Abortion.What do you think about it?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And of course:



America's abortion battlefield

Yes, the deceptive semantics never stop.

The unborn is NOT 'part of the woman's body'.

He/she has a body of his/her own that is a distinct human entity. The unborn's DNA does NOT match the mother's.

So, biologically it is simply false to say that the unborn is 'part of the mother's body.'

real life wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Yes, the deceptive semantics never stop.

The unborn is NOT 'part of the woman's body'.

He/she has a body of his/her own that is a distinct human entity. The unborn's DNA does NOT match the mother's.

So, biologically it is simply false to say that the unborn is 'part of the mother's body.'

So what? She has the right to do whatever she wants with her damn body!

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

real life wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Yes, the deceptive semantics never stop.

The unborn is NOT 'part of the woman's body'.

He/she has a body of his/her own that is a distinct human entity. The unborn's DNA does NOT match the mother's.

So, biologically it is simply false to say that the unborn is 'part of the mother's body.'

So what? She has the right to do whatever she wants with her damn body!

Would you agree that the unborn is NOT part of the mother's body?

A tapeworm is not part of a womans body either yet taking a pill to kill one has never been an issue.
DNA/heartbeat/brainwaves are not unto themselves defining characteristic of personhood. A flake of skin has DNA. A flake of skin isn't a person. You can stimulate a dead heart with machines and make it pump blood. That doesn't make it a person. A dead brain can be stimulated to carry nuerolelectric signals. Not a person.
That you feel your crusade to save all the innocent lumps of cells that you define as people is righteous doesn't make you right.

Doktor S wrote:

A tapeworm is not part of a womans body either yet taking a pill to kill one has never been an issue.
DNA/heartbeat/brainwaves are not unto themselves defining characteristic of personhood. A flake of skin has DNA. A flake of skin isn't a person. You can stimulate a dead heart with machines and make it pump blood. That doesn't make it a person. A dead brain can be stimulated to carry nuerolelectric signals. Not a person.
That you feel your crusade to save all the innocent lumps of cells that you define as people is righteous doesn't make you right.

Are you kidding me? You've got to be able to do better than that!

Diest TKO wrote:

echi wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

echi wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Rights aren't being taken, there being given, by choice.

That's right, Diest. But your rights exist only because enough people have agreed to give them to you. Those same people could just as easily take them away, strip you of your property, even take your life, and you could do nothing about it but cry. Since right and wrong are purely subjective, receiving authority from majority opinion, how could you object? Would you?

The choice to give life rights doesn't come from several people. It comes from the mother, a singularity.

Quote:

If you are advocating for making abortion illeagel, you are saying in essencse that those things that you listed SHOULD BE ABLE to be taken "at whim."

No, I'm not.

Quote:

As for majority opinion, truth is not dictated by democracy. I could presnt a vote on what emotion I am feeling at the moment and it woun't matter how you vote or how well you argue, I wouldn't feel "happy" on the basis that a mojority voted on happy.

I understand your point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Ultimate truth is a matter of individual experience. But the conventional truth would be decided by the majority of voters, in much the same way that your rights are determined. If your pro-choice belief was not supported by law, then on what grounds do you think you would base your opinion?

Quote:

Our country is at odds. The world for that matter. Concensus, not majority rules will help us. You are going to have to live with abortion in this world, just as other's who believe in choice coexist with you.

That is exactly what you and I are doing.

If abortion was illegal right now, I'd still be basing my stance on the mother's right to choose. Beyond that (assuming it was illeagal) I'd be very critical of laws that would put such a huge burden on adoption programs that simply cna't handle the load. I'd still be basing my stance on families needing to be enabled to raise their children sucessfully. My stance would still be that the stadardization of values is a bad thing. My stance as mush as it is about "rights," a legal issue, it's just as much about culture.

As for removing rights at whim, what I gather from what you have said is that whatever a simple majority votes should become law and that's it. typically I'd just say well duh, that's law, but with abortion, it's not like other issues to vote on as it is so personal. You'd have people voting on it whom it would never affect. So as a mother who wants to keep her choice, she'd have her right to choose being decided by other people.

A choice would still be made. I'm just more comfortab;e with the mother, not others making that choice. Many people who are for making abortion illegal are fine with taking the choices others make and making them for them because it's a system that can't ever come back at them; It's not like they will be having people mandate thir choices any time soon.

You obviously have no concept of what 'rights' are.

You claim NOT to believe in absolutes of right and wrong. All morals are subjectively determined by society in your view.

Yet you claim that if abortion was illegal , the woman would still have a 'right' to an abortion. Since she obviously wouldn't have a 'legal right', then perhaps you are saying she would have a 'moral right'.

But on what basis?

Does one have the 'moral right' to flout laws that they disagree with? If so, how is your view different from that of the anarchist?

Are you kidding me? You've got to be able to do better than that!

No, unfortunately not.

That's about the best you can expect from DS. Sorry.

Quote:

Are you kidding me? You've got to be able to do better than that!

Quote:

No, unfortunately not.

That's about the best you can expect from DS. Sorry.

Empty headed replies such as this, when coming from the 'divine authority' camp, re-assure me I must be on the right track.

Quote:

Are you kidding me? You've got to be able to do better than that!

Quote:

No, unfortunately not.

That's about the best you can expect from DS. Sorry.

Empty headed replies such as this, when coming from the 'divine authority' camp, re-assure me I must be on the right track.

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

echi wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

echi wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Rights aren't being taken, there being given, by choice.

That's right, Diest. But your rights exist only because enough people have agreed to give them to you. Those same people could just as easily take them away, strip you of your property, even take your life, and you could do nothing about it but cry. Since right and wrong are purely subjective, receiving authority from majority opinion, how could you object? Would you?

The choice to give life rights doesn't come from several people. It comes from the mother, a singularity.

Quote:

If you are advocating for making abortion illeagel, you are saying in essencse that those things that you listed SHOULD BE ABLE to be taken "at whim."

No, I'm not.

Quote:

As for majority opinion, truth is not dictated by democracy. I could presnt a vote on what emotion I am feeling at the moment and it woun't matter how you vote or how well you argue, I wouldn't feel "happy" on the basis that a mojority voted on happy.

I understand your point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Ultimate truth is a matter of individual experience. But the conventional truth would be decided by the majority of voters, in much the same way that your rights are determined. If your pro-choice belief was not supported by law, then on what grounds do you think you would base your opinion?

Quote:

Our country is at odds. The world for that matter. Concensus, not majority rules will help us. You are going to have to live with abortion in this world, just as other's who believe in choice coexist with you.

That is exactly what you and I are doing.

If abortion was illegal right now, I'd still be basing my stance on the mother's right to choose. Beyond that (assuming it was illeagal) I'd be very critical of laws that would put such a huge burden on adoption programs that simply cna't handle the load. I'd still be basing my stance on families needing to be enabled to raise their children sucessfully. My stance would still be that the stadardization of values is a bad thing. My stance as mush as it is about "rights," a legal issue, it's just as much about culture.

As for removing rights at whim, what I gather from what you have said is that whatever a simple majority votes should become law and that's it. typically I'd just say well duh, that's law, but with abortion, it's not like other issues to vote on as it is so personal. You'd have people voting on it whom it would never affect. So as a mother who wants to keep her choice, she'd have her right to choose being decided by other people.

A choice would still be made. I'm just more comfortab;e with the mother, not others making that choice. Many people who are for making abortion illegal are fine with taking the choices others make and making them for them because it's a system that can't ever come back at them; It's not like they will be having people mandate thir choices any time soon.

You obviously have no concept of what 'rights' are.

You claim NOT to believe in absolutes of right and wrong. All morals are subjectively determined by society in your view.

Yet you claim that if abortion was illegal , the woman would still have a 'right' to an abortion. Since she obviously wouldn't have a 'legal right', then perhaps you are saying she would have a 'moral right'.

But on what basis?

Does one have the 'moral right' to flout laws that they disagree with? If so, how is your view different from that of the anarchist?

Your thought process or literate ablity to understand concepts boggles my mind. I can't even reply to what you have said because it is soooooo far from anything I've said, and I'm not going to defen things I haven't even said.

BTW... If you don't like that pictures of women outside advocating their choice; if you think you know soooooo much more than them, why don't you convince I single one of them that they should be for making abortion illegal?

Doktor S wrote:
Quote:

Are you kidding me? You've got to be able to do better than that!

Quote:



No, unfortunately not.

That's about the best you can expect from DS. Sorry.

Empty headed replies such as this, when coming from the 'divine authority' camp, re-assure me I must be on the right track.


Well, since you claim YOURSELF to be god, it is pretty funny when you try to trash others for anything related to 'divine authority'.

Lessee, there's a word for that........

I don't see him claiming to be god anywhere, unless you are referencing some other thread.

It's not just me you seem to have a hard time understanding. I don't see him claiming to be god anywhere, unless you are referencing some other thread.

As far as I can see, I am the only autotheist.

Bob the skeptic says:
"Autotheist?? So you think YOU are GOD??"

Yes, I sure do. But this hinges on the definition of 'god'. The word is pretty flexible in meaning but I define it differently than most, in regards to myself.

God to me is that which drives your life, shapes your destiny. God is omnipresent, god makes the final decision about what his world will compose of.

I am of the opinion only the self meets these criteria.

I drive my life, and although many factors play into my destiny, I am the most influential one. I am omnipresent, I will be the only one present from the beginning to the end of my life, through every moment. I decide what to include in my world.

Bob the skeptic might say:
"Ok then. Why even bother..you sound like an atheist to me"

But I'm not. Although I don't think there are any external deities.....

I refuse to discuss this further with you. You have demonstrated time and time again you are either incapable of grasping what was said, or are purposefully trying to misguide the more gullible of the A2K audience. Either way, I have better things to do.