Arguing About Abortion

[Rau]

But where this statement fails is that less lethal means are available.

In recent centuries, in populated areas - yes, though the process is time consuming. (Murder might enable a quicker enforcement of parental rights?). But you have now positioned the murder of an innocent (born) child as a parental right in certain times and places.

When the going gets tough, critters abandon their young. Sometimes they eat them for sustenance.

So mom comes first.

Perhaps you should have just led with that? Gets to your bottom line far quicker!

 

[Hume]

Hume:

But where this statement fails is that less lethal means are available.

In recent centuries, in populated areas - yes, though the process is time consuming. (Murder might enable a quicker enforcement of parental rights?). But you have now positioned the murder of an innocent (born) child as a parental right in certain times and places.

Oh sure, in the middle ages, for example, life was much less valuable.

When famine struck, kids got abandoned.

For the same reason critters do it, if the kids die and mom makes it, there can be more kids some other time.

If mom dies, no kids.

 

[Aquinas11]

The coma patient, for example, that has exhausted their insurance maximum, the hospital’s good will and their collective family fortune no longer has a right to life.

IF that were true, you or I could walk in and stab them to death, before the plug is pulled or after its pulled but before they die. But we’d be arrested for murder. So that’s false.

Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one’s own body without external influence or coercion

right hence bodily autonomy can’t be exercised against the baby (not external to the body)

A human begins having a right to life from conception. However, this right to life does not outweigh a mother’s right of bodily autonomy.

sure it does because you defined bodily autonomy as something exercised against an “external” influence or coercion to the body

No. Not in any way I can objectively demonstrate.

if you can’t objectively demonstrate, then you couldn’t say “no”. What is the objective demonstration of “no”?

No it does not. You can abandon your kids at any time to adoption and foster systems, so the comparison here kinda breaks down demonstrably.

Child support laws prove you wrong. If a man has sex and doesn’t intend to have a child, he is still responsible for the child. The law holds people responsible for reasonably foreseeable results of their actions (e.g. child after sex, even if contraception used). Your logic would say someone driving 100 mph in a 50 mph zone and skids off road and kills a family isn’t responsible for those deaths since he only consented to driving at 100 mph but didn’t consent to sliding off the road. Absurd.

 

[Rau]

Oh sure, in the middle ages, for example, life was much less valuable.

Do you mean “much less valued”? Your arguments certainly value children far less than the parents - here in the 21st C!

 

[Stephen168]

No, I’m just taking the same liberty as you.

Scroll up and read, I’m literally matching theistic reference to theistic reference.

There wasn’t a theistic reference in either of our replies there (unless you later edit them in)…

I think the fruitfulness of our chat has stalled for now. Last word is yours for the moment.

First you claim you are matching a theistic reference, then you claim there wasn’t a theistic reference.

You were right the second time. Just because I use the word God doesn’t mean I’m making a theological argument.

You’re just not keeping up with the discussion. You seem to switch directions, I graciously follow you and then you try to wallop me for doing so. You can’t both have and eat the cake, sir.

I think you realize you can’t support your claim, so you are avoiding it.

I sure would not want to try and be smarter than God. While reproduction might not be the only purpose it is the only purpose unique to copulation. After 44 years of marriage, reproduction is the only thing I have NEEDED copulation for.

Not at all. It has multiple purposes and you’ve biologically evolved to need all of them.

Appeal to the stone.

List the multiple purposes that are unique to intercourse

The “need” I refer to is a physiological drive. It’s in your genes and much older than any god you or I have ever heard of.

Yes, the need I refer to is physiological, so basically, you got nothing. You can’t list one other physiological purpose unique to intercourse let alone multiple purposes. You could not refute the main point of my post to someone else, yet you felt a need to respond to it.

Yes, this is not a theological argument; it is a biological one.

Second guessing God would be to use artificial means to eliminate reproduction from a reproductive act and then claim its designed purpose is no longer unique.

My god said it’s totally “ok”.

Your god said what is OK? I never said God said anything. I said just because you decide to use birth control, it doesn’t change the one unique physiological purpose for intercourse.

Yes, it is not a theological argument.

 

[Hume]

IF that were true, you or I could walk in and stab them to death, before the plug is pulled or after its pulled but before they die. But we’d be arrested for murder. So that’s false.

No, we just reserve them a more dignified way to die. Because we’re not jerks.

We pull the plug and they die of starvation and thirst. Their right to life has expired.

right hence bodily autonomy can’t be exercised against the baby (not external to the body)

Absolutely right. The mother is merely practicing her right to remove an unwanted guest from her body.

The fact that it dies without her body is a secondary and irrelevant effect.

if you can’t objectively demonstrate, then you couldn’t say “no”. What is the objective demonstration of “no”?

Happy to change that to “very probably not”.

Child support laws prove you wrong.

Child support is not a guarantee.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Oh sure, in the middle ages, for example, life was much less valuable.

Do you mean “much less valued”? Your arguments certainly value children far less than the parents - here in the 21st C!

Oh goodness, it’s not just me.

When’s the last time you saw a police investigation over a stillbirth?

Virtually never. Because they’re not “people” in the same way you and I are. If we showed up dead, even if for obvious reasons, someone would still give our deaths a gander!

 

[Aquinas11]

Their right to life has expired.

No you haven’t addressed that someone killing them is still guilty of murder which is the context of “right to life” in this thread.

You’re confusing right to life with right to treatment.

The mother is merely practicing her right to remove an unwanted guest from her body.

No you already defined bodily autonomy as exercised against external threats to body

Are you now saying the baby is external to her body during pregnancy?

Child support is not a guarantee.

You’re confusing the law with the enforcement of the law.

 

[Rau]

No, we just reserve them a more dignified way to die. Because we’re not jerks.

We pull the plug and they die of starvation and thirst. Their right to life has expired.

Apparently more urgency is needed in the parental scenario. And dignity be damned!

 

[Rau]

When’s the last time you saw a police investigation over a stillbirth?

I was thinking born children.

 

[Stephen168]

No, I’ve this is where your analogue breaks down.

Appeal to the stone, again

 

[Rau]

Because they’re not “people” in the same way you and I are.

As a reference to the unborn, again, you should have just led with this and avoided all the bodily integrity nonsense!!

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Because they’re not “people” in the same way you and I are.

As a reference to the unborn, again, you should have just led with this and avoided all the bodily integrity nonsense!!

Prior to birth, they have none. They breathe with moms lungs, eat with her stomach.

Until nearly born, they don’t even have cognitive capacity to feed themselves.

This is why, on the other side of the argument, birth is the best line of demarcation.

 

[Rau]

I rest my case and regret the absence of emojis!!

 

[Hume]

Hume:

No, I’ve this is where your analogue breaks down.

Appeal to the stone, again

“Argumentum ad lapidem is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd, invalid, or incorrect, without giving proof of its absurdity.” - from the Wiki

I’m showing him why it breaks down. It’s you guys that are just shouting “absurd” and “nonsense!”.

Again, I’m not sure you know what it means, which is why I’ve pasted a definition.

 

[Stephen168]

Of the 6 primary drivers of multi-generational poverty, yes. Yes it does

Prove it. Prove that the 9 months of carrying a child is a cause of multi-generational poverty.

 

[Stephen168]

“Argumentum ad lapidem is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd, invalid, or incorrect, without giving proof of its absurdity.” - from the Wiki

I’m showing him why it breaks down. It’s you guys that are just shouting “absurd” and “nonsense!”.

Again, I’m not sure you know what it means, which is why I’ve pasted a definition.

Yes, you appealed to the stone.
Prove it. Demonstrate how the analogy breaks down.

 

[Stephen168]

Teleologically, sexual activity has as its end the creation of a being - whether that being is a salmon, a kitten, or a human being.

The “purpose” of sex isn’t one thing. This is one of the problems with trying to self-righteously declare telos - something that may not exist anyway.

One could very readily argue that the purpose of sex is climax and reproduction is merely a happy byproduct of it.

When monkeys do it, they’re not trying deliberately to reproduce. They’re answering their biological drive for sex.

Yes, the physiological purpose of sex is one thing; reproduction.

You claim you could argue, but you didn’t because in fact, you can’t.

You can’t argue for any other unique physiological purpose for intercourse.

The intent of a monkey, lion, tiger, bear, or human being doesn’t change the fact that there is only one physiological purpose.

And one does not have to argue about “how often that occurs” or “how many eggs were not fertilized”; the natural end of sexual activity is the creation of a being.

Actually, most of the time it’s climax. Scientific fact.

Yes, climax is part of that one unique physiological purpose for intercourse, but you don’t need to have intercourse to have a climax. Scientific fact.

If you don’t want to create a being, don’t engage in sexual activity.

Or just take a reliable form of birth control.

The sex drive is older than any religion you’ve ever heard of. It’s rooted in our DNA. It will outlast any religion you’ve heard of as well.

Birth control or again the intent does not change its physiological purpose.

When you engage in a reproductive act, reproduction can happen. If you are not is a place in life where you can take nine months to finish what you start, then don’t take a chance to start.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

“Argumentum ad lapidem is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd, invalid, or incorrect, without giving proof of its absurdity.” - from the Wiki

I’m showing him why it breaks down. It’s you guys that are just shouting “absurd” and “nonsense!”.

Again, I’m not sure you know what it means, which is why I’ve pasted a definition.

Yes, you appealed to the stone.
Prove it. Demonstrate how the analogy breaks down.

The river you mention can be dangerous. I know it’s nice and peaceful in the way you framed your analogy, but since pregnancy is dangerous, my presentation of the river is much more aligned to what pregnancy holds for women.

If anyone’s appealing to the stone, it’s you.

Now you have changed the river to mean something else which makes no sense.

If anyone’s appealing to the stone, it’s you.

You said it made no sense and offered no explanation for it. . . .

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

You only constrain individual liberty with a good argument. You’ve not made one. At least, you’ve not made one that’s convincing to people who weren’t already in your ideological bent.

I don’t need a reason because respecting other’s liberty comes from an axiom I can reject and not the default.