn't?

Agreed. Brilliant point.

[caveBEAR]

Agreed. Brilliant point.

My biggest internet annoyance, hands down.

[GeeBee]

My biggest internet annoyance, hands down.

That and shitty video quality for amateur porn, haha.

[macabre]

Ha ha ha ha, I hate that the internet and texting have become havens for butchered sentences. What separates and keyboard and a pen so much that one deserves grammar and the other doesn't?

coz keyz r fastr 4 fingerz n hand wr1t1n is 4 skool n work n has 2 b profesional; typng iz mor casual. duh

[caveBEAR]

That and shitty video quality for amateur porn, haha.

Meh, I try to think of it as more 'arty' than 'shitty'.

[GeeBee]

Meh, I try to think of it as more 'arty' than 'shitty'.

Hahah. Gritty realism.

[caveBEAR]

coz keyz r fastr 4 fingerz n hand wr1t1n is 4 skool n work n has 2 b profesional; typng iz mor casual.

Do kids write notes like this? With a pen and paper? I've always liked writing, so I never skimped on the proper grammar, but is that how kids write in any informal sense?

[caveBEAR]

Hahah. Gritty realism.

Exactly. Some people say 'amateur porn', I say 'arthouse sensuality'. All just semantics.

[macabre]

Do kids write notes like this? With a pen and paper? I've always liked writing, so I never skimped on the proper grammar, but is that how kids write in any informal sense?

Well, some people write in short hand so I guess it happens but from what I've seen, grammar and spelling goes out the window once you're online or texting.

[caveBEAR]

Well, some people write in short hand so I guess it happens but from what I've seen, grammar and spelling goes out the window once you're online or texting.

It's a shame. The internet is such a wealth of knowledge, and it's synonymous with ignorance and stupidity. Oh, and 4chan, who are either that or brilliant.

[Theseventhson]

Do kids write notes like this? With a pen and paper? I've always liked writing, so I never skimped on the proper grammar, but is that how kids write in any informal sense?
Unfortunately. I'm the kid in the class that people always go to for proofreading, and I see a lot of 'u's 'dis's 'cuz's and the likes. It's pretty depressing.

[theguy77]

Don't tell him about the mass e-mail I sent out and the meeting we had over Skype to establish "group-think" about him being a sexist.

:rolleyes:

clearly you don't understand what groupthink means. it doesn't involve intentional collaboration.

[GeeBee]

clearly you don't understand what groupthink means. it doesn't involve intentional collaboration.

Wrong. Clearly YOU don't understand what groupthink means, because it can hardly be achieved over one page of a fucking discussion forum.

Also, if your only retort to the common perception that you're a sexist is....groupthink...you need to try again.

[theguy77]

Wrong. Clearly YOU don't understand what groupthink means, because it can hardly be achieved over one page of a fucking discussion forum.

they see you calling me a sexist, they look through my post to see why you'd think so, and when looking for it they see where i slipped up on one sentence of one post, and they continue to agree with you without looking in context of what the intent of the post actually was.

Also, if your only retort to the common perception that you're a sexist is....groupthink...you need to try again.

i messed up one sentence and im a sexist. sorry im not focusing on sex (which involves both people) in a discussion about abortion (which involves only the girl). why is that hard for you to understand?

[GeeBee]

they see you calling me a sexist, they look through my post to see why you'd think so, and when looking for it they see where i slipped up on one sentence of one post, and they continue to agree with you without looking in context of what the intent of the post actually was.



i messed up one sentence and im a sexist. sorry im not focusing on sex (which involves both people) in a discussion about abortion (which involves only the girl). why is that hard for you to understand?

Christ, then leave me the fuck alone and talk to everyone else to clear up the "misconception". I don't even give a shit anymore.




...you goddamn sexist.

[Lueda Alia]

I never read his replies to you, actually. And I read your post before he even replied, I just didn't have time to reply the first time I saw it because I was heading out. So you're wrong.

I like to think that Jason and I aren't sheep, either. Well, I know we're not. We don't need other people to feed us opinions.

[bastard_of_ness]

How about this whole Tebow commercial thing? Not sure if I missed where someone has mentioned this, but I think trying to get CBS to censor it is totally hypocritical of the Pro-Choice folks. My solution, buy ad time and put up your own ad.

[Dunn.Nope]

bringing the Tebow thing up is just going to make the arrogant kids freak out like in the sports forum

[GeeBee]

Simply no use for trash like this to walk among us:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/28/abortion.roeder.testifies/index.html?hpt=T1

[Theseventhson]

I think Tebow should stick to being an overrated quarterback.

[caveBEAR]

How about this whole Tebow commercial thing? Not sure if I missed where someone has mentioned this, but I think trying to get CBS to censor it is totally hypocritical of the Pro-Choice folks. My solution, buy ad time and put up your own ad.

Could you (or someone else) explain the Tebow commercial?

[rawesome]

Could you (or someone else) explain the Tebow commercial?
You're watching the Super Bowl, enjoying the Colts getting styled on when all of a sudden, "Hi! I'm Tim Tebow's mom. Doctors told me to have an abortion, but since I didn't want to burn in Hell for eternity, I decided against it, ignoring their suggestions. Out popped 'THE GREATEST COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER OF ALL TIME'. So, kids, the moral of the story is, don't listen to your doctor."

I think Tim appears in the ad, too.

[caveBEAR]

You're watching the Super Bowl, enjoying the Colts getting styled on when all of a sudden, "Hi! I'm Tim Tebow's mom. Doctors told me to have an abortion, but since I didn't want to burn in Hell for eternity, I decided against it, ignoring their suggestions. Out popped 'THE GREATEST COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER OF ALL TIME'. So, kids, the moral of the story is, don't listen to your doctor."

I think Tim appears in the ad, too.

Ugh. Fucking Tebows.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

FACT: If Tim Tebow was aborted, then poor Erin Drewes would not have anyone to snuggle up to her massive fake tits.

http://images.dailyradar.com/media/uploads/showhype/story_large/2009/07/10/tim7.jpg

[rawesome]

FACT: If Tim Tebow was aborted, then poor Erin Drewes would not have anyone to snuggle up to her massive fake tits.

http://images.dailyradar.com/media/uploads/showhype/story_large/2009/07/10/tim7.jpg
The only thing aborted was his personality. BAHAHAHAHAHA

[rawesome]

Ugh. Fucking Tebows.
May I put that on my wall of quotes on Facebook?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I like to think of Tim Tebow as the next Jim Bakker. They both have three loves in their lives: God, a woman with alot of cosmetic surgery, and a SHITLOAD OF MONEYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!

[caveBEAR]

May I put that on my wall of quotes on Facebook?

Of course!

[caveBEAR]

FACT: If Tim Tebow was aborted, then poor Erin Drewes would not have anyone to snuggle up to her massive fake tits.

http://images.dailyradar.com/media/uploads/showhype/story_large/2009/07/10/tim7.jpg

Wait...those are fake?

[Lueda Alia]

I can't believe they're going to show that ad. Insane.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Wait...those are fake?

http://larrybrownsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-31.png


...this abortion debate just gave me a chubby.

[caveBEAR]

........




....



huh, what were we saying?

[bastard_of_ness]

The stupidity of this Tebow thing isn't the message, it's the fact that the Pro-Choice folks who claim to be advocates of rights are advocating for censorship. Hypocrites much?

That said, none of us have seen the ad, hence we can't make any statement about the message of the commercial itself.

A friend of mine said that CBS should not air the commercial the same way they don't air PETA commercials that are submitted every year. The major difference in my mind is that Focus on the Family (as much as I hate the organization) is typically quite tasteful... PETA, not so much.

I personally think that if someone buys the ad time (PETA, Focus on the Family, Center for Reproductive Rights, whomever), they should have their voice... unless it presents issues with FCC regulations. If you have a problem with the commercials aired, change the channel.

[bastard_of_ness]

I can't believe they're going to show that ad. Insane.

So, you advocate for women's reproductive rights, but also for censorship?

Maybe this is the better question... isn't the right to carry a pregnacy through term part of reproductive rights?

Perhaps reproductive rights only apply to the agenda of the Pro-Choice movement...

[caveBEAR]

So, you advocate for women's reproductive rights, but also for censorship?

Maybe this is the better question... isn't the right to carry a pregnacy through term part of reproductive rights?

Perhaps reproductive rights only apply to the agenda of the Pro-Choice movement...

1.) Not gonna touch this as it wasn't directed at me, but I bet you're jumping the gun with 'censorship'.

2.) No one is attacking the right to carry a pregnancy to term.

3.) Perhaps your post didn't really say anything of substance, as well as a misunderstanding of when a right is endangered...

[bastard_of_ness]

1.) Not gonna touch this as it wasn't directed at me, but I bet you're jumping the gun with 'censorship'.

2.) No one is attacking the right to carry a pregnancy to term.

3.) Perhaps your post didn't really say anything of substance, as well as a misunderstanding of when a right is endangered...

1. I don't actually believe anyone is advocating censorship, but I am bringing up the point that I find it hard to swallow that any "rights" group should call for an ad not to be aired.

2. This is primarily meant as the age old "playing devil's advocate". That said, all sides have an agenda, I simply believe it is important to note that an ad about choosing life over abortion is not necessarily an attack on the Pro-Choice movement.

3. Unpack this for me. Not sure how I get how any ad by a Pro-Life group can endanger a right.

[Dunn.Nope]

the news said superbowl commercial costs are way down now and they may be just taking anything.

[Lueda Alia]

So, you advocate for women's reproductive rights, but also for censorship?

Maybe this is the better question... isn't the right to carry a pregnacy through term part of reproductive rights?

Perhaps reproductive rights only apply to the agenda of the Pro-Choice movement...
Who said anything about censorship?

Maybe I just don't think that such ads are appropriate?

[Lueda Alia]

1.) Not gonna touch this as it wasn't directed at me, but I bet you're jumping the gun with 'censorship'.

2.) No one is attacking the right to carry a pregnancy to term.

3.) Perhaps your post didn't really say anything of substance, as well as a misunderstanding of when a right is endangered...
Definitely.

[bastard_of_ness]

Who said anything about censorship?

Maybe I just don't think that such ads are appropriate?

I already addressed this above. Sorry, I wasn't actually accusing you of this, but rather noting that I believe that any organziation pushing rights comes off as hypocritical when their rights come at the expense of other rights. Not saying there is a direct connection, sorry for the confusion.

Before I comment on the actual ad, I'll wait until I see it (or don't for that matter).

My big argument is simple. If you don't like it, pick up the remote and change the channel.

If the issue is more about what ads they don't air (as some have suggested), then fight for those, rather than against ones you don't like.

[GeeBee]

So, you advocate for women's reproductive rights, but also for censorship?
CBS not airing a commercial would not be censorship, turbo. The STATE would have to shut down the airing of the commercial for it to be censorship. Too many people shout "CENSORSHIP" when it's completely unnecessary. People have a right to free speech, and other people have the right to react to it. That's not censorship.
I already addressed this above. Sorry, I wasn't actually accusing you of this, but rather noting that I believe that any organziation pushing rights comes off as hypocritical when their rights come at the expense of other rights
See above.
My big argument is simple. If you don't like it, pick up the remote and change the channel Or write CBS and ask them not to air it.

[bastard_of_ness]

CBS not airing a commercial would not be censorship, turbo. The STATE would have to shut down the airing of the commercial for it to be censorship. Too many people shout "CENSORSHIP" when it's completely unnecessary. People have a right to free speech, and other people have the right to react to it. That's not censorship.

See above.
Or write CBS and ask them not to air it.

Censorship can be practiced by a network, not just by the government. If I had a website and you posted on it, then I deleted, that would still be censorship.

[SunnyInPhilly]

CBS not airing a commercial would not be censorship, turbo. The STATE would have to shut down the airing of the commercial for it to be censorship. Too many people shout "CENSORSHIP" when it's completely unnecessary. People have a right to free speech, and other people have the right to react to it. That's not censorship.

See above.
Or write CBS and ask them not to air it.

cen⋅sor –noun 1.an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.


I don't see the word "government" in there.

[bastard_of_ness]

cen⋅sor –noun 1.an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.


I don't see the word "government" in there.

Lancaster/Berks keepin' it real son!

[SunnyInPhilly]

Lancaster/Berks keepin' it real son!

Reppin' the Lanc Lanc lol

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Scott Roeder admits to killing Dr. Tiller, gets life in prison. I say, in addition to a life sentence, he has to witness an abortion being performed at a planned parenthood clinic at least once a week.

[GeeBee]

Censorship can be practiced by a network, not just by the government. If I had a website and you posted on it, then I deleted, that would still be censorship.

cen⋅sor –noun 1.an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.


I don't see the word "government" in there.
Unless it's done by a government, censorship is not violating anyone's "rights", which is my entire point, as that's what was insinuated by the following:

any organziation pushing rights comes off as hypocritical when their rights come at the expense of other rights.

1. I don't actually believe anyone is advocating censorship, but I am bringing up the point that I find it hard to swallow that any "rights" group should call for an ad not to be aired.


Make more sense? CBS refusing to air the commercial could be considered "censorship" (which is debatable), but it certainly would not be a violation of anyone's rights. That's all I was saying.

[SunnyInPhilly]

Unless it's done by a government, censorship is not violating anyone's "rights", which is my entire point, as that's what was insinuated by the following:

Nope, you clearly said it wasn't censorship unless the government does it. Here I'll bold it.

CBS not airing a commercial would not be censorship, turbo. The STATE would have to shut down the airing of the commercial for it to be censorship. Too many people shout "CENSORSHIP" when it's completely unnecessary. People have a right to free speech, and other people have the right to react to it. That's not censorship.

[rawesome]

Nope, you clearly said it wasn't censorship unless the government does it. Here I'll bold it.
The government, as an overseeing body of power, is the only one who is actually able to "take away rights." CBS not playing the ad wouldn't be censorship, but merely them exercising their rights in choosing not to show it.

At least I assumed that was what he meant.

[SunnyInPhilly]

The government, as an overseeing body of power, is the only one who is actually able to "take away rights." CBS not playing the ad wouldn't be censorship, but merely them exercising their rights in choosing not to show it.

At least I assumed that was what he meant.

No, it would still be censorship according to the definition I posted. They are "suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds". It is their right as a network to censor it, but it's still censorship nonetheless.

[caveBEAR]

No, it would still be censorship according to the definition I posted. They are "suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds". It is their right as a network to censor it, but it's still censorship nonetheless.

So every pilot they ever turned down was being 'censored' as well, right?