What a pile of steaming BS - intervention in suicide has nothing to do with abortion - as the woman is not committing suicide - nor is her mental state impaired. Comparing a woman having an abortion to "shooting up heroin" is as nonsensical as it gets - one is harming themselves - the other is not. However - if the woman does want to harm herself by engaging in risky behavior such as driving a car, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol - no you should not have the right to intervene - except in your collectivist totalitarian world where essential liberty doesn't exist. Only in extreme cases of self harm - does the state intervene.. a woman having an abortion is not a case of extreme self harm - in fact - it is not self harm at all .. it is self help.
It has nothing to do with abortion, but it has everything to do with your statement that the woman has the right to her body. Like as if, that's it! I'm telling you, it ain't that simple - and I gave you the example of someone committing suicide, or doing drugs. The court can order someone to go to a rehab. We also have such a term called, "INTERVENTION." Lol....the person (regardless of gender) is not really free to do anything she wants with her body! She isn't given the right to do herself in! What more when it involves another life (the fetus), who's going to get mudered. If I'm not mistaken....Roe v Wade won NOT BECAUSE of "woman's right to her body." It's because of the ..................RIGHT TO PRIVACY! https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade Anyway - there's something in the Supreme Court right now and it'll be interesting to see how things turn out.
Your example was really bad for the reasons given in my post - what part of "We generally do not intervene" - did you not understand What part of - The woman is not in the category "Extreme harm to oneself" did you not get ? - and thus in the "We do not intervene" category. The status of the fetus is a completely different question - and you were already crucified on that front - by yours Truly. and so what about R v W not addressing the issue of rights over one's body - so they did not rule on that basis ..it has no bearing on your argument or my refutation .. you are randomly throwing mud at the wall .. completely avoiding the points I made ..
What point have you made? None. You've pinned your argument on the woman's right to her body - which I refuted! "We generally do not intervene," is not good enough. We - or, the LAW, intervenes, when others' safety are involved. With abortion - it's no longer just about the woman's body: there's another life involved.
Yes it does matter where it is from, because a pro-choice site or a pro-life site, or section thereof, can be cherry picking only the parts of science that supports their position. The source could be made up, or edited for spin. That is why an unbiased source is needed for verification. For the exact same reasons I just gave. That source could be a fabrication or edited for spin. You'll notice that I have not given any sources from any site or portion of a site that is pro-choice. I do not want to present even potentially biases information. I agree. I have used Wikipedia as references before, but only if they have several references that can be verified. Rational Wiki has not been vetted as thoroughly as Wikipedia. Even then I check other references And you have been shown wrong in those explanations, especially since your supposed fact is among the 5 views and you called all 5 "proposals". So you are contradicting your own self in that manner. Furthermore, the very existence of these views shows that the one you are focusing on is not uncontested. If the view you are using was actually uncontested, then the other views would not even exist. Pot, kettle, achromatic. Furthermore, I have shown the bias of your sources, and proven that your view is not the only one. I have a solid basis of position here. So let's try this again. "Furthermore, anything that is given permission for, can have that permission withdrawn, and if the other does not cease, they are in violation of the person's rights. I could be providing you with bone marrow, that you need in order to live. Let's even go so far as to say there is no one else that is a match within the time frame in which you will die without that marrow; rare matching markers and such. We'll even go so far as to say you are in a coma and the decision to start you on the treatment came from a family member. So basically you are in a position through no choice of your own, in which if I withdrawn the permission of you to make use of my bodily resources, you will die. Is it your assertion that I am not allowed to stop providing that bone marrow simply because of your right to life and that you are in that position through no choice of your own?" I have money down on a bet that you will avoid answering this again.
As much as I hate to, he is correct in this comparison. This is another example of bodily autonomy rights potentially being violated. Same with drug use.
You are also showing how no one right is absolute. Every right that comes into conflict with another right either overrides the other right or is overridden by the other right. No one right always trumps over another given right.
Go read my post .. I covered this .. I did not once claim it was not an invasion .. his comparison was absurd - on the basis of the points made in my post - now go and learn
You have to have a reputable source. And, if you want to check up on a quote - you can google and usually do your own research about it. If I gave you a source - like the university - which gave all the info about the books or materials they referenced - the onus is on you to prove that they cherry-picked the quotes given from references. You can't just dismiss it saying " OH, they could've cherry-picked!" Lol - surely it's definitely a whole lot worse trusting personal claims for facts without any references given! In serious discussions - personal opinions don't really count unless they can be backed by something credible. It isn't like drinking beer at the pub while shooting breeze. Anyway - how do you know for certain a site isn't biased? Can you please explain that. Just because they don't announce which side of the fence they sit on, doesn't always mean they're not leaning towards any side. Online especially - so many quasi around.
....that's why pro-choice are trying their darndest to de-humanize the fetus (so he won't have the same protection, and not be entitled to human rights). Lol - they call the unborn by any other name - like, ZYGOTE - as if, calling him that makes him a lesser human! When in fact, it's just another stage of development that a human NATURALLY goes through just the same as when we go through our PUBESCENT stage. Actually - to not have been a zygote............ would mean to not be humanl! How can one be a human if one doesn't go through the NATURAL development of a human? That's how Hitler made it acceptable to kill Jews, and for slavers to oppress Black slaves. There were supporters for Hitler and slavers. These groups - Jews and Black people - were de-humanized. Thus, when pro-choice tactic is likened to Hitler/nazis - that's what it means. See how many people - sadly, even some Christians - have become supporters and promoters of abortion.
Thank you for the money. Let's try this again. "Furthermore, anything that is given permission for, can have that permission withdrawn, and if the other does not cease, they are in violation of the person's rights. I could be providing you with bone marrow, that you need in order to live. Let's even go so far as to say there is no one else that is a match within the time frame in which you will die without that marrow; rare matching markers and such. We'll even go so far as to say you are in a coma and the decision to start you on the treatment came from a family member. So basically you are in a position through no choice of your own, in which if I withdrawn the permission of you to make use of my bodily resources, you will die. Is it your assertion that I am not allowed to stop providing that bone marrow simply because of your right to life and that you are in that position through no choice of your own?" I have money down on another bet that you will avoid answering this yet again.
I fail to see what that has got to do with what you quoted because they're not same. You are donating your body part to someone. The life of the person depends on whether you proceed with your donation, or not. It is an altruistic gesture - a good deed on your part to want to help save this life. However...... You are not responsible for the illness of the person! You are merely trying to help. That is not comparable to a mother who had created another life in her womb. She is responsible for her condition! Do you see the big difference? The only comparable scenario I can get from your hypothetical comparison, is if you made the person sick! Like, if YOU injected her with something or poisoned her! Lol - in that scenario - you're responsible for her illness - you'd be facing a criminal charge. MURDER - if, or when she dies. That would make you like the mother being responsible for the situation that placed her totally innocent unborn in that scenario. EXCEPT that with the mother - she has another alternative: give up the baby for adoption. That's the only win-win scenario for both mother and child. You'd be surprised. Apparently, in the end - many mothers had a change of heart and had decided to keep and raise the baby themselves.
Comparing the horror, suffering, torture , LOSS OF BODILY AUTONOMY , and wanton slaughter of BORN persons, Jews, to the quick painless death of a ZEF is deplorable, despicable, and SICK.
For someone who doesn't want the opposition to use emotional based arguments, you are emulating them pretty well. "deplorable, despicable, and SICK" are all subjective values, so yes it is an opinion. One I agree with you on, but an opinion none the less. As is his opinion that they are comparable.
That was done to show that you left out and avoided parts of the post. Something you've done for several post until I made it the only thing in the post. No different than the woman's body being donated and then the permission later being withdrawn. She would also be responsible for her broken leg if she choose to go skiing. Does this mean she's not allowed to correct that condition as well? And since we're on the topic of her being responsible, are you one of the portion of pro-life's that allow for a rape exception? And if so, what do you present to those who do not want even a rape exception? Are there any other exceptions, such as extreme deformity and/or low chance to live? So then where does the potential donator stand if indeed they are the one who caused the sickness, but not through intent, and even put preventive measures in place that ended up failing? That still puts the woman at risk for all the problems with pregnancy, which are much less than the risk of an abortion, save maybe a late term abortion. Even then, those are rarely done unless the woman's life is already at great risk, which means even the increased risk of the late term abortion is lower than continuing the pregnancy. Here is a list of possible complications that can occur during pregnancy, any of which could cause the woman to have a high-risk pregnancy. Here is the support to show that the risks for abortion are much less than those for pregnancy. Indeed they have. Guess what? That's part of the whole "pro CHOICE" stance. Amazing how that works out.
Let me quote yo again: To which I replied: I fail to see what that has got to do with what you quoted because they're not same. You are donating your body part to someone. The life of the person depends on whether you proceed with your donation, or not. It is an altruistic gesture - a good deed on your part to want to help save this life. However...... You are not responsible for the illness of the person! You are merely trying to help. That is not comparable to a mother who had created another life in her womb. She is responsible for her condition! Do you see the big difference? This is why I ignored some of your posts. And, I stopped reading from there! I'll ignore the rest of what you wrote. Bye for now. Until you got something worth responding to.
It is not "emotional" based because YOU say so, Mom...it is a fact...and one that needs saying. Just because you didn't care if that poster did such a stupid comparison doesn't mean no one else does. Oh , and thank you for stating the obvious, and meaningless, in such a pompous "stick -up- the- butt way....it's rather amusing...I can almost hear the "HARRUMPHS" and see the mutton-chop sideburns..
If revulsion is an emotion then gee, you scored a Big Point. But my post is based on fact. I am used to the Anti-Choicers denigrating what happened to the Jews by comparing it to the quick painless death of a ZEF and posted my standard answer with no emotion . I have had to use it many times so it's hardly done with emotion. Did you notice that your unemotional posts haven't made a dent in the oppositions view? BTW, did you know I'm not the topic?
People call them zygotes because that is the medical terminology. It is a descriptor. No one argues, if left to develop and natural loss does not occur, that the zygote or fetus will not become a self sufficient human. It simply isn’t one inside the womb until a certain stage. The issue with your comparison is that Jewish people and Black people were both aware and independent, they did not rely or impose on the lives of their aggressors. Why do you believe a non-aware reliant zygote / fetus / unborn should be able to overrule the bodily autonomy of a woman for 9 months?
You refuted nothing. Just because you have no respect for essential liberty - does not mean others don't. Your claim that Law always gets involved when safety is involved is a preposterous falsehood You then close with "there is another life involved" - which is laughable nonsense on steroids. So what if there is another "Life" involved - humans must kill life to survive - and your support your naked claim with ZERO You can't even make an argument - never mind refute something. For future reference .. and argument consists of 2 things - 1) Statement of Claim 2) evidence or rational for why that claim is true.
Willingly donating a kidney is not the same as being unwillingly pregnant in any imagineble way possible. Furthermore, I am not surprised that you are a fan of altruism. I have poimted out this in many of my posts on this matter -- Demanding a woman to give up her actual life, liberty and pursiuit of happiness for that of the potemtial life of the ZEF is altruism at its best. OK. Cute story. And I had one root canal. I was responsible for the condition I created by not taking care of my oral health good enough and by being too lazy to call tne dentist in time. Are you saying it should have been illegal for me to have this procedure? She is indeed responsible for it which is why she can have an abortion. Just like the responsinle thing to do in case of tooth ache is to visit the dentist, tne responsible thing to do when unwillingly pregnant is to visit the clinic. Your analogy sucks. Awww, that inmocent, little piece of ptotoplasm that may not even fully develop into a baby is much more worthy of life than an adult individual with her own values, goals, ambition and life. Yes. Ugh. This is just so stupid. Only the woman's life matters. Every chosen abortion is a win. Good for them. But, it is important to remember that many did not change their mind too. Abortion is good.
