Moonlight Graham Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Obviously you cannot understand the intrusion of a human being growing inside you for 9 months... You're also completely misunderstanding the arguments. I understand them 100% and always have, I just don't agree with them. Again, however, it doesn't matter. One human being does not get use of another's body against that person's will. Especially not through governmental decree. Full stop. If it's against that person's will to have a baby inside her, then she changed her mind. Other than cases of rape, pregnancy occurring through sex is a 100% willful act on the part of both partners. The mother chooses to have sex, knowing the risks. Nobody forced her to become pregnant, she chose to do an activity that knowingly risks pregnancy. It's not the unborn child's fault that it was created, it was through a willful choice of the mother/father. It's 100% their fault & 100% preventable. You say "One human being does not get use of another's body against that person's will", but the situation completely changes when the human being using the body was created in the first place by the used through a 100% willful act by the used. Is it not immoral to willfully create a human life, and then willfully kill/end/destroy (whatever word you want to use) that life? It may be the kind thing to do, but there is absolutely no moral obligation to submit your body to another. Again, when you have sex & are fertile you're willfully consenting to the risk that you'll become pregnant & consenting to the risk you'll have to submit your body to another of your creation. An abortion is reversing this consent when the odds don't roll your way. This presents a moral problem. I completely reject your notion that the woman is killing what she and her partner created. The woman chooses not to be pregnant. You and AW don't understand the definition of "killing". If you purposely end the life of a living organism, you are killing it. By definition. This is not up for debate, it is scientific law & common knowledge. If I put alcohol on a wound I'm killing bacteria; I slap a fly I'm killing the fly; If I take a morning-after pill, or a doctor sucks the fetus out of the vagina, I/the doctor is killing the embryo/fetus. Mistakenly defining abortion as an act that doesn't kill is an attempt by you & AW to avoid the moral problems that arise from an act of killing a human organism. If you want to argue for abortion, at least take responsibility for what it is. Having sex & then not taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions when you get preggers, then denying abortion is even killing = a double cop-out. You want to have you cake and eat it too, and then deny it will make you fat when you eat it. You know what a mother doesn't have to do? She doesn't have to give her blood if the baby requires a blood transfusion and they can't get it anywhere else. The government and courts can't order her to do it either. Do you know why?Because the government cannot intrude on your body. They don't pass legislation to harvest people's organs that they can do without (ie, kidneys) or force people to give their blood against their will. Nor can they create legislation dictating that a woman must use her body to incubate another human being if that is against her will. I reject this argument, for the same reason I reject the car accident metaphor: because it's not analogous to pregnancy/abortion. I agree government can't intrude on your body by forcefully taking something from it. They can't harvest organs or take your blood etc. by force, and they shouldn't be able to touch you in any way against your will (unless ie: you break the law & need to be arrested). This is basically assault. But anti-abortion laws are not like this at all, & in fact are the complete opposite. These laws aren't intruding on your body in any way, the government is not touching you or forcing you to do anything against your will. They're banning drugs (like morning after pills), the same as they can ban any other drugs. They're also banning doctors from performing certain procedures, as they do for many procedures. The seed metaphor is much more analogous than the car metaphor, but still has holes. If I were to argue for abortion rights I would argue that women/people should have the right of control over their own bodies, and since an embryo/fetus is a part of a person's body, a woman should have the right to have it removed. Whether the unborn can survive or not after being removed should not interfere with these rights, but it would be morally right to ensure every effort is made to ensure that it lives if possible when removed & laws should reflect this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 I agree government can't intrude on your body by forcefully taking something from it. They can't harvest organs or take your blood etc. by force, and they shouldn't be able to touch you in any way against your will (unless ie: you break the law & need to be arrested). This is basically assault. But anti-abortion laws are not like this at all, & in fact are the complete opposite. These laws aren't intruding on your body in any way, the government is not touching you or forcing you to do anything against your will. Are you kidding? Anti-abortion laws are explicitly, openly, outright "forcing you to do [something] against your will." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 I can't even continue discussing this with MG. He's just saying the same things over and over again when I've shown his position to be untenable. Then he goes and makes fundamental mistakes like bleeding heart has shown above or saying that a woman who chooses to have an abortion has changed her mind about being pregnant. Even though that's not necessarily the case, so what if it is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) or saying that a woman who chooses to have an abortion has changed her mind about being pregnant. Even though that's not necessarily the case, so what if it is? This is a key point, one that pro-choicers themselves often omit or ignore in their arguments. (Much like whether or not abortion is "killing"...of course it's "killing.") If a woman chooses to get pregnant, and then changes her mind, abortion remains a perfectly viable option. That's the point. That some people say "she shouldn't do such a thing" is a separate argument. Then, we're talking about subjective moral arguments; those arguments are fine as far as they go, I suppose, but they don't apply to whether or not a woman should be "allowed" to have an abortion. Edited August 1, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 I completely reject your notion that the woman is killing what she and her partner created. The woman chooses not to be pregnant. You and AW don't understand the definition of "killing". If you purposely end the life of a living organism, you are killing it. By definition. This is not up for debate, it is scientific law & common knowledge. If I put alcohol on a wound I'm killing bacteria; I slap a fly I'm killing the fly; If I take a morning-after pill, or a doctor sucks the fetus out of the vagina, I/the doctor is killing the embryo/fetus. You need to understand and respond to what I said, rather than including me in a quote from cybercoma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 (Much like whether or not abortion is "killing"...of course it's "killing.") Not in legal sense it isnt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Not in legal sense it isnt. No, I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 You need to understand and respond to what I said, rather than including me in a quote from cybercoma. I didn't have time to respond, only to read it. i will respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 I didn't have time to respond, only to read it. i will respond. I'm not saying that I expect you to respond, only that you included me in a response to a quote that I didn't post. You were apparently quoting cybercoma, not me, which was my point. I don't read his posts, so I don't know what his stand is; I only know that I've never said what he said in that quote and you were including me as if I had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) If you purposely end the life of a living organism, you are killing it. By definition. This is not up for debate, it is scientific law & common knowledge. If I put alcohol on a wound I'm killing bacteria; I slap a fly I'm killing the fly; If I take a morning-after pill, or a doctor sucks the fetus out of the vagina, I/the doctor is killing the embryo/fetus. Moonlight gives a fact. Excellent analogy. We can dance around the definition, but there's no denying it. It boils down to that: killing. Edited August 3, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) Moonlight gives a fact. Excellent analogy. We can dance around the definition, but there's no denying it. It boils down to that: killing. No it doesn't. It boils down to the fact that this human body and life cannot be sustained without incubating within another person's body and if that person does not want their body used as an incubator they have every right both legally and morally not to have their body forced by the government to be used that way.If the child could survive outside of another human's body, then you would be absolutely right. It would be about killing, rather than holding another person's body hostage. Edited August 3, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 It boils down to that: killing. Oh...then they can be charged. No wait , that doesnt work.Guess it aint killing then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) Moonlight gives a fact. Excellent analogy. We can dance around the definition, but there's no denying it. It boils down to that: killing. Fact though it may be, as I pointed out, birth control kills sperm, too. Yet we refer it as birth control, not "killing sperm." I could give countless examples of where ending the existence of a living organism is not referred to as "killing," but the one example makes my point. Moonlight Graham has admitted to trying to make abortion an emotional issue, but we do not make laws based on emotions. Oh...then they can be charged. No wait , that doesnt work.Guess it aint killing then. It is "killing" in the most basic "deprive of life" definition, but when one looks at the synonyms - "murder - slaughter - assassination - homicide" - the most often used definition of the word does not apply. Edited August 3, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 I'm not saying that I expect you to respond, only that you included me in a response to a quote that I didn't post. You were apparently quoting cybercoma, not me, which was my point. I don't read his posts, so I don't know what his stand is; I only know that I've never said what he said in that quote and you were including me as if I had. I never said that you said what he said. I only said that you & cybercoma didn't understand the definition of killing in each of your arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 I can't even continue discussing this with MG. He's just saying the same things over and over again when I've shown his position to be untenable. Then he goes and makes fundamental mistakes like bleeding heart has shown above or saying that a woman who chooses to have an abortion has changed her mind about being pregnant. Even though that's not necessarily the case, so what if it is? Neither you, AW, or I are going to switch our positions so let's just agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Are you kidding? Anti-abortion laws are explicitly, openly, outright "forcing you to do [something] against your will." What I said was in the context of my argument: I agree government can't intrude on your body by forcefully taking something from it. They can't harvest organs or take your blood etc. by force, and they shouldn't be able to touch you in any way against your will (unless ie: you break the law & need to be arrested). This is basically assault. But anti-abortion laws are not like this at all, & in fact are the complete opposite. These laws aren't intruding on your body in any way, the government is not touching you or forcing you to do anything against your will. Yes the gov is forcing you to continue your pregnancy against your will, so you're right in that sense & therefore I should retract my exact statement "the government is not...forcing you to do anything against your will". But what I meant by this is that the government isn't forcing you to action with anti-abortion laws, they're restricting you from action. They're forcing you to do something in the negative sense, rather than the positive sense. Therefore anti-abortion laws are quite different than cybercoma's car analogy. Edited August 4, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 I never said that you said what he said. I only said that you & cybercoma didn't understand the definition of killing in each of your arguments. I don't understand the definition of killing? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Fact though it may be, as I pointed out, birth control kills sperm, too. Yet we refer it as birth control, not "killing sperm." I could give countless examples of where ending the existence of a living organism is not referred to as "killing," but the one example makes my point. What? Because society chose to use the word "birth control" instead of factual descriptions like...."killing unborn?" If you're promoting something, wouldn't you "package" it in such a way that buying your product doesn't come with so much angst? Moonlight Graham has admitted to trying to make abortion an emotional issue, but we do not make laws based on emotions. Sometimes voicing out your emotion is the only thing left to point out an injustice....even if it means yelling at a brick wall. It is "killing" in the most basic "deprive of life" definition, but when one looks at the synonyms - "murder - slaughter - assassination - homicide" - the most often used definition of the word does not apply. Bingo! You admit it yourself. Thus I said, you can dance all around the definition....but in the end it still boils down to the same thing: KILLING. Edited August 4, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 When you turn off life support, do you say you're killing a family member? You are not ending their life. They are unable to remain living without support. In the case of a fetus, you are under no obligation to give up sovereignty over your body to another human being to keep them alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 Fact though it may be, as I pointed out, birth control kills sperm, too. Yet we refer it as birth control, not "killing sperm." I hadn't expected that rebutt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 I never said that you said what he said. I only said that you & cybercoma didn't understand the definition of killing in each of your arguments. I most definitely did understand the definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Bingo! You admit it yourself. Thus I said, you can dance all around the definition....but in the end it still boils down to the same thing: KILLING. As I pointed out, it's "killing" in the most basic sense of the definition. We "kill" lots of things, including sperm, but it's not all comparable to "murder, homicide, manslaughter" et al by a long shot, which is the mindset those who refer to it as "killing" rather than "abortion" are trying to conjure up. "Killing" in and of itself isn't always a horrible act. In fact, sometimes it's an act of mercy. As I pointed out, killing sperm, ie: birth control, is also "killing" but it certainly isn't "packaged" that way. Picking flowers is "killing" a living organism; as I said, referring to abortion as "killing" by the most basic definition of "ending the existence of a living organism" hardly makes it what it's being made out as. It's hyperbole. Scientists refer to "embryonic research," not "research on killed embryos." Moonlight Graham's 'science says it's killing' argument isn't what he's trying to present it as. Edited August 4, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 I love how you want to dictate the ways people should be allowed to have sex. Insisting that vaginal penetration is only for procreation. I'm not dictating anything about ways people should have sex, I'm arguing for what they should/shouldn't be able to do if they get pregnant. And I never said that vaginal sex is only for procreation, I'm stating the fact that with vaginal sex between fertile people there's a chance for pregnancy. Vaginal sex is designed by evolution to be for both pleasure and procreation. Evolution has ensured the prosperity of the human race by making sex pleasurable, which makes people to want to have sex even if they don't really want to get pregnant. Natural selection made it so humans (or whatever species they evolved from) who do not experience sexual pleasure have their populations die off and those who have sex for pleasure thrive since they're having for more sex. I don't understand the definition of killing? Really? Not according to your arguments. When you turn off life support, do you say you're killing a family member? You are not ending their life. They are unable to remain living without support. It's different if the person on life-support is in a long-term coma state with virtually no chance of going off life-support & leading any kind of conscious/meaningful life. Instead, what if a family member goes into a hospital & turns off life support on a person who needs it to survive at the time but doctors say there's a very good chance they'll eventually regain their normal functions & not need life support anymore? Is that killing? Of course it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 It's different if the person on life-support is in a long-term coma state with virtually no chance of going off life-support & leading any kind of conscious/meaningful life. Instead, what if a family member goes into a hospital & turns off life support on a person who needs it to survive at the time but doctors say there's a very good chance they'll eventually regain their normal functions & not need life support anymore? Is that killing? Of course it is. They are BOTH "killing" by the basic definition - ending the existence of a living organism. You're just saying that it's morally ok to end a life that's dependent on a machine but not morally ok to end a life dependent on another's body. Yet they are both "killing," and to say otherwise is not to understand the definition of killing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) They are BOTH "killing" by the basic definition - ending the existence of a living organism. You're just saying that it's morally ok to end a life that's dependent on a machine but not morally ok to end a life dependent on another's body. Yet they are both "killing," and to say otherwise is not to understand the definition of killing. Big difference between life support and abortion. In fact they're not the same. Life support - the very name describes its function. SUPPORT. They didn't call it "Life Ender," did they? Taking off life support means letting the "living organism" exists on its own, letting nature takes its course. We're not naturally connected to a life support, you know..... Some end up surviving - breathing on their own - after being taken from life support. Abortion is.....killing. Edited August 4, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.