"It's not a choice, it's a child" vs. "It's not a child, it's a choice"

[Dr. Chuckles]

Humans that never even had a sense of their own existence are not important in my eyes.

My criteria for people/person starts on humans I think around 4 or 5 years of age and any human that dies before that; there death is only bad depending on if it had a impact on it's parents/caretakers

Around that age is when the ink comes on the paper that's when humans start plotting out/planning out a life in a biographical sense and any human that has not put the ink on the paper is not worth it for me.

110,000 abortions done a day around the world lifers. What are you going to do about it? Oh right nothing complain on the computer and then at the end of the day you only have 1 vote use it wisely

lol, I love how you guys are getting ideological over a simple observation. But maybe burning some effigies and books would be more to your liking

PS I support access to abortion. I'm just still able to reason from within that position

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

If you can name me some other circumstance where we feel it's justified someone to crawl inside your body and damage you for itself , then I'll agree with you. Until then, what make a fetus so different from everything else on earth, from cancer to other people, that can invade your personal sovereignty and that you have a right to defend against?

That's seems a rather self serving characterization of a pregnancy, least of all for it's need to continue to ignore the issue of possible rights and interests from a second party

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

So? All kinds of stuff is natural and biological and still considered wrong. It's not cool to slip hemlock into someone, is it? Rape is natural too.

Reread my argument. The poster tried to characterize the relationship as one between two random strangers, with one requiring the resources of the other. That is a total mischaracterization of a biological process that establishes dependency.

Nothing in my argument was an appeal to nature that you claim, because nothing is asserted as right based on being natural

No, it's not, otherwise women wouldn't abort.

that doesn't even make sense. Why would the relationship being different preclude someone from getting an abortion?

Hell, even some women with WANTED pregnancies have some decidedly negative emotions about the state of pregnancy. It's something they merely endure in order to get to a desired end result.

How does this even speak to the point you were attempting to address above? Even if the pregnancy experience has negative effects, that doesn't dictate the relationship is akin to two strangers.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

You know when Lifers resort to naturalism that there arguments holds no value because after all abortion is natural behavior in homo sapiens and various other species of animals as well so they need to remain consistent when they use naturalism oh wait they can't

It's all double standard thinking on there part

I never made an appeal to nature, and I'm not even a pro-lifer.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

How does this even speak to the point you were attempting to address above? Even if the pregnancy experience has negative effects, that doesn't dictate the relationship is akin to two strangers.

Some women feel no connection to the fetus -- only to the resultant baby. I'd say that's a "stranger" relationship.

That's seems a rather self serving characterization of a pregnancy, least of all for it's need to continue to ignore the issue of possible rights and interests from a second party

No, it's pretty darn accurate. Hosting something inside your body at your own expense is kind of a big deal.

I don't happen to think that under such circumstances, the second party has any rights at all -- whether it's living or not.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Some women feel no connection to the fetus -- only to the resultant baby. I'd say that's a "stranger" relationship.

what women feel is irrelevant to the nature of the relationship being different than two strangers meeting, and one having need of the resources of the other.

No, it's pretty darn accurate. Hosting something inside your body at your own expense is kind of a big deal.

1) no one said it wasn't a big deal

2) It's not accurate at all, being that birth is an obvious form of reproduction, that may involve a second entity with rights and interests. Clearly that is nothing like the development of a disease

I don't happen to think that under such circumstances, the second party has any rights at all -- whether it's living or not.

1) again, your circumstances are characterized in a way that is completely self-serving and inaccurate

2) clearly if there are two sets of rights here, and we are discussing something that terminates the second entities life, it's interests demand consideration, even if they inconveniences the parents.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

what women feel is irrelevant to the nature of the relationship being different than two strangers meeting, and one having need of the resources of the other.

How so? How does she "know" this ZEF?

1) no one said it wasn't a big deal

2) It's not accurate at all, being that birth is an obvious form of reproduction, that may involve a second entity with rights and interests. Clearly that is nothing like the development of a disease

Sure it is. Parasites are living entities with interests, although not rights, since those are assigned by humans. I don't happen to think a ZEF deserves rights for reasons already stated.

1) again, your circumstances are characterized in a way that is completely self-serving and inaccurate

2) clearly if there are two sets of rights here, and we are discussing something that terminates the second entities life, it's interests demand consideration, even if they inconveniences the parents.

Unless you can tell me WHY, I have no reason to accept your baseless assertion.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

How so? How does she "know" this ZEF?

How would the mother "knowing" the zef, or not, change the nature of the relationship I outlined above? Clearly the zef was formed through a biological process and is dependent on the mother for survival.

Sure it is. Parasites are living entities with interests, although not rights, since those are assigned by humans. I don't happen to think a ZEF deserves rights for reasons already stated.

Right, you don't think the Zef deserves rights. Not sure how that establishes the relationship between zef and parent as that between a disease and host, when the relationship is obviously one formed in the biological process of reproduction and inherently different to such.

Also, your original assertion stated that the status of rights for the Zef mattered none to the abortion debate, when it obviously does, for the simple fact if would possibly introduce a second entity with it's own rights and interests

Unless you can tell me WHY, I have no reason to accept your baseless assertion.

Because there would be two entities with rights that would be effected by the decision. Honestly, I thought that was rather obvious

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

How would the mother "knowing" the zef, or not, change the nature of the relationship I outlined above? Clearly the zef was formed through a biological process and is dependent on the mother for survival.

So?

Right, you don't think the Zef deserves rights. Not sure how that establishes the relationship between zef and parent as that between a disease and host, when the relationship is obviously one formed in the biological process of reproduction and inherently different to such.

Also, your original assertion stated that the status of rights for the Zef mattered none to the abortion debate, when it obviously does, for the simple fact if would introduce a second entity with it's own rights and interests

It doesn't as far as I'm concerned. And you still have not told me why it is so "inherently" different.

What's always interesting to me is that people are so concerned about the "interests" of a ZEF to be born, it's non-consent to being aborted, etc. But they never seem to acknowledge that the ZEF can't consent to being born either, and life carries much more extensive consequences than non-life.

Fact is, a ZEF can't consent to anything, it has no interests in whether it exists or not, and any decision we make about it is entirely selfish.

Because there would be two entities with rights that would be effected by the decision. Honestly, I thought that was rather obvious

And I have already explained how a ZEF loses its rights, whether it is considered non-living or living. You have done nothing to counter that.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

So?

well, besides it obviously establishing a different relationship than the one you have been arguing for, there wasn't much of a larger point I had in mind

It doesn't as far as I'm concerned. And you still have not told me why it is so "inherently" different.

Indeed I have explained why it is different. Your response to that was to write "so".

What's always interesting to me is that people are so concerned about the "interests" of a ZEF to be born, it's non-consent to being aborted, etc. But they never seem to acknowledge that the ZEF can't consent to being born either, and life carries much more extensive consequences than non-life.

attacking what you perceive to be my interests doesn't actually help to establish any argument on your end.

Fact is, a ZEF can't consent to anything, it has no interests in whether it exists or not, and any decision we make about it is entirely selfish.

babies and the infirmed can't physically consent either. That doesn't change the fact that we recognize they have inherent rights and interests. But, you seem confused again, being that I never asserted that the ZEF had such rights and interests, only that if it did it would be relevent to the abortion debate. Which is contrary to your original claims here

And I have already explained how a ZEF loses its rights, whether it is considered non-living or living.

No, you actually declared something and made various faulty analogies in an attempt to support that declaration.

You have done nothing to counter that.

indeed I have. I pointed to the fact if two entities are involved, then we need to consider the interest and rights of both (as with any dispute involving two such parties) and pointed to the flaws in your earlier characterization of the birth process.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

indeed I have. I pointed to the fact if two entities are involved, then we need to consider the interest and rights of both (as with any dispute involving two such parties) and pointed to the flaws in your earlier characterization of the birth process.

And I have told you precisely why, even if we assume the ZEF to be a living entity, the woman's rights must be weighted more heavily under the circumstances. You have not replied. You have simply misstated the same think over and over.

You haven't pointed out any flaws either. You have simply said "it's different," and offered no real explanation of why.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

And I have told you precisely why, even if we assume the ZEF to be a living entity, the woman's rights must be weighted more heavily under the circumstances.

weighed more heavily=/= the establishment of such rights being irrelevant to the debate.

You have not replied. You have simply misstated the same think over and over.

No, I clearly replied and directly addressed your arguments. Surely you can simply dismiss them and declare yourself right here, but such behavior hardly establishes anything

You haven't pointed out any flaws either. You have simply said "it's different," and offered no real explanation of why.

Nope, I clearly explained that difference

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

weighed more heavily=/= the establishment of such rights being irrelevant to the debate.

It is, because at that point, the ZEF's "rights" don't matter whether it's alive or not. So asking whether it theoretically has any rights to even consider is a waste of time, since even if you show me they do, the woman's still trump it.

No, I clearly replied and directly addressed your arguments. Surely you can simply dismiss them and declare yourself right here, but such behavior hardly establishes anything

You did not give me a "why." You simply repeated your statements.

 

[AGENT J]

well, I offered my thoughts. If you find them problematic and unsatisfactory you are free to address them

Nope, you dodge them
what was that you said earlier? "Repeating yourself doesn't really help your argument" except now it exactly applies" LOL
so there nothing problematic about it, you were wrong then and you still are :shrug:

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Nope, you dodge them
what was that you said earlier? "Repeating yourself doesn't really help your argument" except now it exactly applies" LOL
so there nothing problematic about it, you were wrong then and you still are :shrug:

Actually I'm repeating myself because you keep asking the same question that I already addressed ... not sure what more you want, but I more than adaquately explained how the level of rights afforded doesn't change the fact that introducing a second set of rights (regardless of their level) changes the nature of the discussion.

For some reason, you seem to think this anounts to me asserting full rights as opposed to it being an irrelevent hypothetical scenerio used to document the above principle.

So yes, "lol"

 

[AGENT J]

Actually I'm repeating myself because you keep asking the same question that I already addressed ... not sure what more you want, but I more than adaquately explained how the level of rights afforded doesn't change the fact that introducing a s

False, you havent answered it once :shrug:
you are dodging it and continue to do so because it will prove your assessment wrong.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

It is, because at that point, the ZEF's "rights" don't matter whether it's alive or not. So asking whether it theoretically has any rights to even consider is a waste of time, since even if you show me they do, the woman's still trump it.

Again declaration =/=fact. And the entire purpose of establishing rights is to guarantee that the interests of the entity will be taken into question

You did not give me a "why." You simply repeated your statements.

Indeed I did explain why, numerous times

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

False, you havent answered it once :shrug:
you are dodging it and continue to do so because it will prove your assessment wrong.

I am happy you you thinking this. But you are still free to make your arguments regardless of my perceived lack of participation .

 

[AGENT J]

I am happy you you thinking this. But you are still free to make your arguments regardless of my perceived lack of participation .

not perceived its fact :shrug:
you refuse to man up and answer the question and it further exposes your false statment

the best part is my question was based on of YOUR statement and then you turn around and say it doesn't matter LMAO that broken logic at its finest.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

not perceived its fact :shrug:
you refuse to man up and answer the question and it further exposes your false statment

the best part is my question was based on of YOUR statement and then you turn around and say it doesn't matter LMAO that broken logic at its finest.

Actually I explained why it was irrelevent on a number of accasions already, but will do so again: the level of rights (be it some rights, a few, most, or even all) does not inherently change the fact that the discussion is inherently chanfe by introducing a second set of rights. Because as opposed to the previous instance of only being concerned with those of the mother, we now have a second entity that needs to be recognized.

Not sure how you are confused by this

PS you also don't seem to understand what constitutes "broken logic"

 

[AGENT J]

Actually I explained why it was irrelevent on a number of accasions already, but will do so again: the level of rights (be it some rights, a few, most, or even all) inherently changes the discussion because as opposed to the previous instance of only being concerned with those of the mother, we now have a second entity that needs to be recognized.

Not sure how you are confused by this

PS you also don't seem to understand what constitutes "broken logic"

still dodging the question i see LMAO
thats what i thought

and yes its broken logic, how could the answer not matter when it hits to the heart of your statement. EIther your statment and the question dont matter (are irrelevant) or they are both relevant, pick one or you in fact are displaying broken logic.

anyway since you are to afraid to answer the question we'll continue with your broken logic.

Based on off the post YOU addressed the concern was this

Or there's a third option.

"What it is is irrelevant. It's using and depleting the woman's body, and thus she has dominion over it."

If you are going to assert that abortion is "wrong," you're going to have to come up with some sort of actual reason.

you disagreed and said

I'm not sure the fetus being "alive" and possibly being afforded the same protections as other citizens is irrelevant. Surely you can claim such, but I know the question has a rather deep impact on my view of the procedure.

i then asked

in your opinion, how would you possibly afford it the same protections as other citizens.

you have yet to honestly and factually answer this question but we will move on since you are scared

ok theres a second entity that is recognized, call it anything you want, kid, baby, child, human being, person, citizen, group of cells etc etc

how does that change S&Ms post?

how will you give it the same rights or recognize it and CHANGE the fact of what it is doing and where it is it in S&Ms post?

like i said, it really doesnt change anything because the fact remains that it still resides in the same place and its presence is a risk to life so the dilemma is still the same, nothing really changes the topic of the debate.

banning abortion takes away the rights of the woman and forces her against her will to risk her life

this fact doesnt change no matter what the ZEF is called or if it also has rights

ones own personal reasoning or justification for trying to do so might but the main point of S&Ms post goes no where, you were wrong.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

still dodging the question i see LMAO
thats what i thought

not really ...

and yes its broken logic, how could the answer not matter when it hits to the heart of your statement.

Because as I have already explained numerous times, it wasn't the heart of my statement.

Either your statment and the question dont matter (are irrelevant) or they are both relevant, pick one or you in fact are displaying broken logic.

As already explained, the specific level of rights granted would not change the fact that the acknowledgement of right changes the debate, because there would be another set of rights to consider.

anyway since you are to afraid to answer the question we'll continue with your broken logic.

I'm not sure how addressing it directly amounts to being afraid to answer it, but whatever gets you through the day

you have yet to honestly and factually answer this question but we will move on since you are scared

Nope, I keep explaining your point of focus is irrelevant. It's like me citing the price of eggs as five dollars while outlining the principle of supply and demand to a class: the specific price of eggs doesn't change the basic exercise of the principle

ok theres a second entity that is recognized, call it anything you want, kid, baby, child, human being, person, citizen, group of cells etc etc

how does that change S&Ms post?

1) the issue was the second entity having rights and the impact those rights would have on the abortion debate. S7M asserting that it would have no impact, my assertion was that it would, based on the simple fact that there would now be two sets of interests that needed to be considered.

rather simple

2) obviously, the granting of any level of rights would have this impact. So you continue harping over an irrelevant point

banning abortion takes away the rights of the woman and forces her against her will to risk her life

I never even spoke to the issue of banning abortion in the slightest.

this fact doesnt change no matter what the ZEF is called or if it also has rights

clearly if the second entity has rights, then it's going to impact how we approach the topic. This is beyond obvious.

ones own personal reasoning or justification for trying to do so might but the main point of S&Ms post goes no where, you were wrong.

No, it the second entity was afforded rights then it's inherent interests would be recognized by the state, and certain limitations would be put into place on how one could behave towards it

 

[AGENT J]

not really ...



Because as I have already explained numerous times, it wasn't the heart of my statement.



As already explained, the specific level of rights granted would not change the fact that the acknowledgement of right changes the debate, because there would be another set of rights to consider.




I'm not sure how addressing it directly amounts to being afraid to answer it, but whatever gets you through the day




Nope, I keep explaining your point of focus is irrelevant. It's like me citing the price of eggs as five dollars while outlining the principle of supply and demand to a class: the specific price of eggs doesn't change the basic exercise of the principle




1) the issue was the second entity having rights and the impact those rights would have on the abortion debate. S7M asserting that it would have no impact, my assertion was that it would, based on the simple fact that there would now be two sets of interests that needed to be considered.

rather simple

2) obviously, the granting of any level of rights would have this impact. So you continue harping over an irrelevant point




I never even spoke to the issue of banning abortion in the slightest.




clearly if the second entity has rights, then it's going to impact how we approach the topic. This is beyond obvious.




No, it the second entity was afforded rights then it's inherent interests would be recognized by the state, and certain limitations would be put into place on how one could behave towards it

wow, i read all of this and my point and S&Ms points both still stand and your statement was wrong :shrug:
it way you are still factually dodging the question and lying about it

no matter its rights or lack of them the fact remains its a threat, that was the point of that poster and NOTHING changed, thanks for playing

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

wow, i read all of this and my point and S&Ms points both still stand and your statement was wrong :shrug:

declaration=/=fact

it way you are still factually dodging the question and lying about it

or it was irrelevant to my original point ...

no matter its rights or lack of them the fact remains its a threat, that was the point of that poster and NOTHING changed, thanks for playing

What's a threat and how would that speak to my original point about the introduction of a second set of rights being different than an instance where there is only one set to be concerned with?

 

[WWGWD]

wow, i read all of this and my point and S&Ms points both still stand and your statement was wrong :shrug:
it way you are still factually dodging the question and lying about it

no matter its rights or lack of them the fact remains its a threat, that was the point of that poster and NOTHING changed, thanks for playing

I just went back and read this thread, and I'm honestly not sure what 'the question' in debate here is, lol. I did however see you guys agree some things, and I'm ubber confused what is being debate here. What is the argument over on this issue?