Do you believe that life begins at conception?

[Goobieman]

I see that you have quite a talent for ignoring the relevant parts of posts and replying to only a segment of a full argument in order to give the appearance of a rebuttal.

Funny - I thought I was paring off your irrelevant responses and only hitting the important parts.

You are not forced to labor for money by our government. You are more than welcome to quit your job and file for unemployment assistance and welfare. If you do this, you will not be taxed on income.

This isnt relevant, and actually only bolsters my point.

The fact that you NOT work doesnt change the fact that if you DO, then you are forced to slave foe others -- and, of course, by filing for unemployment, then YOU are forcing others to be slaves.

But, if you consider your point still to be relevant and your argument still sound, that which can be said for work can also be said for sex -- You are not forced to have sex by our government. You are more than welcome to not have sex. If you do this, you will not become a slave of the womb.

Same-same. You choose to enslave yourself, and so you arent really a slave.
Right?

(Yes, there is rape/incest. Different issue.)

You are more than welcome to sell your property or give it away, and if you do this, you will not be taxed on property. Since there is a way to avoid paying taxes, your labor is not forced.

Not sure your figuring on all this, or exactly what you mean. Someone paid tax on the labor that provided the funds that bought/built the house.

To use your phrase, there is no slavery of the hands in this country. I am pro-choice because I do not want there to be slavery of the womb;

Under your argument - that you have the choice to engage in the activity that makes you a slave, and so you are therefore not a slave - if there is no slavery for the hands, there is also no slavery of the womb.

 

[talloulou]

I said that a person's right to control their own body, their own life, cannopt be limited in order to help others, with the sole exception being criminals,

This is completely untrue. Even Roe vs Wade decided that a woman's womb is completely under her control for a certain time period and then it isn't. I'm sure the time period is debatable and if "her womb was her womb end of story" then time restraints on abortion would be unconstitutuional.

 

[FallingPianos]

Ah - but I-am- doing something about it -- indeed, I am being forced to do it w/o any choice in the matter.

I pay taxes, and that money goes to support the poor and the sick and the old -- primarily here, but ultimately all over the world.

right now, you are obligated to give a certain percentage of your earnings/labor to others, but you are not required legally or morally to give everything you possibly can.

there are people dying out there, and you are not donating everything you can to the cause. given that you have time to debate, and a computer to do so, I am assuming that you live a relatively comfortable life on the global scale. why are you not morally obligated to give everything you have (short of your own life, and the absolute necessities to maintain it) to keep other people alive?

does their right to live not trump your right to own your home, or your computer, your stereo, etc...?

surely, you must think that there is some limit.

 

[FallingPianos]

Sorry. I really didn't mean to step into the discussion between you and star2589.

this is an open debate forum. stepping into a discussion is always welcome. :2wave:

 

[Goobieman]

right now, you are obligated to give a certain percentage of your earnings/labor to others, but you are not required legally or morally to give everything you possibly can.

So what? the question is -- Am I doing it, and am I being forced to do it.
The answer to both is yes.

 

[FallingPianos]

So what?

so morally, where do you draw the line?

 

[Goobieman]

so morally, where do you draw the line?

The issue isn't the line, but if people can be forced to subordibate themselves to others. The answer is yes. Please see my conversation with Coffee.

 

[FallingPianos]

The issue isn't the line, but if people can be forced to subordibate themselves to others. The answer is yes. Please see my conversation with Coffee.

My issue, is on whether or not the right to life always trumps another persons right to autonomy. You said it does in post 200.

if someone elses right to life really trumps your right to autonomy, why do you still have any degree of autonomy while other people are needlessly dying?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Funny - I thought I was paring off your irrelevant responses and only hitting the important parts.

Fair enough, but if you're going to intentionally ignore parts of my responses because you consider them irrelevant, please mark it as such so that I know you have at least considered it.

This isnt relevant, and actually only bolsters my point.

It can't do both -- which is it?

The fact that you NOT work doesnt change the fact that if you DO, then you are forced to slave foe others -- and, of course, by filing for unemployment, then YOU are forcing others to be slaves.

The fact that can choose not to work means that you have a choice; therefore, whatever you choose is voluntary, and not enslavement. If you know that the consequences of the choice to work is paying taxes, and you don't want to do that, don't work. If you choose to work, and pay taxes, you have voluntarily agreed to sacrifice a portion of your labor. If you change your mind, you can change your decision.

Collecting unemployment insurance is a bad example; my apologies. It is possible, however, to not work for money, and thus avoid paying taxes. One could be a drifter working for food and shelter; that sort of thing. Or be Kato Kaelin.

But, if you consider your point still to be relevant and your argument still sound, that which can be said for work can also be said for sex -- You are not forced to have sex by our government. You are more than welcome to not have sex. If you do this, you will not become a slave of the womb.

Same-same. You choose to enslave yourself, and so you arent really a slave.
Right?

No. Because the choice to have sex is not the choice to be pregnant. The choice to be pregnant is the choice to be pregnant. Sex does not have a one-to-one correlation with pregnancy, therefore the one does not necessarily imply the other -- therefore they cannot be linked absolutely. The analogy should go like this: the choice to have sex, which might lead to pregnancy, is similar to the choice to do work. Sometimes you will get paid for your work, and when you do, you will pay taxes. But sometimes you wil not get paid, and so the decision to work is not necessarily the decision to pay taxes. The decision to work for money, however, IS the decision to pay taxes; if a woman decides to have sex with the intention of conceiving a child, she should follow through by not getting an abortion. But sex does not mean pregnancy, and work does not mean taxes.
An example of work without taxes? I mowed my lawn yesterday.

(Yes, there is rape/incest. Different issue.)

No, I consider them linked: these are still to do with the sex act, and they can also lead to pregnancy. Can you think of an example in terms of working that can correlate to rape? If not, perhaps the correlation is imperfect. Which is what I've been arguing.

Not sure your figuring on all this, or exactly what you mean. Someone paid tax on the labor that provided the funds that bought/built the house.

I was simply making the point that you can have taxes that did not personally cost you labor. It isn't especially relevant.

Under your argument - that you have the choice to engage in the activity that makes you a slave, and so you are therefore not a slave - if there is no slavery for the hands, there is also no slavery of the womb.

Since at the moment the woman has a choice, just as the laborer has a choice, no, there is neither. I'd like to keep it that way. Remember that the choice to have sex is not the choice to be pregnant.
If choice is taken away from the woman, then it would be slavery of the womb. Can you prove me wrong, in that I say there is a choice for the laborer? Is the laborer forced by the government to work and pay taxes against his will, as a woman would be forced to bear a child against her will if abortion were banned?

 

[Goobieman]

My issue, is on whether or not the right to life always trumps another persons right to autonomy. You said it does in post 200. If someone elses right to life really trumps your right to autonomy, why do you still have any degree of autonomy while other people are needlessly dying?

False dichotomy. Its not either/or.
You dont need to give up, or be forced to give up ALL your autonomy for the agument that the right to live trumps the right to autonomy to be valid.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

This is completely untrue. Even Roe vs Wade decided that a woman's womb is completely under her control for a certain time period and then it isn't. I'm sure the time period is debatable and if "her womb was her womb end of story" then time restraints on abortion would be unconstitutuional.

You are right, and I apologize for misspeaking. However, we are not talking about the specific laws at this point, but the spirit behind them; the spirit behind the Roe v. Wade time limits is the government's attempt to leave the woman her autonomy as much as that is possible to do so, insofar as the state sometimes has an interest that would contradict the woman's. The same could be said for working and paying taxes, so my point remains effectively the same -- but I will try to be more careful in future.

 

[AlbqOwl]

My issue, is on whether or not the right to life always trumps another persons right to autonomy. You said it does in post 200.

if someone elses right to life really trumps your right to autonomy, why do you still have any degree of autonomy while other people are needlessly dying?

My unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and civil rights are undisputable so long as I alone am affected by my choices, decisions, and/or behavior. The moment any of these require a material contribution from any other person, I no longer have autonomy or the right to do any darn thing that I want.

If I am parked in a passenger loading zone and somebody puts you in my car, I no longer have the right to do any darn thing I want with my car until you get out. Autonomy is not a choice. Even if I don't want you there, if I harm you accidentally, it's negligence. If I harm you on purpose, it's assault. If I kill you, it's murder. If you're not a person but say a blow up doll, I can just deflate and/or discard you and no problem.

Evenmoreso, if I invite you into my car as a passenger, I am more especially responsible for taking very good care of you. Once we're on the way I can't ethically decide I don't want to transport you and toss you out into a bad neighborhood. If you happen to be a nonperson, however, say a blow up doll, I can get rid of you any way I choose.

Unless we have ourselves sterilized or are otherwise infertile, even if contraceptives are used, intercourse with somebody of the opposite sex can result in pregnancy. If no contraceptives are used, the odds go up enormously. And when it occurs, the rhetorical you has taken on a passenger.

Now the issue becomes whether that passenger is as disposable as a blow up doll or is it a person for whom we are ethically responsible to keep safe until he or she has reached a safe destination?

Pro choicers have to see it one way to justify an abortion. Pro lifers are more likely to demonstrate an attitude of responsibility for the welfare of the other until he or she has reached that safe destination.

And the issue of when that passenger became a person is critical to both.

 

[Goobieman]

It can't do both -- which is it?

If its not relevant, then its not relevant.
If it is relevant, then it supports my position

If you know that the consequences of the choice to work is paying taxes, and you don't want to do that, don't work.

If you know that a consequence of having sex is getting pregenant, dont have sex.
Same same.

If you choose to work, and pay taxes, you have voluntarily agreed to sacrifice a portion of your labor. If you change your mind, you can change your decision.

If you choose to have sex, and you get pregenant, then you're responsible for the pregnancy just like you;re responsible for the taxes. You cannot chose to not pay taxes you already owe, and in the same vein, you cannot chose to no longer be responsible for a pregnancy from sex you chose to have.
Same same.

No. Because the choice to have sex is not the choice to be pregnant.

That doesnt matter. Getting pregenant is a known consequence of chosing to have sex, just like having to pay taxes is a known consequence of chosing to work. You MIGHT NOT get pregenant from having sex, but why does that matter?

Making the choice to have sex means making the choice to be responsible for what may and does come from having sex, just like making the choice to work is making the choice to be responsible for whay may and does come from working.

And while you may do physical work, like household chores, w/o getting paid -- thats not really the same thing, is it.

No, I consider them linked: these are still to do with the sex act, and they can also lead to pregnancy. Can you think of an example in terms of working that can correlate to rape? If not, perhaps the correlation is imperfect. Which is what I've been arguing.

I think the difference here is 'choice to have sex'.
That puts the issues, above, into a different category, at least for this discussion.

If choice is taken away from the woman, then it would be slavery of the womb. Can you prove me wrong, in that I say there is a choice for the laborer? Is the laborer forced by the government to work and pay taxes against his will, as a woman would be forced to bear a child against her will if abortion were banned?

Your argument here revolves around your position that the choice to have sex isnt the choice to be pregenant. Given that getting pregenant is a known quantity related to having sex -- indeed, its why sex exists - you cannot seperate the two -- and so your argument here fails.

 

[FallingPianos]

False dichotomy. Its not either/or.
You dont need to give up, or be forced to give up ALL your autonomy for the agument that the right to live trumps the right to autonomy to be valid.

ok, so you're not saying that life always trumps the right to autonomy, you are saying that life trumps the right to autonomy - to a point.

how does one determain where that point is?

 

[Purple]

Your argument here revolves around your position that the choice to have sex isnt the choice to be pregenant. Given that getting pregenant is a known quantity related to having sex -- indeed, its why sex exists - you cannot seperate the two -- and so your argument here fails.

This is not a fact.

Having sex doesn't in many cases lead to pregnancy.

You could get fat from eating a lot of donuts but it's not a definite outcome. There are many factors involved including exercise.
Just like a lot of women have sex without getting pregnant.There are many factors involved including birth control.

This is the problem with this issue, men discussing and deciding what a woman can and can't do with her body. The day men can get pregnant is the day that abortion will never be challenged again.

 

[talloulou]

The day men can get pregnant is the day that abortion will never be challenged again.

That statement is untrue as well. Though I'll let is slide as it's obviously tongue and cheek and not currently realistically possible anyway. But the fact remains that it is not only men who oppose abortion. The topic of abortion is not a gender war.

 

[Purple]

That statement is untrue as well. Though I'll let is slide as it's obviously tongue and cheek and not currently realistically possible anyway. But the fact remains that it is not only men who oppose abortion. The topic of abortion is not a gender war.

Actually the comment was not tongue in cheek.

The topic of abortion will always be a gender issue because it is only a female issue. That is until men can give birth.
I realize that not only men oppose abortion but my point is what right do men have to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies?

Women don't have the right to castrate men who rape.

 

[Navy Pride]

Actually the comment was not tongue in cheek.

The topic of abortion will always be a gender issue because it is only a female issue. That is until men can give birth.
I realize that not only men oppose abortion but my point is what right do men have to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies?

Women don't have the right to castrate men who rape.

I don't know what planet your from but I have a flash for you..There are millions of women who are pro life and anti abortion........

 

[CoffeeSaint]

If its not relevant, then its not relevant.
If it is relevant, then it supports my position

Yes. Pick one.

If you know that a consequence of having sex is getting pregenant, dont have sex.
Same same.

So you are of the mind that any possible consequence of your actions is entirely your responsibility. So if you go to work and a piano falls on your head, it is your fault because you should have known that pianos could have fallen on your head. If you get into a car and get crushed by an 18 wheeler driven by a speed freak, it is your fault because you knew that sometimes -- not every time, not even most of the time, but sometimes -- 18 wheelers driven by speed freaks crush people.

When there are other factors involved -- such as the unpredictability of a woman's menstruation, the varying survival times of sperm, a woman's diet and its influence on her blood chemistry, the efficacy of the particular instance of birth control used, and of course blind, dumb luck -- one cannot be held totally responsible, since one's choice was not the only cause of the result. Please tell me you agree with that. Please don't tell me that you believe everything that happens to you is your own fault for not avoiding the situation.

If you choose to have sex, and you get pregenant, then you're responsible for the pregnancy just like you;re responsible for the taxes. You cannot chose to not pay taxes you already owe, and in the same vein, you cannot chose to no longer be responsible for a pregnancy from sex you chose to have.

Different circumstances, and you know it. Sex is equivalent to work in your analogy; pregnancy is not equivalent to back taxes. I'm not even sure how back taxes could fit into the pregnancy analogy; can one owe a pregnancy debt? Is it that you owe a pregnancy for every instance of sex, so sex that doesn't lead to pregnancy means you owe back pregnancies?

That doesnt matter. Getting pregenant is a known consequence of chosing to have sex, just like having to pay taxes is a known consequence of chosing to work. You MIGHT NOT get pregenant from having sex, but why does that matter?

See above. Other factors involved means it is not a simple act of will, or choice.

Making the choice to have sex means making the choice to be responsible for what may and does come from having sex, just like making the choice to work is making the choice to be responsible for whay may and does come from working.

Walking out of your house means getting run over by a bus. It may and does happen to people who walk out of their house, so walking out that door is making the choice to be responsible for becoming a road pancake.

And while you may do physical work, like household chores, w/o getting paid -- thats not really the same thing, is it.

It's work. It is labor. It is blood, sweat, and tears, to use your wording. How is it different?
Oh, right. It doesn't fit your mistaken analogy.

I think the difference here is 'choice to have sex'.
That puts the issues, above, into a different category, at least for this discussion.

But sex leads to pregnancy. Every time, right? So should the man who raped a woman then have to pay the penalty for CHOOSING to have sex and thus cause pregnancy? Can we implant the fetus into the rapist and make him bear it to term?

Your argument here revolves around your position that the choice to have sex isnt the choice to be pregenant. Given that getting pregenant is a known quantity related to having sex -- indeed, its why sex exists - you cannot seperate the two -- and so your argument here fails.

Given that getting hit by a bus . . . you get the point. My argument is correct: there is not a direct cause and effect relationship between sex and pregnancy, as there are other factors involved, so one cannot say that the choice to have sex is the choice to be pregnant. It isn't.

 

[talloulou]

Actually the comment was not tongue in cheek.

The topic of abortion will always be a gender issue because it is only a female issue. That is until men can give birth.
I realize that not only men oppose abortion but my point is what right do men have to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies?

Women don't have the right to castrate men who rape.

Well men certainly partake in the reproductive process as well as the parenting process. We have never adopted a policy of "well it's growing inside you so you deal with it" and men in our society are held responsible for their procreations legally. So I think men deserve to have an opinion on the issue as well as how it pertains to their reproductive rights.

What right do women have to take from a man's wallet for her child that grew in her womb? See silly.

 

[Purple]

I don't know what planet your from but I have a flash for you..There are millions of women who are pro life and anti abortion........

Well here's a flash for you, this has absolutely nothing to do with my point but hey thanks for chiming in.

 

[Purple]

Well men certainly partake in the reproductive process as well as the parenting process. We have never adopted a policy of "well it's growing inside you so you deal with it" and men in our society are held responsible for their procreations legally. So I think men deserve to have an opinion on the issue as well as how it pertains to their reproductive rights.

What right do women have to take from a man's wallet for her child that grew in her womb? See silly.

Men do not take part in the pregnancy itself and money is not equivalent to gestation. Silly.

When men can bear children then they can have an equal say in the decision to bear a child or to abort.
Otherwise they only get a say after the child is born. Currently men are not required to be financially responsible for a woman who is pregnant. Men are only required to pay child support after the baby is born. When they start paying child support before the child is born then we can consider giving them a say but still not an equal one because money is not equivalent to pregnancy.

Now would you like to discuss the enormous amount of deadbeat fathers out there that take no responsiblity?

 

[talloulou]

Now would you like to discuss the enormous amount of deadbeat fathers out there that take no responsiblity?

Sure why not! Dead beat fathers are horrible. Imagine if they called their walking off "choice" and such actions were considered completely legal.? The idea that a man would abandon or forsake his children like that is disgusting however I'd expect you would see that more and more in a society that also supports the idea that paying a dr. to terminate the baby in your womb is "choice" and "freedom." Both acts are generally incredibly selfish and what our society could really use is more promotion of responsibility and honor vs evasion of consequence and notions of false entitlement.

If women are granted an "out" in regards to parenting how can you dare turn around and say squat about a man who walks off? You can't have it both ways. You can't have women demanding that life isn't fair and they don't want to be pregnant and no one has the right to force them to continue with such a condition while simultaneously putting down men who take it upon themselves to "opt out" of fatherhood.

 

[flaherty12]

"Men do not take part in the pregnancy itself and money is not equivalent to gestation. Silly.

When men can bear children then they can have an equal say in the decision to bear a child or to abort.
Otherwise they only get a say after the child is born. Currently men are not required to be financially responsible for a woman who is pregnant. Men are only required to pay child support after the baby is born. When they start paying child support before the child is born then we can consider giving them a say but still not an equal one because money is not equivalent to pregnancy."

a) saying money is not equivelent to pregnancy is completely subjective,
im sure there are plenty of women out there who think that money is worth pregnancy.
ex:women who carry for other couples for money!!

b)the father gives 23 chromasomes just like the mother, the fetus is as much apart of him as it is a part of her.

 

[Purple]

Sure why not! Dead beat fathers are horrible. Imagine if they called their walking off "choice" and such actions were considered completely legal.? The idea that a man would abandon or forsake his children like that is disgusting however I'd expect you would see that more and more in a society that also supports the idea that paying a dr. to terminate the baby in your womb is "choice" and "freedom." Both acts are generally incredibly selfish and what our society could really use is more promotion of responsibility and honor vs evasion of consequence and notions of false entitlement.

If women are granted an "out" in regards to parenting how can you dare turn around and say squat about a man who walks off? You can't have it both ways. You can't have women demanding that life isn't fair and they don't want to be pregnant and no one has the right to force them to continue with such a condition while simultaneously putting down men who take it upon themselves to "opt out" of fatherhood.

First let me say that I won't take this thread that far off topic as to discuss deadbeat fathers. If you want to start another thread go ahead it's a good topic for debate.

I don't see this issue as "having it both ways" because abortion is not irresponsible, if anything it is more responsible then bringing an unwanted child into the world that is already filled with millions of unwanted children.

And for the record, I can dare a lot.